[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Nicky Rowe nickyrowe at gmail.com
Sun May 20 12:45:21 IST 2012

> On 20 May 2012 12:11, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> What is the difference between the SWF's traditional forms, and KS's
> traditional forms, and UCR's traditional forms? They are the same
> traditional forms: c, q, wh, -y.

The point is that they don't see KS as a variant of SWF/T. Like Dan said
they see it as a completely separate orthography. You must step into their
shoes and see things from their perspective. To them, a million words were
published in KS, not SWF/T.

My point about the traditional forms not having a purpose was restricted to
the SWF agreement (I should probably have made this clearer). It has been
decided that the main forms will be universally used in public life and
education, and the traditional forms will be allowed as an individual
choice. This gives traditional forms an extremely limited scope for their
use, which given the emotional connection people have to them, causes
problems when trying to accommodate them, since for example it would be odd
if they were used as a beginner form and the K forms were used in advanced
education. Accommodating the K forms as a side form would be much easier
since they could then be given a purpose in a way that traditional forms
can't within the current agreement.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120520/5a03cc86/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list