[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Aug 9 15:18:39 IST 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. 

Yes, absolutely.
Dan



More information about the Spellyans mailing list