[Spellyans] A 'Censored Message'? Can this be?
callanish at gmail.com
Mon Jan 31 18:00:16 GMT 2011
If the post in question is the one which begins "May I wade in?", then
I would have to say it was not censored as it's sitting in my inbox
with all the other replies in that thread.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Eddie Climo <eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Truru (a pseudonym) claims on C24 that our esteemed Moderator, Michael (not
> a pseudonym), has censored this post of his to Spellyans. Can this be true?
> As far as I know, I received a copy of it with the rest of the postings on
> this list.
> Perhaps Michael would care to comment.
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Truru Truru <ebost.truru at googlemail.com>
> Date: 2011 Mys Genver 30 18:42:44 GMT+00:00
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française
> Reply-To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> May I wade in?
> I can't speak for all Cornish speakers, I can only speak for my own
> experiences. The fact that this discussion is even being had would suggest
> that there is no consensus on the issue of diacritics.
> Whenever I see 'bys' used in a context where it clearly means 'until', I say
> [bɪz], and whenever I see 'bys' used in a context where it clearly means
> 'world', I say [biːz]. I can't give examples of other bys/bes type words
> because I haven't looked into it very much. But I'm sure there would be
> other times where (for me) context would suffice.
> The point has been made that some KK users pronounce bys and pryv
> incorrectly. I do not believe this is a problem directly caused by the
> orthography (although it is true it does not help) but by poor teaching. A
> learner only has to be told once that until is [bɪz] and world is [biːz]. It
> is not true that this can only work with oral teaching, I have not been to a
> single class and have learnt Cornish solely through books and yet I know the
> difference because the books I've read taught it.
> Also, the point's been made that in languages like French and Spanish
> spelling words without the diacritics would be spelling them wrong. This is
> indeed correct, but I don't believe this argument is relevant to Cornish.
> Cornish doesn't have one orthography, like those languages, it has many, and
> so I think it would be impossible to claim that spelling a word without
> diacritics is wrong when there are so many other orthographies that don't
> use diacritics. It could be the case that in 100 years time, the idea of
> spelling Cornish without diacritics is as strange as spelling French without
> them. However we are not at that point now. Today there are generations of
> Cornish speakers who are used to spelling without diacritics and it might be
> rather idealistic to expect them all to suddenly start using them after a
> directive from above says they should.
> Nevertheless, in my opinion, all this discussion is (if you forgive the
> bluntness) kind of pointless anyway. The SWF in 2013 will be a political
> compromise, there's no denying it. We can ignore that fact for as long we
> like but it will be a fact nonetheless. We need to be focusing on how to
> make the SWF better in a way that could be acceptable to a majority of
> Cornish users. If it's obvious that KS's current range of diacritics will
> not find favour with that majority then we should not be stubbornly
> continuing the matter. I've got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong)
> that a very limited use of diacritics, for things like anomalous vowel
> length, might find a majority favour. As for y/e, I don't like the umlaut
> and don't think it fits in well with the overall 'look' of Cornish. I also
> don't see it gaining widespread favour. I have always preferred <ei> anyway
> and would like to see this at least mentioned in 2013 to see if opinion has
> shifted. If not, then I don't see the y/e distinction going away and we
> shouldn't spend time trying to fix things that can't be fixed in a manner
> acceptable to a majority.
> This discussion is part of a larger choice that needs to be made. Either you
> can focus on proposing fixes to the SWF, which means finding solutions that
> will be acceptable to a majority of users, or you can ditch the SWF, tread
> your own path, and go back to KS1. If the SWF is ditched, would this send us
> all back to the pre-SWF days? Would traditional forms end up being cut off
> from the arena that matters most - schools? Would KS end up being sidelined?
> Or would there be a surge of support for KS1, meaning that it might stand a
> chance at becoming a future SWF? Who knows. The options need to be weighed
> up. The current KS it seems, in my opinion, is too far from the SWF to be
> accepted by a majority, but not close enough to your ideal of a KS1-type
> orthography. What shouldn't happen, not at all, is that the traditionalist
> lobby becomes fractured.
> 2011/1/30 Eddie Climo <eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk>
>> On 2011 Gen 30, at 17:14, nicholas williams wrote:
>> Whatever orthography one uses one's first concern should perhaps be that
>> the Cornish is accurate.
>> Certainly we always ensure as far as possible that our published Cornish
>> is correct.
>> Eddie himself is not without fault here. Let me cite some examples at
>> random from Whedhlow Dama Goodh FSS/T-C:
>> Oh, dear, are we now to descend to playground jibes? Am I to emulate your
>> behaviour and scour your published works to hunt for errors to fling in your
>> face, Nicholas? Am I to unearth and repeat some of the incorrect assertions
>> you made to me in private as you proofread my 'Kensa Lyver Redya'?
>> No, I think not; such conduct is not attractive.
>> It is gratifying that we have an emerging consensus on this thread about
>> the role diacritics should have in KS, one that diverges from your views.
>> Nicholas and Michael are, of course, quite free to publish works in
>> whatever orthography they choose, and to encumber them with as many
>> diacritics as they please. In the same way, they're at liberty to lard their
>> Cornish with as many macaronic Tregearisms as they fancy, no matter how
>> 'Kernglish' the result might look.
>> However, they are NOT free to do the same with the formal specification of
>> KS that will be submitted to the CLP in due course. That must reflect the
>> consensus of this group, at least it must do so if it is to have my name and
>> my support behind it.
>> Let us hope that the final KS specification is indeed written in the light
>> of this apparent consensus, and is not 'too much encumbered
>> with [mandatory] diaritical signs'.
>> Eddie Climo
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans