[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Wed May 9 14:10:11 IST 2012


That pretty much accords with my own view.  The future of SWF is on a  
tightrope.

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).

Craig




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?
>
> Christian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list