[Spellyans] SWF Review

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Fri Oct 4 22:06:36 IST 2013


You might stand a better chace if you start using KK-style spelling, I
fear.

I hate to sound like a prophet of doom, but I strongly suspect that we have
to do something radical or its time to go home and leave KK and the Kesva
to run the future of Cornish. There is no room for traditional graphs in
mainstream SWF usage.

Christian


On 4 October 2013 18:48, Janice Lobb <janicelobb at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 goals.
> Jan
>
>
> 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
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20131004/6eecf5e3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list