[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
craig at agantavas.org
Wed May 9 14:10:11 BST 2012
That pretty much accords with my own view. The future of SWF is on a
It's still very prominent in my mind that the Commission recommended
that the SWF be based upon KD, with KS input. The compilers of KD and
KS had, as you'll recall, held frequent discussions, with agreements
on several points. A promising process that seemed the way to go to
reach a single compromise solution.
At Treyarnon, an AHG top-heavy with non-traditional supporters, and
with NJAW and ME excluded under threat of a KK walkout, threw that
recommendation aside without a single reference to the 200 people
who'd been at the previous Tremough meeting and applauded it.
Suddenly , KK was to be the default orthography, when the Commission
had rejected KK. They' d only agree to vocalic alternation if the SWF
was split into a "main form" and "side form" (yet they blame US for
that!). The Commission had detailed, as an example, that SWF could
quite easily do without the universal K and a return to the prctices
of revived Cornish other than KK. That was thrown out on the first day.
Linguistic advisors were appointed (these DID include NJAW and ME),
and then virtually ignored.
Since then, and despite assurances to the contrary, SWF/T has been
treated as though it doesn't exist. I've even had people state that
it "isn't the SWF".
The crunch will come next year at the Review, because we can all see
the way it's being engineered. If further, meaningful compromise
can't be thrashed out there; if it opens the door for further
Kemmynising, then I can see most Trad. users walking away from it, and
from the entire Partnership completely. Then it's back to Square One.
It's clear that not everyone is happy with the "main form" (or SWF/K,
as I call it). I noticed, this morning, at Nancledra that the parish
council (presumably) have erected a very nice, painted, roadside
signboard, welcoming drivers to "Nancledra: Nans Cludri", even though
MAGA's Signage Panel had recommended Nansklodri. From this, it also
appears that "official use" does not extend to town and parish
councils. (Before anyone asks - I had nothing to do with this sign,
and knew nothing about it until I saw it today).
On 9 Me 2012, at 13:24, Christian Semmens wrote:
> Dear all,
> As it is a rather slow and dull afternoon, I thought I'd play devil's
> advocate and ask this question, as I am having some grave reservations
> over the direction the "compromise" process seems to be taking. It
> would seem that the rumble of distant thunder can be heard regarding
> the future direction of the SWF from some areas. The traditional form
> of the SWF has lived in an enforced twilight for the last four years
> and it would seem that some would like to bury it completely. From my
> point of view, anything less than total and absolute parity for the
> SWF/T including (especially!) for "Official" purposes and in schools,
> would be utterly unacceptable. Complaints about possible confusion be
> damned. Let the people choose.
> The SWF, so far, has been a vehicle for ditching the dodgy phonology
> of KK, but maintaining its (now meaningless) spelling system.
> In the Cornish language movement today, without KK phonology, there is
> now absolutely no reason for maintaining this spelling system other
> than that it looks familiar to one fraction of learners, and in a
> revival we are all learners. It is precisely this spelling form that
> needs to justify its existence, not the traditional variant.
> I wonder where others stand on this?
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans