daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue Feb 1 22:22:41 GMT 2011
From: Ceri Young
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:43 PM
“As a casual and unqualified observer, I think Eddie Climo's take on this seems the most reasonable presented so far. Given the importance of KS getting as much sway as it can in the 2013 SWF review, I find it a little alarming that such dogmatic assertions are being made regarding the use of diacritics when this is likely to be such a 'hot potato' when the brokering ensues in 2013.”
I agree, dogmatism isn’t going to get us anywhere in 2013. Any adjustments made to the SWF should use the SWF as it is today as a basis. I don’t believe that KS will be viewed as a legitimate basis for the 2013 adjustments, which I expect to be just that adjustments, not a radical change.
“Only in that context - of preëmpting the bargaining process ahead in 2013, can I see the logic in taking such a hard line in advance, whereas entering negotiations with a weak line could mean diacritics get bargained away entirely in 2013. For this to work however, might the KS team envisage two working systems for the use of diacritics; an 'ideal/extensive' system (to take into the negotiations) and a 'bottom-line/minimized' system which might be anticipated as that bargained back to in the approaching 2013 review (i.e. the working compromise hoped for as the final outcome of the negotiations)?”
This is a reasonable starting point that would suggest willingness to compromise. I would prefer a proposal that starts off with the actual SWF and not another orthography such as KS.
“If those advocating this extensive and plainly cumbersome system of diacritics aim to be as dogmatic & inflexible in the 2013 negotiations as they are here - very sadly, I don't hold up much hope for the KS team being taken terribly seriously at the SWF review.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans