[Spellyans] SWF principles

[Michael Everson]

At 18:28 -0600 2008-06-26, Terry Corbett wrote:
>Craig, I think that is a very good definition. 
>Does anyone know what is meant by "Traditional 
>Cornish" as used in the SWF principles?

They don't capitalize "Traditional Cornish" as we 
do. What I mean by that is the written record we 
have. Now, we use that written record to inform 
Revived Cornish. As we learn more about it, we 
modify our recommendations. Nance didn't 
recognize the phoneme /ø/; UCR put that right, 
and KK also implemented it.

(As far as I know one of the ways we know that 
/y/ and /ø/ which were distinct is that the 
former falls togethere with /i/ and the latter 
with /e/ in RLC. Does this not imply that <puns> 
'pound' ought to be <peuns> because in RLC is it 
<penz>?)

>I don't understand what they mean by "pronunciation of traditional Cornish."

All we *know* about that is what Lhuyd gives us. 
The transcriptions in the SWF specification 
suggest that the authors are supporting George's 
reconstructions. Is this lip-service? I don't 
know. In our orthography (KS) we cannot support 
fictions.

>Where in the continuum of Cornish does this 
>begin? I can't imagine that anyone would propose 
>that it includes Old Cornish.

Everybody agrees that Old Cornish is a different 
language. One of the troubling things in the SWF 
specification is its undefined use of the word 
"etymological".

>How is this pronunciation to be determined? KK 
>advocates will insist that KK pronunciation is 
>"traditional" even if the spelling is not.

KK recommended pronunciation is not used by the 
majority of KK writers, including Ken George.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com