[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Jon Mills j.mills at email.com
Wed May 9 16:28:20 IST 2012


I don't see how one can justify using taxpayers money to support a SWF that is not the preferred form for a large proportion of the Cornish language community. The Commission found that "a new consensus stands out as a better alternative than choosing any of the four existing orthographies, and we will strongly suggest to the Cornish community the imperative of arriving at a consensus." The Main form of the SWF does not have such consensual support.

 The Commission also wrote,

 "In the area of consonants, the k/c issue seems to be hotly debated. This we may brand the
 King Cong issue, or writing consonants following the sources or not. Here, KK has k only.
 There is of course no minimal pair between k and c. But the medieval practice (known from
 English and Scandinavian) has a phonetic base: the k is palatal, and the c is velar. Since it has
 the support of both articulatory phonetics (if not phonology), historical tradition, and, not
 least, our knowledge of English, changing what has been called the "German" "k only" policy
 into velar c and palatal k should be seen as a small compromise for KK users. We understand
 that the K may have become some sort of shibboleth after 20 years of proud use of K across
 the board, but this is not an issue that deserves to block consensus. Cornishmen used the c, it
 is easy to use the c, as all know how to use it, and if it helps the revitalisation, then it is really
 needed.
 As we see it, this is thus not a big “loss” for KK: and no pedagogical principle is violated.
 Another issue, over hw/wh, has raised the eyebrows of the non-linguists in the Commission,
 for it seems to be just a symbolic issue, by which we mean that either form is equally easy to
 learn."
 Had the Commissions recommendations concerning k/c and hw/wh been accepted, there would be considerably less variation between Traditional and Main forms.

 It seems that the Cornish language community is not yet ready for a standard written form.

 Ol an gwella,
 Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: David Trethewey
Sent: 05/09/12 02:24 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

 I don't see how it is really possible to have parity between the different forms of the SWF, I mean would you have road signs with both traditional and 'main form' on? I fear that would lead to Cornish as a whole being ridiculed in some quarters. On 5/9/12, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Spellyans mailing list > Spellyans at kernowek.net > http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net > _______________________________________________ Spellyans mailing list Spellyans at kernowek.net http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________ 
 Dr. Jon Mills, 
 University of Kent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120509/13c53fd2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list