[Spellyans] SWF Review

[Michael Everson]

On 18 Sep 2012, at 17:21, Lowe Jenefer wrote:

> I have no doubt that everyone, given a free choice, would be inclined to take the SWF nearer to the orthographic form they have mainly used and prefer, but it does not follow that that will cloud their judgement or render them incapable of seeing things from other points of view.

I think I can speak for most people on the Spellyans list in saying that our concern is that there is an orthography which accurately represents the phonology of Revived Cornish. 

One of the biggest problems with the SWF is that it tries to support two diametrically-opposed phonologies, one of which isn't actually in use. The KS project has **not** been an attempt to "take the SWF nearer" to UC or UCR or RLC (the orthographic form that we have mainly used and preferred), but rather to plug the leaks in the SWF (1) insofar as it does not represent the phonology of the Revived Language and (2) insofar as it offers "Trad graph" forms which are not actually Trad. 

> What backgrounds people are from does not necessarily affect their ability to be fair and weigh evidence and support appropriately and it is vastly unfair to pre-judge and categorise in this way.

The lack of linguistic training in all but two of the members of the Review Board is a concern for some people (who have mentioned it to me). 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/