[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sun May 20 10:27:57 IST 2012


Jon, 
I'm not sure, I'll ask. I don't know what the procedure is for member to be added. Will check and get back to you.
Dan


On May 10, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Jon Mills wrote:

> 
> Of course, no problem.
> 
> What Corpus List, bye the way? Can I subscribe to this list?
> Ol an gwella,
> Jon
>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Daniel Prohaska
>> Sent: 05/09/12 11:48 PM
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
>> 
>> Thanks Jon, 
>> I you permit I would like to quote and cross-post this passage on the Corpus list…
>> Thanks, 
>> Dan
>>  
>> 
>> On May 9, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Jon Mills wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 _______________________________________________
>>> Spellyans mailing list
>>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________ 
> Dr. Jon Mills, 
> University of Kent _______________________________________________
> 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/f55aea01/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list