[Spellyans] SWF Review
everson at evertype.com
Tue Oct 8 16:20:33 IST 2013
On 8 Oct 2013, at 14:26, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
> 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.
Albert is the editor of the specification, not a member of the Review Board. (If he is counted amongst the members of the Review Board, it is ex officio, which doesn't count.)
> 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! ;-)
Incorrect Cornish isn't.
> 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.
I don't get a sense that anyone in MAGA has looked at KS in any way seriously. Or understands that KS is itself a revision of the SWF. If they had, they would be in dialogue with us.
> 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?
I have asked for it nicely. I asked for it in April 2013.
(And I don't believe for a minute that members of the Kesva haven't seen it, whether they asked for it or not.)
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans