[Spellyans] SWF principles

[Craig Weatherhill]

I would say that it can be defined as Cornish used by native 
speakers/writers and before revivalists started buggering around with it.

Craig


Terry Corbett wrote:
> What is the definition of "Traditional Cornish"?
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com 
> <mailto:everson at evertype.com>> wrote:
>
>     At 13:29 -0600 2008-06-26, Terry wrote:
>     >Are the 5 principles of the SWF set in stone or are they open for
>     >discussion when the 5 year review occurs?
>
>     As far as I am concerned they are open for discussion now.
>
>     >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.
>
>     I don't have any problem with these.
>
>     >4. *Authenticity *- The SWF should use spellings that reflect
>     >established traditions of Cornish orthography.
>
>     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.
>
>     >5. *Continuity *- Where practical, the SWF should produce the
>     smallest
>     >possible number of changes for the largest possible number of
>     speakers.
>
>     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.
>     --
>     Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Spellyans mailing list
>     Spellyans at kernowek.net <mailto: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
>