njawilliams at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 16:53:23 GMT 2010
The best thing for us all, Dan, is to admit that we disagree fundamentally on the spelling <iw> and on the question of final <-edj>.
There is no point in arguing any further and certainly no good will come of accusing one another of personal insults.
I don't wish to be insulting, but I will never accept <iw> in revived Cornish.
Indeed I shall continue to argue against it until it is removed—along with all the other mistaken KK features in the SWF.
On 2010 Du 25, at 15:55, Michael Everson wrote:
> Trying to play the "numbers game" card out of context on me seemed to me to be a disingenuous thing to do, since my views are well enough known that it is hard for me to think that you were being serious. So I said so: you know me to be straightforward in expressing my views. You've taken offence, which is regrettable, but you might notice that you've been just as testy as you say that I have been. I don't suppose either of us is enjoying that.
> And yes, I think your attempt to claim that one Tregearian "diweth" out of 25 "deweth"s counts as a traditional graph (never mind all the "dyweth"s and "deweth"s in the rest of the corpus) is unconvincing. The numbers are way against you there.
> I think that if Ken George's -iw had never been shoved into the SWF that you wouldn't have started out trying to justify it. You've come up with some sort of justification, all right. But it hasn't been sufficient for us at least to change our view that "iw" is unnecessary. Same thing with -edh: you've found a very shaky justification for it, but it fails Occam's razor as far as I can see.
More information about the Spellyans