[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Sun May 20 12:17:33 IST 2012

I think there was 1 AT rep; Rod Lyon, who I don't think was a member  
of AT at that time; and 2 Cussel members.


On 20 Me 2012, at 11:36, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 20 May 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.
> It was not as un-unified as you may think. At least I was in  
> Cornwall before the AHG began and Mina Dresser came to an AT meeting  
> where I explained what was going on in KS1.
>> 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.
> That just means that RLC users have more than one thing that they  
> consider "traditional". I know that Neil Kennedy has been working  
> with them to come to a more unified approach and it appears to be in  
> terms of "scribal tradition traditional".
>> This lack of coordination between the groups also lead to a  
>> position of strength of the KK group in the AHG.
> The fact that there were four KK reps and two AT reps and two CaT  
> reps was more crucial, I think,.
>> 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.
> For my part I was ensconced down the road in a hotel and debriefed  
> Andrew each evening after the AGH meetings. I had a meeting with  
> Albert and both AT members in that hotel. I offered to give a short  
> presentation to the AHG on what KS1 was and how it worked, but was  
> forbidden to do so.
>> 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.
> We produced the first textbooks in the SWF. We produced second  
> editions of those which were necessary because one chapter of  
> curriculum was missing and because of the "mistakes" in spelling  
> which were made because of the "etymological" spellings inherited  
> from KK which make no sense and have no relation to spelling on foot  
> of knowing the language.
>> 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.
> The SWF isn't suitable for use. It confuses the bÿs/bës words with  
> the bys/res words, it shifts ambiguity from u/ü to u/o, it is  
> incoherent in the treatment of final unstressed syllables, and  
> hamstrung by its etymological distribution of i/y.
> The SWF/K and SWF/T disparity is a problem, but it's not the biggest  
> problem. That's the political problem. But if you look at the texts  
> produced for and by Revivalists since 2009, the bulk of it uses  
> traditional graphs. I think that politically the lack of parity  
> between /K and /T graphs should be one thing tackled during the SWF  
> review. But even if the political parity can't be resolved, it still  
> remains that the SWF/T contains graphs (like -i in monosyllables)  
> which are not in a meaningful sense traditional. There's no reason  
> to think that "whi" is better than "why". It's not. But the spelling  
> "whi" was pushed by people who wanted to be able to convert /K and / 
> T texts automatically.
> That's not a key requirement for users of Traditional graphs.
> Even if KS were written with SWF/K graphs the result would be better  
> than the SWF is now.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list