[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

[Craig Weatherhill]

"Self-learning", that is.

Craig



On 30 Gen 2011, at 18:00, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> I note that KD also had diacritical marks, but no one commented or  
> objected.  I'm used to them.  Jenner used them, and they're visible  
> (usually only circumflexes) on maps and signposts.  I think they  
> have a useful part to play, but can they be minimised further in  
> KS?  In the end, it isn't Michael, Nicholas or any of us who are  
> going to enforce their use.  Individuals will make up their own  
> minds whether to use them or not, no matter what anyone says.
>
> I also preferred KS1 and I also wonder if we shouldn't consider  
> returning to it.  I am fast losing faith in the SWF, with various  
> agreements being broken, and I know that others (notably Jonathan  
> Kereve-Clark) have already abandoned it.  I honestly think that  
> things are being set up for a pre-arranged fait accompli in 2013.  I  
> really don't see that we should follow the SWF any more, but revert  
> to a purer Cornish.
>
> Can we see an end to something else, as well?  When someone has been  
> self-earning Cornish for only 2 years, publicised criticism of their  
> work, in order to belittle them, is the quickest way to alienate  
> them from the language completely.  I was deeply disappointed to see  
> that.  Please don't do it.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On 30 Gen 2011, at 17:36, Herbie Blackburn wrote:
>
>> This seems a very sensible and well thought out position – I think  
>> it is a balanced and practical stance, that maybe most could agree  
>> on?
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> Here are my views, as requested:
>>
>> — Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?
>>
>> Diacritical marks should not be mandatory. Who is going to enforce  
>> their use? KS may dictate that diacritical marks are always used  
>> whenever possible but it may be better to use KS without  
>> diacritical marks than to use the current SWF. People should be  
>> free to do so without being criticised. The quality of the Cornish  
>> and the meaning of what is written is much more important.  
>> Diacritical marks make KS more difficult to write but easier to  
>> read. Either way it is still Cornish, and still a very big  
>> improvement on the SWF (Main), and still an improvement on the SWF  
>> (Traditional).
>>
>>
>> — Should they be optional in all writings?
>>
>> No, dictionaries and the like should always include the diacritical  
>> marks so that people who wish to use them will know where they  
>> should go.
>>
>>
>>
>> — Should they be hightly recommented in lexicographic/reference/ 
>> didactic writings and optional elsewhere?
>>
>> No, if diacritical marks are part of the KS specification, they  
>> must be used in all lexicographic/reference/didactic writings that  
>> purport to be KS, so that people who wish to use them will know  
>> where they should go. I think that they need to be optional  
>> elsewhere. Some people (and their technologies) are against their  
>> use, can’t or won’t use them. We don’t want people to use KK or the  
>> SWF (Main) instead. I think that we can safely claim that they are  
>> “incorrect Cornish”. We have sufficient evidence to back up that  
>> statement. I don’t think that we should use stronger words. We  
>> should try to keep out of the gutter.
>>
>>
>>
>> — Or should they have some other role?
>>
>> I’m not sure what sort of rôles you had on mind. The diacritical  
>> marks help the reader to distinguish KS from other forms of  
>> Cornish, e.g. the SWF (Traditional) with which it could otherwise  
>> be confused. Diacritical marks make the language more precise. That  
>> would help in automatic translation from Cornish to other languages  
>> (or to other forms of Cornish), and would help automatic text-to- 
>> speech readers for the poorly-sighted or drivers, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> — Furthermore, do we currently have a surfeit of diacritics? Could  
>> we idealy do with fewer of them?
>>
>> As long as the diacritical marks are optional, it does not really  
>> matter – just leave off the ones you don’t agree with. If they are  
>> “compulsory” I should like to see less. I do not think that it is  
>> necessary to mark êw/ôw. I do not like ë/ÿ. I would prefer to spell  
>> this ei, e.g. beis “world”. I do not like ù. I would prefer to  
>> spell this v, e.g. lvst “lust”, arlvth “lord”, pvbonan “everyone”.
>>
>>
>> I hope that the above has answered your questions, and that it will  
>> help to form a consensus.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andrew J. Trim
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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