[Spellyans] SWF Review

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Thu Sep 20 01:45:54 IST 2012



On 19/09/12 21:16, Owen Cook wrote:
> There is a reason the SWF had to rechristen itself "Standard Written
> Form" rather than "Single Written Form", which is that it never was a
> single form. That, to my mind, was the greatest failing of Treyarnon.
> There should never have been the main/traditional distinction to start
> with.


We should have had a Main form and a Late form (both using traditional 
graphs.)
If we wish to include both Middle and Late Cornish, we must have two 
versions -- so no single form is possible but the variants can be 
written into a single standard. The name "Standard Written Form" is OK, 
except that KS uses the word Standard.


Regards,

Andrew J. Trim




More information about the Spellyans mailing list