[Spellyans] Spellyans, KS, and reconstruction
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sun May 20 18:09:16 IST 2012
On May 20, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 20 May 2012, at 13:52, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> On May 16, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Jon Mills wrote:
>>> Michael asks "What is an orthography for?"
>>> The SWF, supported by the taxpayer, should serve the entire Cornish language community. The choice of graphs is hierarchical and as such discriminates against a large proportion of the Cornish language community. As such, it is divisive and is likely to cause resentment and alienate many Cornish speakers and learners. The SWF is, thus, not fit for purpose.
>> I fully agree with you, where the dichotomy of the SWF is concerned. If a consensus form without variants cannot be achieved, the SWF/K v. SWF/T forms need to have equal status in all respects and it will be up to the writer of a given text to decide which form to use.
> What if equal status can't be achieved?
That would be a start.
>> This concerns KS. KS is not considered part of the SWF by MAGA as far as I know. KS is a good orthography for Revived Cornish, no doubt about that, but it is not SWF. KS aspires to a developmental and phonological mean date of about 1550 to 1600.
> Those are not the correct dates. Where did you get them?
Narrowed and extrapolated from Desky Kernowek, which says KS centers on CW (1611) looks back to BM (1504) and forward to NB (1660s). But I can write 1500-1660 if you prefer...
More information about the Spellyans