[Spellyans] SWF Review
janicelobb at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 18:48:25 IST 2013
Funding! That would be a fine thing. The Cussel is still waiting to be paid
last year's (promised) money. It seems we haven't achieved the required
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Christian Semmens <
christian.semmens at gmail.com> 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
> To be honest, I think that is worse than the old war, at least then the
> playing field was level.
> 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".
>> 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>
>> >> 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
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans