[Spellyans] SWF principles

Craig Weatherhill weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Thu Jun 26 23:00:44 BST 2008

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:
> 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.

More information about the Spellyans mailing list