[Spellyans] SWF Review

Linus Band linusband at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 16:02:19 IST 2013


Hmm, very true. Is the identity of the board members also classified?


2013/10/4 Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>

> Linus,
>
> I only know rumors, and I think it would be up to the board to publicise
> what they have decided for now…
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Linus Band wrote:
>
> Who is on the review board and what was decided at the last meeting?
>
> Linus
>
>
> 2013/10/4 Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
>
>> It's going there.. fast, judging by what I heard was decided in the last
>> meeting….
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>>
>> It has concerned me from the start that assurances we were given at an
>> Agan Tavas AGM right after Treyarnon, re. the role of the traditional
>> graphs, have not been honoured, nor have the deals struck by Andrew on our
>> behalf at Treyarnon been honoured.
>>
>> Nothing that MAGA produces features them, and it's needlessly alienating
>> a significant proportion of Cornish users.
>> With historic place-names, I'm keeping a running list of decisions in
>> both SWF/M and SWF/T because MAGA is not doing so for the latter.  I'm now
>> the only Trad. user associated with the Panel.
>> Surely it can't be that hard for MAGA.  After all, there are only 5
>> orthographical differences between M and T, and one of those (X-KS) is
>> pretty rare.
>>
>> I still remain concerned that Review Board members are lacking in the
>> skills needed for the job.  They're well-meaning enthusiasts, but there it
>> ends.  There are no linguists or anyone who can put forward sound
>> linguistic arguments, or be informed enough to give linguistic judgements.
>> I haven't a clue how the Board was chosen or what criteria was applied.
>>
>> I've been battling on, hoping for the best, but is the Partnership giving
>> of its best?  To all users of Cornish?  There, I'm afraid, my faith is
>> fading.  I hope to hell we don't end up back in the bad old days, but I
>> fear it's heading that way.  I'd hate to think that divisiveness is the
>> intention, but it's likely to be the effect unless some serious thought
>> gets applied.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013 Hed 4, at 13:42, Christian Semmens wrote:
>>
>> I would put money on exactly that outcome.
>>
>> I suspect that if the Cussel and Agan Tavas "recognise" the SWF, and by
>> that I mean if they do not explicitly reject using it, then that will
>> effectively be the end of traditional graphs in mainstream Cornish in the
>> long term. Any acceptance of the SWF will automatically require the primacy
>> of KK spelling. I do not have faith in academic acceptance or lack thereof
>> being the determining factor of the future form. De facto usage will do
>> that and that is based upon the availability of learning materials and
>> teachers. The depreciation of the traditional forms will ensure that trad
>> graphs are not part of that funded effort. The deck will be stacked against
>> us.
>>
>>  To be honest, I think that is worse than the old war, at least then the
>> playing field was level.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 October 2013 11:39, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>wrote:
>>
>>> They haven't even corrected the speling mistakes and typos in the
>>> document… v. sad. The Review is looking worse and worse. I fear we'll be
>>> getting some kind of "broken KK".
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>> >> The Excel file is a slightly expanded and clarified version of the
>>> "Collated issues for SWF review" document that I have seen before; it
>>> provides a little bit more information about the occasionally extremely
>>> brief headers ("varying vowel & consonant values" -- what, precisely, is
>>> the problem of the submitter? etc.) in that document, and also contains
>>> suggested resolutions for each point.
>>> >
>>> > It is completely inadequate. I have asked Jenefer Lowe directly and on
>>> the MAGA Corpus list, to provide the complete text of the issues as
>>> reported by those who sent in their concerns.
>>> >
>>> > I know as much about Cornish phonology and orthography as anyone. I
>>> was asked to comment on the brief draft of the "Collated issues for SWF
>>> review" and I refused to do so, because it would be a waste of time, since
>>> every bit of it is context-free and it would be guesswork. I asked for the
>>> full text of the submissions, suitably anonymized, so that I could prepare
>>> a report on it which would be accurate and give good advice. With complete
>>> data, I could say why x was a good idea, why y was a bad idea, why
>>> implementing z would have a knock-on effect that would imply other changes,
>>> and so on. WIth complete data, I would be able to give concrete
>>> recommendations to the SWF Review board, which they could accept or reject.
>>> >
>>> > But instead we have been given "a slightly expanded and clarified
>>> version". This is NO BETTER than the original. It still obliges a
>>> linguistic expert to GUESS at the thinking behind the submissions. That is
>>> a waste of time.
>>> >
>>> > I still do not understand why MAGA is treating the issues as some sort
>>> of State secret. Frankly I don't believe that the list has only been seen
>>> by the members of the Review Board. It is very difficult to believe that
>>> the list has not been (privately) circulated to the members of the Kesva,
>>> who are able to advise their representatives on the Review Board. On our
>>> side of the table, however, we have played by the rules, and we have not
>>> seen the document. We have asked for the document, and we have been refused.
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Spellyans mailing list
>>> > Spellyans at kernowek.net
>>> > http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spellyans mailing list
>>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20131004/f9ab333c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list