[Spellyans] SWF Y (was Re: Falmouth)
philip.newton at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 11:37:18 IST 2014
On 30 April 2014 10:21, Jon Mills <j.mills at email.com> wrote:
> I agree that the SWF needs to be stable. However if the SWF has shortcomings
> it will be criticised. The SWF must then be corrected in the light of these
> criticisms or it will continue to be criticised. Thus the SWF can only
> achieve stability by being academically sound.
That presumes that the criticism will only come from academics.
I fear that there is no possible spelling system that will please
everybody and will prevent all criticism. Different people have
different things they look for in a spelling, and being academically
sound is just one criterion people will bring to the table.
So rather than chasing after an unattainable goal, let us take what we
have been served and – to paraphrase Jan – go forth and use it now
that it is stable!
And, by all means, criticise it _while_ you do so.
> Excluding academics, for political reasons, from the process of
> creating the SWF is counterproductive.
I am not sure of that. I suspect that we differ in our opinion of what
the SWF process was intended to produce.
More information about the Spellyans