[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
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
More information about the Spellyans