christian.semmens at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 15:39:10 GMT 2011
Why create ambiguity where none exists? It is easy to use less emotive
language than "mandatory", simply say that accents are an quintessential
part of KS, correctly showing the pronunciation of words. If people then do
not write them so be it. That imprecision is their own affair. Implying the
optional nature of the diacritics by suggesting they are only recommended
would actively subvert the orthography and also be incorrect.
For KS, diacritics *are* mandatory, however in private use, as is the case
for grammar, syntax and spelling in all languages and orthographies, this
will vary from person to person. No-one is going to police it.
If you print KS without the diacritics, you aren't using KS, just an
orthography based on KS with added imprecision.
On 2 February 2011 13:29, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:
> I think there's a problem of wording here. "Mandatory" sounds as though
> we're dictating. It's obvious that diacritics are essential to the KS
> system. Perhaps better to make that plain, to say that all KS publications
> will feature them, and that their everyday use is highly
> recommended/encouraged to assist problems of pronunciation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans