[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

Herbie Blackburn kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com
Sun Jan 30 17:36:42 GMT 2011


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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110130/6f78a0c6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list