[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

[Craig Weatherhill]

I have to say that KS might have gone too far with the diacritical  
marks.  I can fully understand why, but compare with English.  I knew  
at a very early age that rough was "ruff", that through was "throo",  
and cough was "koff".  Nobody needed diacritical marks to distinguish  
one from another, and we have to be very aware that there's a load of  
people out there who don't like them, and won't be persuaded.  They  
won't accept KS in its present form, and we have to produce a Cornish  
that has the widest possible appeal.  If we can cut the diacritics  
down, we might attract more people but, as I wrote earlier, if people  
don't want to write them, then they won't, and can't be made to.  This  
does need serious thought.

Craig



On 30 Gen 2011, at 15:47, A. J. Trim 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
>
>
> From: Eddie Climo
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:24 PMw
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française
>
> Not in the slightest; I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between  
> fuzzy search criteria and orthography. I think that you have  
> mistaken this forum for a high-school debating society, where the  
> main aim is to score jejune 'points', rather than to elucidate the  
> matter under discussion. Instead of indulging yourself in  
> patronising condescension, you might attempt to address the  
> substantive issue that I raised..
>
> I propose that we discuss the precise wording of the role of  
> diacritics that will go into the formal submission we make on behalf  
> of KS to the Partnership in due course. At present, I feel that  
> there is little or no attempt to reach consensus in this forum, but  
> that the decisions are being taken rather capriciously by Nicholas  
> and Michael.
>
> I would like to hear from other members of this forum, so that we  
> might form a view of their consensus on this matter. Fellow  
> 'Spellyansoryon', the issue before us is this:
> — Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?
> — Should they be optional in all writings?
> — Should they be hightly recommented in lexicographic/reference/ 
> didactic writings and optional elsewhere?
> — Or should they have some other role?
> — Furthermore, do we currently have a surfeit of diacritics? Could  
> we idealy do with fewer of them?
>
> Let us hear your views, please, so we can discuss these questions  
> before taking a vote to ascertain what measure of consensus there  
> may be amongst us.
>
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
>
> On 2011 Gen 29, at 20:19, Michael Everson wrote:
>> I think you have mistaken input method equivalence with orthography.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill