[Spellyans] SWF Review
everson at evertype.com
Wed Oct 9 13:55:56 BST 2013
On 8 Oct 2013, at 19:09, Lowe Jenefer <jlowe at cornwall.gov.uk> wrote:
> 2) the two Excel documents are the only documents that have been distributed to anyone outside the Review Board itself.
Would you please distribute the actual packet of submissions, suitably anonymized, so that linguistic experts in Cornish may evaluate it and draw up informative reports on the actual issues for the benefit of the Review Board? You have asked linguistic experts to comment on the material "digested" in the Excel documents. Unfortunately that is simply too vague for linguistic experts to do meaningful work on. This is why I have been requesting the full packet, suitably anonymized, since April of this year.
I'll repeat something I said earlier. I know it may seem aggressive, but that stems from the frustration of someone deeply concerned with the future of the Cornish Revival, who has been shut out of meaningful engagement for a very long time indeed.
Why has the full packet not been distributed? 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.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans