[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Aug 18 18:20:01 IST 2012


Bo clew, clew e'n FSS ;-)

Ken, 
It's probably going to be ‹klewes› in KK by the next dictionary edition anyway because I managed to convince Ken George's alter ego on C24 that **klywes is most definitely incorrect, something that Nicholas already had pointed out to him years ago. I also explained some of Schrijver's elaborations on the topic which seemed to convince him. The mistaken root *klyw- is on the way out even in KK. Good riddance. 
Dan


On Aug 18, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Ken MacKinnon wrote:

> Clyw! Clyw!  - yn gwyr  - an ken Ken
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]
> On Behalf Of Hedley Climo
> Sent: 17 August 2012 22:09
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site
> 
> On 2012 Est 17, at 14:56, Nicky Rowe wrote:
>> 
>> No, the more longstanding members of language activists are not ready for
> a single written form.
> Incorrect. Many of these older people remember the days when there was but a
> single written form, up until 1987, when the KKites engineered the first
> split in the Revival. Like them, some of us who joined the Revival after
> that date, like me, still use that form: Unified Cornish.
> 
>> The next generation, who were not part of the disputes of the past 25
> years, want one and are crying out for one.
> Really? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? It does sound
> awfully anecdotal.
> 
>> Collaborative projects such as localisation and online community-based
> learning are not viable without a single form.
> I think not. There are many collaborative projects that have taken place
> over the last quarter century, despite the lack of a single form. I guess
> they're made less easy because of the split, but they've hardly been 'not
> viable'.
> 
>> What you all need to be asking yourselves is what will make things easier
> for the next generation, not how to just get what you want and make things
> better for just you.
> Well, what I've asked myself over the last half a dozen years is, "What can
> *I* contribute to the Revival that will help to support it?" My answer is to
> learn the language and to enjoy anc cherish it; to speak it when I have the
> chance, both on- and off-line; and to write, translate and publish in it. In
> this latter field, I've focussed on creating publications (both in print,
> e-books, audio and video) aimed mainly at children and young learners.
> 
> That's MY contribution to the present generation-and to ones to come. As a
> result, in some 3 years of operation, Gwask an Orlewen has issued some three
> dozen publications, with more to come.
> 
> Perhaps what YOU need to ask yourself is, "What contribution have YOU
> yourself made to the Revival?"
> 
>> If you can't agree on a single form - NOT two equal forms - then the next
> generation will be questioning your fitness to lead the revival.
> 'Lead the Revival'? This suggests a peculiarly top-down, centralist,
> authoriarian approach to the Revival. In my view, progress in the Revival
> over the 110+ years of its existence has been made by individuals-and groups
> of individuals-getting off their bums and DOING something for the revival of
> the language.
> 
> Progress has NOT been achieved by people looking around for leaders, or
> gurus, or figures of authority.
> 
> Eddie Climo
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5204 - Release Date: 08/16/12
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list