[Spellyans] Rules for the apostrophe

j.mills at email.com j.mills at email.com
Thu May 20 10:05:13 BST 2010

In the long run, any orthography for Cornish will be criticised if it is linguistically and/or academically unsound. The SWF was indeed largely influenced by politics. In my opinion, it is a poor orthography for Cornish. Not least, because of the hierarchical nature of its different forms. Since the SWF is supported by taxpayers, it requires consensual support. Consensus is not achievable while the orthography is linguistically unsound because it will continue to attract criticisms for its shortcomings.
Ol an gwella,

Dr. Jon Mills, 
School of European Culture and Languages, 
University of Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org>
To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 7:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Rules for the apostrophe

This remains my concern, too, if I can only get people to listen, and to see the big picture, instead of charging in to slap others down and score points. I'm beginning to wonder whether we have any meaningful say in KS decision making, or whether the views of some of us are considered at all. I fear that some public relations revisions, and a bit of respect, are also required if my support is to continue. 
The flaws of KK were not the reason why it was not chosen: it was a political decision and the Commissioners were quite clear on that in their statement. Eddie is right - it will again be politics, not linguistic accuracy, that will take centre stage again in 2013. The latter will have rather more of a say than it did 2 years ago, but we have to be aware of this. Of course, the best and most thoroughly researched form deserves to be the choice and the future. Sadly, the world seldom works that way. 
On 19 Me 2010, at 18:54, Eddie Climo wrote: 
> On 19 Me 2010, at 17:17, nicholas williams wrote: 
>> Neither UC nor KK was accepted as the Single Written Form. Why? >> Because both were understood to be too imperfect. 
> Neither, of course, were UCR or KS or RLC accepted. 
> I doubt very much that the rejection of any of these five forms of > Revived (or, in one case, Fake) Cornish was to do with their alleged > lack of perfection. It had a lot more to do with politics than > linguistics, both in my opinion as well as in the expressed view of > the Commissioners themselves. 
> And I daresay it'll be politics in 2013, rather than straight > linguistics that will decide the outcome. Putting it another way, no > matter how 'perfect' KS2 is by 2013, if you antagonise enough > Cornish speakers and Cornish language groups, then it'll be largely > rejected. 
> By the by, I recall that when George introduced KK back in the1980s, > he was convinced that it was so 'perfect' that it would completely > take over the Revival from UC. Of course, instead of sweeping the > board as he believed KK would, all it achieved was to split the > Revival right down the middle. 
> His hubris got what it deserved, but did the Revival immense damage > in the process. Will we learn from history, or are we doomed to > repeat it in 2013? 
> Eddie Climo 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Spellyans mailing list 
> Spellyans at kernowek.net 
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net 
Craig Weatherhill 
Spellyans mailing list 
Spellyans at kernowek.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20100520/4d8a36b8/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list