<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I understand what's "established tradition".<br>
But don't you have some children who've been brought up in Cornish?
That's Cornish, whatever "Cornish" it might be it's Cornish. And those
don't really care what spelling is used, what really means for those is
"speaking". I think you should bear in mind that you want it will be
Cornish spoken in the years to come. Don't you expell this off your
If we have here in Britanny children speaking Breton it's because we
try, as hardly as we can, to propose to them bretonnish occasions to
speak Breton. Some of ours don't mind what spelling would be used
(there's three that's teached, indeed). So, I think, it's high time to
choose a good spelling for the first, and after you would have
opportunity to improve the spelling. That's why there's a forum like
this one, isn't it ?<br>
I'm very concerned with this problem as I bring up my children in
Breton. For me it's not a matter of spelling but rather propose to them
the proper speaking Breton as we may.<br>
You should know, if you want, that for the hardly we work to teach our
pupils (my children also) that they're bathed in world of French (for
us) and English (for you and us also) and it would affect their way to
speak whatever Celtic languages that would be taught them and their way
to speek them years after us.<br>
I care much of the work you're doing but don't forget that what we want
is it will be spoken and written Cornish after us.<br>
Oll an gwelha dhewgh<br>
Skrivet eo bet gant Craig Weatherhill:
<blockquote cite="mid:4864118C.email@example.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Indeed, as you rightly say, it is flagrant "dewgell". KK is not an
"established tradition" by any stretch of the imagination. It is an
artificial construct devised just over 20 years ago. For me,
"established tradition" should refer to Cornish orthography, as written
down by native speakers in the centuries prior to the revival. Although
much of the revival (Nance, Jenner, Williams, Gendall) did retain and
respect much of that tradition, KK did not. It threw it aside because
its devisors believed they knew better than those who were brought up to
speak and write the language (and who were Cornish as well).
Michael Everson wrote:
<pre wrap="">At 13:29 -0600 2008-06-26, Terry wrote:
<pre wrap="">Are the 5 principles of the SWF set in stone or are they open for
discussion when the 5 year review occurs?
<pre wrap="">As far as I am concerned they are open for discussion now.
<pre wrap="">These principles are listed as:
1. *Inclusivity *- Users of all varieties of Revived Cornish should be
able to write as they speak.
2. *Accessibility *- The SWF should be as easy as possible for speakers,
learners, and teachers to learn and use.
3. *Accuracy *- The SWF should reflect the pronunciation of both
traditional and Revived Cornish.
<pre wrap="">I don't have any problem with these.
<pre wrap="">4. *Authenticity *- The SWF should use spellings that reflect
established traditions of Cornish orthography.
<pre wrap="">This is disingenuous. Indeed it is bollocks. Evidently the authors
believe -- or pretend to believe -- or want some people to believe
that they believe -- that KK is an "established tradition", which is
why <kw> and <hw> and <-i> were not simply thrown out as they ought
to have been.
<pre wrap="">5. *Continuity *- Where practical, the SWF should produce the smallest
possible number of changes for the largest possible number of speakers.
<pre wrap="">This "principle" was devised and added by the Arbitrator, and it is
likewise unacceptable, because it is clear that some choices were
made in order to produce few changes for KK users, since KK users
"are the largest number of speakers". The "principle" was not
discussed at either of the first two AHGs and when this appeared in
the first SWF draft, Agan Tavas and its Linguistic Advisors protested
and requested that the text be removed.
The distribution of <i> and <y> is the worst example of this
"principle". No matter how many times Nicholas and I tried to get
discussion of the distribution, we were just ignored. The
distribution of <i> and <y> in the SWF is as it is in KK. That is why
it is incoherent. It's not based on phonetic or phonemic principles.
It's based on George's etymologies. I don't accept that as sufficient.
Spellyans mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Spellyans@kernowek.net">Spellyans@kernowek.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net">http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net</a>