[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sun May 20 10:26:52 IST 2012


On May 9, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> The term "side form" was officially abandoned 4 years ago.  That certain people insist on using these years later speaks volumes about their attitude to it.
> 
> Treyarnon (where Andrew Climo, Bernard Deacon and Mina Dresser represented the traditional argument) should have been closely minuted.  We were told that it would be, but it was not.  Now, if one of the AHG says "X was agreed"; someone from the opposite side of the table will say: "That's not what I recall".  The whole thing was extremely unprofessional (and 5 days was woefully inadequate). 
> 
> For 4 years, I've been advised that that SWF for "beech trees" was <fow>, as per KK.  I thought this unwise because it's exactly the same sound as <scaw> (<skaw>: SWF/K and KK) "elder trees".  The new on-line SWF dictionary has just been published, and what do I find?  <faw>!  Why was <fow> being pushed?

The down side to the SWF was always that t used KK as a starting point, rather than analyzing the words again from scratch. This led to a number of mistakes that were taken over along with the KK-base. Trond, however, gave the mandate to correct these mistakes by consensus and available evidence. Working on the SWF Glossary the members from the corpus group and the editing group were able to identify some of these mistakes and make the appropriate changes, such as KK **fow to ‹faw›. Since working on dictionaries and wordlists is always time consuming, some items are identified earlier than others. The the discussions and examination of the evidence follows with a lot of toeing and froing. But I can tell you from being involved in the process, many items have now been correct that previously had followed KK. I wouldn't say that the earlier mistaken forms were "pushed" - just that it took some time to identify them. 

> I'm all for compromise, but that involves all sides, not just one.
> Craig

I definitely agree with you here, Craig!
Dan

> 
> 
> 
> On 9 Me 2012, at 17:01, Nicky Rowe wrote:
> 
>> Lowena dhewgh Spellyans
>> 
>> I did work experience at the Maga office earlier this year and had a discussion with Jenefer about this very topic. She says that there is a lot of confusion about the SWF agreement - apparently the traditional form is not meant to be a separate orthography, but merely a set of allowed variants that individuals can use if they choose to. Anything done in public, and anything done by Maga would be in the main form. The AHG agreement regarding this is on the SWF page on the Maga site. I don't know who was part of the AHG but there surely must have been some representatives from the traditional side there. 
>> 
>> I wouldn't mind whichever form is the agreed form, they both have merits, but I prefer to stick to cooperation and agreement rather than going off on my own. It's unlikely that the situation will change much as of the review. According to Jenefer most people use the main form. To me there is no future without the SWF, whatever it may look like in the future.
>> 
>> Besides I don't think that spelling is by any means the most important aspect of Cornish that needs attention, but the grammar, syntax and pronunciation.
>> 
>> Nicky Rowe
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9 May 2012 16:55, Christian Semmens <christian.semmens at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe the time has come to publicly argue again, Ray. Holding our
>> own council only allows the drift into the acceptance of the current
>> situation, which is the inevitable deprecation of the "Side Form",
>> which is patently unacceptable. Even the term "Side Form" is
>> unacceptable.
>> 
>> The two form process is the result of compromising without compromising.
>> 
>> As I said earlier, without the KK phonology it is the SWF "Main" form
>> that needs to justify its existence not the traditional form which is
>> the Cinderella of this particular pantomime.
>> 
>> The problem here has been the last four years of positive
>> discrimination in favour of this novel variant, the price paid for the
>> acceptance of vocalic alternation. It is the Main/Side issue that is
>> at fault here, not the unsuitability of the traditional form. By
>> "Officially" defaulting to the Main variant there is no point in
>> having a traditional variant. It is a ghetto, condemned to a short
>> life in the twilight before complete deprecation.
>> 
>> Also, don't forget that without the backing of traditional spelling
>> groups you have no SWF, you just have two forms of KK, one without the
>> phonology and one where it exists, but isn't used.
>> 
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120520/cea0bdaa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list