daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Feb 2 20:16:57 GMT 2011
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:54 AM
“On 1 Feb 2011, at 22:37, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> I don’t believe KS will be seriously considered where adjustments to the SWF in 2013 are concerned.
Did you think we were going to just hand them a grammar and say "Here you are"?"
I don’t now what you mean by this…
“> I, too, would prefer to see a proposal for adjustments which are firmly based on the SWF as it stands.
Of course that is what KS is.”
I don’t think it is, not anymore. It’s become its own thing.
“We started by identifying shortcomings in the SWF, and we applied a succession of remedies to them.”
‘We’ identified possible shortcomings in the SWF that were not part of ‘We’s’ theory on the phonology of Cornish. There are a number of issues where I’m not convinced that ‘We’s’ theory holds and that a more careful approach would be called for, or at least give room for compromise.
“I think that in 2013 we would intend to start by pointing out the shortcomings and asking for solutions. There is a limited number of solutions possible.”
What’s wrong with identifying them first discussing them and coming up with a variety of solutions some of which may find themselves into an adjusted SWF?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans