[Spellyans] diacritics

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Wed Feb 2 16:27:27 GMT 2011

What we do need to be aware of is the passage of time.  The 3 years  
since the AHG have whipped by, and the 2 remaining years until the  
review will fly past even quicker.  We still don't know how that  
review will be conducted.

A suggestion that came to my mind was that MAGA should invite each of  
the active language groups to present their revisions, etc. by a date  
six months in advance of the review, for all to be able to  
scrutinise.  A new AHG should then be formed and - this time - given a  
fully-paid fortnight to consider and decide (not 5 days as before).   
This AHG should be allowed full access to their respective linguists,  
if those are unable be present.

That AHG should consist of 3 from AT, 3 from the Cussell and 3 from  
Kesva/Cowethas (not 3 from each), and NO nominee should be excluded.   
The Chair should be someone like Ken McKinnon (who will stick to the  
rules), NOT Trond (who didn't).


On 2 Whe 2011, at 15:55, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> Michael, I think it's best not to assume there will be any review  
> after 2013.  It was stated that it would be the one and only  
> review.  The reality may well turn out to differ but, for now, I  
> think we have no choice but to treat 2013 as though it will be the  
> last review.
> Craig
> On 2 Whe 2011, at 14:51, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2011, at 13:54, Jed Matthews wrote:
>>> KS may be Cornish, but Cornish is not KS.
>> I didn't say it was. I did say (s did others) that KS represents  
>> the dialects of Revived Cornish better than any other orthography.
>>> Cornish has many "correct" ways of spelling, because it has many  
>>> orthographies. English, French and Spanish all have one  
>>> orthography. It's either right or wrong.
>> Sure. And UC has its orthography, and if you follow it, you are  
>> writing UC. Same with UCR and the SWF.
>>> You can make the case (which I believe you are doing) that  
>>> spelling KS without diacritics is spelling KS wrong. There is  
>>> nothing wrong with that argument.
>> Correct.
>>> If KS became the standard orthography for Cornish, it would then  
>>> (and only then) be fair to say that spelling Cornish without  
>>> diacritics was wrong. But how likely is it that KS will become the  
>>> SWF? In 2013? Ever?
>> I don't know. I know that there are errors and ambiguities and just  
>> plain stupidities in the SWF which need to be addressed for it to  
>> be considered genuinely suitable from a linguistic point of view.  
>> If the problems are not addressed, then the SWF is and will remain  
>> just another unsuitable inaccurate orthography. Whether the  
>> authorities in Cornwall use it is irrelevant: if it's bad, it's bad.
>> In 2013 some of the ideas in KS will certainly have some effect. I  
>> have some ideas as to which are more likely and which are less  
>> likely to do so. Of course I have no idea whether people like  
>> Nicholas and I will be "permitted" to participate meaningully in  
>> the review. We are together the editors of the only existing SWF  
>> grammar book, however (Ray Chubb's Skeul an Tavas/T and Skeul an  
>> Tavas/K). We certainly know what's wrong with the SWF and can  
>> articulate it.
>> I've never said that "KS will become the SWF". I do say that it's  
>> better than the SWF, and demonstrably so. I also say that 2018 is a  
>> mere five years away from 2013, and that I do not hold "2013" as  
>> "the" date when all will be fixed immutably.
>>> This discussion should not be based on the assumption that KS will  
>>> one day become the SWF.
>> Well, please don't put words in *my* mouth about it. I have made no  
>> such assumptions. The only assumption I make is that the  
>> shortcomings of the SWF must and will one day be addressed  
>> adequately.
>>> We need to focus on proposing improvements to the SWF that are  
>>> likely to find wide favour among Cornish speakers of all  
>>> persuasions. If it's obvious that a certain proposal will not find  
>>> such wide favour, no matter how strong the linguistic arguments,  
>>> we should not be spending time pushing the matter. It can only  
>>> serve to marginalise KS.
>> I for my part have not been second-guessing either the general  
>> public nor trying to crystal-ball what will happen in a review  
>> whose frame of reference has not been established.
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> --
> Craig Weatherhill
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Craig Weatherhill

More information about the Spellyans mailing list