[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

[Michael Everson]

On 30 Jan 2011, at 14:43, Ceri Young wrote:

> As a casual and unqualified observer, I think Eddie Climo's take on this seems the most reasonable presented so far.

I would ask you to review the linguistic discussion, casual and unqualified or not. 

> 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.

What is dogmatic about this?

=====
Six Cornish letters can take diacritical marks to make pronunciation clear. 

â, à, ê, è, ë, î, ô, ò, û, ù, ÿ

These diacritical marks are important and should be learned as a proper part of the words which have them. If you write them regularly, they will help you to pronounce words more correctly, and they will help others to read what you write more easily. 
=====

> The only rational I can imagine certain KS advocates having for appointing themselves as the Cornish diacritic police

Rubbish, Ceri. "Diacritic police"? I never said any such thing. What I have said is that there are linguistic ambiguities in the SWF which can be resolved by the use of diacritical marks. 

> in the run up to the review might be to appear to be making greater concessions to the rival side as possible when the bargaining ensues. - At which point I can only hope taking a hard line in advance might permit Mr. Climo's general (and most reasonable) stance to be the one arrived at overall for the final SWF when the dust settles in 2013.

Eddie's stance is that unlike French, which has an orthography in which words have their proper diacritical marks, Cornish should be a language which has an orthography in which words may be spelled with or without diacritical marks on the whim of the user. 

> 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)?

We already made that concession. The agreement made with Trond and Albert and Ben was abrogated. We agreed that the SWF should have a note:

=====
“Diacritical marks are not a part of the mandated SWF orthography. However, publishers are permitted to be use them, optionally, to mark words with anomalous vowel length or quality.”
=====

That would have permitted us to use them without being criticized for it. The agreement was broken with never an explanation. We negotiated and agreed in good faith, and that good faith was not rewarded. So, fine, we derogated from the SWF. 

> 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.

Our specification says this:

=====
Six Cornish letters can take diacritical marks to make pronunciation clear. 

â, à, ê, è, ë, î, ô, ò, û, ù, ÿ

These diacritical marks are important and should be learned as a proper part of the words which have them. If you write them regularly, they will help you to pronounce words more correctly, and they will help others to read what you write more easily. 
=====

What is unclear about this? This is the recommendation. We don't recommend that people write KS without diacritical marks. The recommendation is to use them as a matter of good practice. Why should we, in the same breath, recommend what is linguistically bad practice?

> I say this because I wonder if from this hard line, Cornish is being considered as a language for prospective every-day use at all, given the constraints diacritics place on such things as choice of fonts in graphic design, or even on the speed of informal cursive handwriting (I say this as a Welshman who has already experienced difficulties in using Welsh in graphic design with the far fewer diacritical marks Welsh has than those proposed for KS2).

I cannot agree with you, from a character set point of view.

Welsh uses â á è ä ê é è ë î í ì ï ô ó ò ö û ú ù ü ŵ ẃ ẁ ẅ ŷ ý ỳ ÿ (specified in Orgraff yr Iaith Cymraeg)

KS uses â à ê è ë î ô ò û ù ÿ only.

The problems one will have with Welsh will almost alway be only with ŵ ẃ ẁ ẅ ŷ ý ỳ depending on computer platform. 

> May I just end my point on a question, does the KS orthography, as it has been designed rely extensively upon the use of diacrits in this way?

KS as designed relies on the use of diacritical marks to indicate anomalous vowel quantity and anomalous vowel quality. If one has learnt the rules, one is able to pronounce all the words in any text accurately, according to the way in which Revived Cornish is presently spoken by people who prefer RMC, RTC, and RLC dialects. 

> (Would the orthography still work/be an acceptable one if the use of diacrits were reduced to any extent or dropped entirely?)

If the diacritical marks are dropped, then ambiguity is introduced. Since we know from the experience of the entire revival that the specific ambiguities involve lead to mispronunciation (of either vowel quantity or vowel quality or both), it does not seem to me to be wise to favour an ambiguous orthography over an unambiguous one. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/