[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
christian.semmens at gmail.com
Mon May 21 11:01:43 IST 2012
I'm with you on that, John.
It is the "Official" use that gives a spurious air of legitimacy to
the novel graphs over and above that of the traditional graphs. Unless
this positive discrimination is removed entirely then the SWF/T is
As John points out, individuals will use whatever they like. The
"Official" form is broken KK, so what is the point of SWF/T?
A form that suffers from its association with SWF/K, is unpopular
compared to other traditional orthographies amongst the current user
base, is not "supposed" to be taught to beginners in any future school
environment and will not be used for "Official" purposes which pretty
much includes all public usage. It looks as if it is, if not exactly
stillborn, then it is the very weak sibling kept in the cold and dark
and left to die.
Once again, I say the job is not for the traditional graphs to explain
their existence, they have always been the with the language. It is
the Kemmyn forms that need justifying. They have been in use for a few
fleeting years by part of the revival and they exist to illustrate a
phonology that the SWF doesn't even use.
On 21 May 2012 10:34, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 21 May 2012, at 09:51, Jon Mills wrote:
>> I agree with Nicky. If SWF/K is used for all official purposes, then SWF/T is of little use. Within this scheme, a SWF/T as "individual choice" is irrelevant since individuals can always choose to spell an way that suits them, be that KS, UC, UCR, their own personal orthography, etc.. And since SWF/T is, as Michael points out, so full of shortcomings, it is unlikely that many would adopt SWF/T as their individual choice.
> The SWF/K has the same shortcomings.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans