[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Thu Aug 16 10:33:33 IST 2012


On 15 Aug 2012, at 21:54, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> I agree with your last statement.  Especially when you bear in mind that the original brief by the Commissioners was that SWF should be based on KD with KS input.  KK was to play no direct part in it.

KD was essentially KK with trad graphs. It was not a well-constructed system-based orthography. 

> That's what we all agreed to at Tremough and was roundly applauded by all there except about six.  

What was agreed was a fifth orthography. KS1 and KD might inform it, but it is wrong to think that it would have "been" some sort of "mix" of the two. Structurally, those orthographies were not compatible. 

> Yet look what happened at Treyarnon.  Somehow that six got their way, and we end up with a SWF that defaults to KK, and with a "main" form that employs KK graphs and rejects traditional.  KS was not allowed any part at all.

At Treyarnon AT had two representatives, and the Cussell had two, and KK had four representatives, two from the Cowethas and two from its subset, the Kesva. That was gerrymandering in action, to be sure. But what actually happened was that K-graphs and T-graphs were considered more or less equivalent, until it came down to vocalic alternation. The KKers pretended that VA did not occur in Cornish. They were, and are, wrong, but in the negotiations they managed to trade VA for inequality in /K and /T graphs. 

VA is a structural reality in the Cornish language. The difference between /K and /T is cosmetic. Should it be? Maybe not. But that's they way the "authorities" dealt with it. 

> It was pushed out and KK brought back into the equation.   Why?  

KK graphs were retained. This is not structural, however. 

> Through discussion with KD, KS moved towards their direction by replacing <ue> with <eu>.

We offered that early one. We showed our good faith. I'm happy with <eu> at present in any case. 

> It replaced <-eugh, -ough> with <-ewgh, -owgh>.   KS made the concessionary moves.  

I don't know whether the shift from eu/ou to ew/ow here is significant. 

> The non-traditional parties never responded; never moved one inch towards us,

True.

> and now they are actively sidelining traditional graphs as I warned they would three or four years ago.

There are other structural features of the SWF which are more worrying to me.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list