[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Hedley Climo eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Aug 17 14:32:08 IST 2012


On 2012 Est 17, at 11:16, Michael Everson wrote:
> Diacritics must be "permitted" and not "proscribed" as they are at present.
Indeed, and neither must they be "prescribed" (i.e. made mandatory), as some individuals in this group assert them to to be in KS.

> Or there is no chance of a solution. But an orthography which omits diacritics doesn't help learners to remember the correct sounds.
Just so. Diacritics should be recommended for use in reference/didactic/learners' material, just as they are in UC. Fluent Kernewegoryon, by contrast, probably don't need them.

> That was one of the criticisms levelled at Unified Cornish back in the 80s,
So it was, and those who levelled that criticism conveniently overlooked the fact that UC has a comprehensive set of diacritics to denote vowel length, vowel quality and irregular stress. The concensus amongst older UC/R Kernewegoryon, as I understand it, is that Nance et al would not have objected to the use of diacritics (using the term to cover all the metatextual marks it employs) in publications for more fluent Kernewegoryon, if the writer/editor/proof-reader/publisher saw fit.

> …and the resulting "solution" was KK, which at least made a stab at dealing with the problem of vowel length. (Doubling consonants before short vowels yielded a hideous orthography;
KK didn't do as good a job of dealing with vowel length as UC and UCR do. Given the calibre of 'scholar' who concocted KK, that's hardly surprising, is it?

Eddie Climo





More information about the Spellyans mailing list