[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Sun Jan 30 15:47:39 GMT 2011


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110130/b212b848/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list