everson at evertype.com
Wed Nov 14 11:20:14 GMT 2012
On 14 Nov 2012, at 10:04, Hedley Climo <eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2012 Du 14, at 00:02, christian.semmens at gmail.com wrote:
>> However, the situation we have to deal with is not the establishment of UC/R as the future Cornish orthography, but preventing the SWF-K from becoming the future of Cornish. We have subdued KK phonology, but the SWF retains its aesthetic. UC is not part of this battle, it is already a casualty.
> As I've already said repeatedly on this forum, it is a mistake to dismiss UC/r in such a facile manner.
I don't think people dismiss UC and UCR "in a facile manner". Investigation and experience with them show them to have flaws, and because we love Cornish we have worked to improve the orthography with which we write.
> It is not, as Christian puts it, 'damaged' nor a 'museum piece'.
Do you think there is a road back to UC? That the authorities will drop the SWF, and everything we have learned about Cornish that informs KS, or that informed UCR previously?
UC writes ‹map› which people say as [mæp], though the recommended pronunciation is now [mæːb]. It writes ‹scul› which is [skyːl]~[skiːl], though the word is [skøːl]~[skeːl] (UCR ‹scuel›, KS/SWF ‹skeul›). I can't think of those things as anything but unfortunate choices, whether by error or by design.
Fathers and mothers want their children to learn from them and to do better. Isn't it right for us to believe that what Jenner and Nance and Smyth would have wanted for us to do is to make Cornish orthography better?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans