[Spellyans] SWF Review
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue Oct 8 14:26:42 BST 2013
I just wish to state here, as I have written to you, Michael, in personal correspondence, that Albert is a real linguist and that I find it unacceptable to call him otherwise.
Also, responding to Jon's proposal, I said he was the voice of reason, I meant his statement of consensual reviewing and support of the SWF, not however his proposal to remove and deface SWF signage. Ugly Cornish is better than no Cornish! ;-)
I would very much like to see this list return to the discussion of linguistic issues and not be used as a "venting ground" for our frustrations with the Process or the Review. I do believe most of us have had experiences where we were or our work was unduly dismissed by MAGA, but it has been brought to my attention that many remarks here are viewed by non-posting readers as inflammatory and less than constructive, even damaging to the Revival as a whole. While I have great sympathy for acts of civil disobedience in fighting for minority rights and I wouldn't want to suggest muzzling criticism, I think we have to find a way to be a little more constructive and less dismissive of other people's efforts even if there is disagreement as to how and what - after all we do have differing opinions here, too. I'm sure many at MAGA are doing the best they can to accommodate all positions which must be exceedingly difficult, and I specifically mean Jenefer Lowe here.
This is an open forum and I think a return to some etiquette and decorum would be advantageous.
I remain interested in linguistic and orthographic discussions here, and hope we can have more of that, while avoiding inflammatory statements to give the linguistic and orthographic arguments credibility. I'm tired of sound linguistic arguments crepitating on a large scale on account of personal or emotional remarks.
Michael, I understand your frustration with the list of Review issues and months later with the less than adequate excel file. I feel the same way about it. I would rather see a detailed representation of the Review issues and proposals to adjust the SWF accordingly. Maybe if we ask for it nicely?
In any case,
Ehes da dhewgh,
On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2013, at 07:25, Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I recently received the following message (indirectly) from MAGA, concerning the review of the SWF.
> I received it to. It is another example of MAGA's poor management of the SWF review.
> Why is this, Jenefer Lowe? Why the secrecy? What is MAGA afraid of? Is MAGA afraid that real external linguists will give real input to the SWF Review process? I assure you, real external linguists will review the results of the SWF Review process, just as we did five years ago when the first SWF specification was published. MAGA has done a great job keeping real linguists from the table. Without proper advice, the SWF Review board can hardly be expected to produce a satisfactory result.
More information about the Spellyans