[Spellyans] SWF spec.
christian.semmens at gmail.com
Sun May 9 18:16:12 BST 2010
Who, indeed Craig.
I've written on this before, but I think it stands saying again. This kind
of discrimination cannot be tolerated at all.
How can there be a consensus if the traditional graphs are second rate,
second class and cannot be used anywhere except behind closed doors for your
own peronal enjoyment? The Cinderella orthography, except that the SWF/T
isn't even beautiful. What is the point of securing a future where the
official Cornish spelling defaults to what is in Gerlyver Meur? KK in almost
everything but name.
For me, anything less than total parity should be utterly unacceptable, to
the point of withdrawl of support for the SWF in any of its multifarious
forms. Five years of discrimination is enough. And enough IS enough!
It must be acceptable in official documentation and officially funded
publications and must also be acceptable in elementary education. Bugger
confusion, the only confusion was the introduction of novel graphs in the
I might well have crawled out of bed on the wrong side this morning, but I
feel strongly about this.
On 7 May 2010 18:42, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:
> Just spotted another one. The Jan. 2008 draft clearly states that
> traditional forms "may be freely used in writing and publications, including
> officially funded publications". The mention of "officially funded
> publications" is missing from the final spec. Why? Who authorised the
> On 7 Me 2010, at 18:30, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> There seems to be some misunderstanding of the spec., and following
>> debate, I can see why.
>> Street signage and new place-names are done in the Main Form. Michael
>> doesn't like that and, quite honestly, neither do I. BUT our hands are
>> The SWF final spec. says: "(traditional graphs) will not appear in
>> elementary language textbooks or in official documents produced by public
>> bodies". Like it or not, street signage, as a function of the Council,
>> counts as "official documents". No way around it.
>> But - hold on - how has that happened? The draft spec., dated 29.1.08,
>> sent out to the linguistic advisers had rather different wording. This
>> said: "The Main Forms will be given preference in textbooks and official
>> documents". "Will be given preference" is not the same as "will not
>> Similarly, the Jan 08 draft says: "It is also likely that many
>> place-names will be written in forms that reflect Side Form spellings using
>> <c>, <q> and <wh>." In the final spec., this statement is missing. There
>> is not a single mention of place-names.
>> Why the changes? Who authorised them? They weren't noticed before now
>> because only a few people saw that Jan. 08 draft, which wasn't publicly
>> circulated. The impression given by the final spec. was that it illustrated
>> what had been agreed by the AHG. These changes were not.
>> How many other surreptitious changes were made to the spec?
>> On 7 Me 2010, at 18:08, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 7 May 2010, at 17:56, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> But its orthography is *outside* of the Glasney-based scribal tradition
>>>> that our (and Jenner's and Nance's) orthography
>>> ... is based on.
>>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>>> Spellyans mailing list
>>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> Craig Weatherhill
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Craig Weatherhill
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans