[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
nickyrowe at gmail.com
Sun May 20 11:54:13 IST 2012
Could it also be that those who do want to accommodate traditional forms in
the SWF are having incredible difficulty in doing so simply because there's
no place for them? If everything is done using the K forms then it's
difficult to find an area where the C forms can be given a purpose. To my
mind the SWF has been the wrong way around since 2008. The K graphs became
the main form because a majority of people used them, but this decision
didn't take into account the emotional connection to the traditional forms.
The traditional forms are never going to go away - the connection towards
the traditional texts, the placenames and 80 years of pre-KK revival means
that there is always going to be a significant section of people who will
want to use them - for better or for worse. I'm not denying there is an
attachment to K forms among many, but it's relatively short-term and isn't
linked so strongly to history.
Therefore surely the best solution would be to switch main and traditional
forms around. It would then be much easier to accommodate the K forms as a
side form - they can be used in beginners material, moving on to
traditional forms at more advanced stages. The question when the SWF was
created should not have been "which form should be the main form?" but
"which form will be easiest to accommodate as a side form?"
> For cooperation, Maga needs people who actually operate. If traditional
> graph users largely stay out of the picture, then they have no reason to
> see the need for their use. You're there, I'm there, but I can't think of
> anyone who is as adamant about their use apart from us. A few swing both
> ways and aren't bothered by it…
> I don't wish to place blame or say "it's there fault" , but I cannot stop
> thinking that if Nicholas's excellent translations (THE Bible!!!!!!!, among
> many others) and Michael's beautiful publications had been done in the
> SWF/T it could have strengthened our position …. well I don't know by what
> factor, but considerably anyway… I know Michael's position is that KS is
> based on the SWF and corrects its mistakes, - to most people at Maga, KS is
> just another Cornish orthography they don't use or support, on par with
> UC/R, RLC and KK… anyway, definitely NOT SWF, so it's benevolently
> tolerated, their publications listed, but not otherwise actively supported.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans