[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

[Michael Everson]

On 30 Jan 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?

On what basis? I would like to point out (again) that I have given in detail information about the kinds of ambiguities which are solved by the use of diacritical marks. I note that you have not addressed this information, but instead are reacting to other things people have said which do not touch upon the core question. 

If one is more interested in finding a mechanism for avoiding the use of diacritical marks than one is in an unambiguous and accurate orthography for Revived Cornish, then I really don't know what more I can say. I have explained why we have what we have. I have indicated our view:

===
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.
===

Do you find something offensive in this?

On 30 Jan 2011, at 15:47, A. J. Trim wrote:

> — Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?
>  
> Diacritical marks should not be mandatory. Who is going to enforce their use?

The same people who enforce the spelling of "devocyon" with a "c" rather than with an "s": Nobody. 

> 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.

Why not try to use them? 

> 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.

Indeed.

> 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.

That will not be our recommendation. One can easily acknowledge that people may not be able to use them in all contexts. And I have acknowledged this already. But the specification says, and I daresay should continue to say:

===
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.
===

> 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.

Nevertheless if KS aims for accuracy and unambiguousness, then it cannot "recommend" that the diacritics are left off. Once they are left off, the orthography becomes ambiguous. 

> 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.

That is, of course, not their function.

> 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.

And, indeed would help learners at every level and certainly with different dialect preferences to understand one another. 

I find this whole discussion very perplexing indeed. Gosh, there's all sorts of advantages to this orthography... but let's find reasons not to use it. Perhaps I have misunderstood. 

> 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.

The orthography can either be accurate and inclusive or it can not be those things. 

> I do not think that it is necessary to mark êw/ôw. I do not like ë/ÿ.

Both of these are in the orthography in support of large classes of words that stand on opposite ends of the dialect spectrum. These alternations are marked for inclusivity. 

> I would prefer to spell this ei, e.g. beis “world”.

And we did, once, but I don't believe we can turn back the clock on this. 

> I do not like ù. I would prefer to spell this v, e.g. lvst “lust”, arlvth “lord”, pvbonan “everyone”.

Well that certainly isn't going to happen. "v" has another function in the orthography already. 

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