[Spellyans] SWF Review

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 16:02:41 IST 2012


Dear Jenefer,

I would also like to echo the concerns raised by Craig and Michael,
and sadly I do not feel reassured by what you say about the make-up of
the committee

I would just like to speculate a little (as is my wont).

In future, if the SWF does not provide complete parity between the KK
and traditional forms then there is no value in using the SWF if you
use the traditional graphs. In fact I would go further and say that it
would be thoroughly detrimental to traditional Cornish resulting in,
at best, a slow death sentence for the traditional forms. That would
leave the traditional groups only two options, stay and die or walk
away from the SWF and fight their corners again.

If the traditional groups are forced to walk away then, after all the
expense and effort, nothing will have been gained, except for two more
orthographies to add to the existing surfeit. There will then be
potentially five competing orthographies in a new war. KK, SWF, UC/R,
KS and Modern. Something to make the KK majority on the review
committee smile, as it allows them to divide and conquer,
rehabilitating KK as potentially the largest single faction albeit
with losses to the new SWF.

They would, by rendering the SWF useless as a vehicle for traditional
Cornish, be able to paint the traditional groups as being the villains
of the piece, blaming them for the collapse of the SWF process.
Something they would be able to engineer with their built in
majorities on the AHG and Review boards.

I feel distinctly gloomy at this stage of the proceedings and the
structure of the committee gives me little confidence that what I have
written above is very far from what we will see after the review is
completed.

I hope I am wrong.
Christian




More information about the Spellyans mailing list