[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française
eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Jan 30 18:34:19 GMT 2011
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'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans