[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Aug 9 15:18:39 BST 2012
On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2012, at 10:56, christian.semmens at gmail.com wrote:
>> It is to the future that we now need to be looking. The "compromise" reached last time has nearly run its course.
> The "compromise" gives MAGA an orthography they can use without anyone arguing about it. I suppose that was the rationale.
Yet here we are arguing...
>> There is a clear issue in perception between Cornish for officialdom which seems to be what Jenefer is framing SWF/K as, and Official Cornish, which I fear everyone else sees SWF/K as.
> If Jenefer were to ask the Kesva/Cowethas representatives in MAGA if we could produce an SWF/T dictionary and they were to say "No", it would be very interesting to learn what the reason for such a "No" would be.
>> Again why should the main communication channels be forced (in the future) to use a form with a spelling aesthetic that harks back twenty years to a phonology that it doesn't use?
> That's a question for the Review, I should think.
>> If round one finalised the phonological and linguistic aspects in the main,
> There are many loose ends.
Yes, but they're not insurmountable...
>> this leaves us with the legacy aesthetic issues to deal with.
> It is my hope that the Review will deal with linguistic and not political issues. I think the Revival is mature enough that people from all sides should be able to work together.
More information about the Spellyans