[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Sun May 20 12:03:33 IST 2012



On 20 Me 2012, at 11:03, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

>
> On May 10, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Ray Chubb wrote:
>
>> The whole AHG process was weighted against those of us who prefer  
>> traditional/authentic Cornish.
>
> Yes, and as I said earlier, there was no unified traditional side to  
> begin with.
>
>> I'm sure that the Commission expected each orthographic grouping to  
>> be equally represented but this was not the case.  The outcome from  
>> Treyarnon was a shambles, more about KK face saving than giving  
>> Cornish school children their Cornish language heritage.
>
> There was no consensus among the "traditionalists" about what  
> traditional spelling was. Even the RLC faction has its  
> "traditionalists" that follow Rowe, the Bosons, the Tonkins, and  
> those who follow Lhuyd. This lack of coordination between the groups  
> also lead to a position of strength of the KK group in the AHG. KS1  
> managed to bring quite a few people together, but there were so many  
> people in the KK group ignorant of both recommended reform proposals  
> KS1 and KD, that KK was quickly reverted to as a a starting point. I  
> was appalled at how bad some of the AHG members were prepared for  
> these meetings in that they were so ignorant of KS1 and KD. After  
> the commissions recommendations and knowing they would be on the  
> board I would have expected more thorough preparation of the reform  
> proposals.
>
>> What the outcome should have been was an orthography that would  
>> have taken Cornish into the 21st century and, possibly, something  
>> that was even considered good enough for higher academic studies.   
>> Instead we have a hotchpotch based on what most people, allegedly,  
>> use.  I think that in the future, when personality issues have died  
>> with their perpetrators, Cornish users will look upon the SWF with  
>> shame.
>
> I think this is unduly pessimistic. We all here feel very  
> passionately about matters of orthography, but let's be realistic.  
> Most people just want the "spelling wars" to end. They don't really  
> feel very strongly one way or the other. They stick to the features  
> of the orthography through they have learnt Cornish and that in the  
> 1990s and early 2000s, like it or not, was predominantly KK. In  
> their awful rag "Kernewek Kemmyn - Cornish for the 21st Century"  
> Paul Dunbar and Ken George pat each other's back by saying that KK  
> was a huge success story, and yes, it was. A Revival movement  
> confronted with the difficulties and mistakes of the Nancean  
> orthography (sorry Eddie and Ray, but from the point of view of a  
> phonological analysis - not from the perspective of standardised  
> textual spellings, though UC was neither fish nor flesh in that  
> respect either) was yearning for something easier to deal with from  
> a learner's point of view. ken George was one of their own and he  
> came up with a rather radical reform proposal. This lead to people  
> moving to KK for all sorts of reasons, personal, because they were  
> told it's "phonemic" (or popularly: "phonetic"), regular etc, etc.  
> etc. Fact remains they believed in one man's proposal and went with  
> it. In this respect the SWF is an entirely different beast. It may  
> seem tedious to work through all its boards and groups and whatever,  
> but it's consensual, more people are involved in shaping it. The  
> only problem from the traditionalists' perspective is that too few  
> of these have become involved in it. People working from within the  
> SWF are mainly ex-KKers who, I'm sure, see the preference for SWF/K  
> as a victory and confirmation of their having been right all along.  
> Working for traditional graphs from within the SWF I sometimes feel  
> I'm completely alone… no, Craig has been incredibly supportive here  
> too, but still, I would like to see the "traditionalists" taking a  
> more active part in the process. If they don't do anything or write  
> in the SWF/T how are the SWF/K-ers supposed to realise there is a  
> desire to use the  t-graphs in the first place? To get the funds  
> available, the few people quite willing to use SWF/t are "coerced"  
> into using SWF/K because Maga said they wouldn't publish other wise  
> or fear that early learners' material would get the support their  
> work deserves. It's very unfortunate.
> Dan
>
>> On 10 Me 2012, at 10:44, Nicky Rowe wrote:
>>
>>> Eddie said:
>>>
>>> "As the 'traditional' form has been deliberately marginalised and  
>>> sidelined by MAGA itself, Jenefer is accurately stating the status  
>>> quo that MAGA has allowed to happen."
>>>
>>> I think that's a bit unfair. Jenefer and everyone at the Maga  
>>> office work according to the AHG agreement - an agreement that  
>>> says that the main form will be used by public bodies. There were  
>>> representatives from the traditional group on the AHG so surely  
>>> they must have agreed to this too. As for the Partnership itself  
>>> and its own agreements since then you would need to speak to  
>>> whoever's on it to get their view.
>>>
>>> Nicky
>>
>> Ray Chubb
>>
>> Portreth
>> Kernow
>>
>> Agan Tavas web site:  www.agantavas.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/fa39f20e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list