daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Feb 2 20:11:19 GMT 2011
This is true to a certain extent. Many features that were accepted into KS and eventually also in the SWF were born out of the compromises that were going on between KS1 and KD before the AHG’s meetings, like <eu> for KS1’s <ue> and a few other features. <oo> and the alternation of <y> ~ <e> were definitely taken from the SWF, but some fundamental features of the SWF were ignored, or rather derogated from, some I believe with justification that invites questioning. I do not see the advantage of the allographic distribution of <y> and <i> in KS, and voiced fricatives in unstressed position may actually have been voiced. The SWF-principle of the writing the ‘etymological’ vowel in unstressed syllables is completely broken with, and arbitrarily so, the main concern seems to be to avoid features that are reminiscent of KK spellings, be they authentic and correct or not. A further feature of the SWF, that it is based on KK and corrects it where KK is demonstrably mistaken, is a further derogation, and many KS forms look ‘surprisingly’ like UCR, so UCR is to KS2 what KK is to the SWF. Since I don’t get the impression that any features of KS2 are really up for discussion any more, it has become its own orthography entirely. It cannot, looking at it, be claimed that KS2 is derived from the SWF, it is rather UCR with a number of features ‘informed’ by the SWF.
PS: Michael, still waiting for an apology from you for unjustly calling me “disingenuous”…
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:48 AM
On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:22, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> I would prefer a proposal that starts off with the actual SWF and not another orthography such as KS.
“KS did start off with the SWF, Dan. Please do not suggest otherwise.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans