[Spellyans] Language tags for Cornish orthographies

ajtrim at msn.com ajtrim at msn.com
Mon Sep 29 17:21:08 BST 2008

Thanks for the clarification.

The difference between SWF (either form) Middle Cornish Variant and SWF 
(either form) Late Cornish Variant is greater than between SWF Main form 
(either variant) and SWF Traditional form (either variant.)  I suppose that 
what subtags you need will depend on your reason for subtagging.

There does not appear to be anything in the SWF specification to prevent 
anyone using a mixture of forms and variants according to whim. They 
apparently won't be marked as incorrect. People will learn some words from 
one book and some words from another, and a strange mixture could be the 

The downside is that this would mess up any attempt at tagging.
The upside is that the current divisions amongst Cornish Revivalists will 
become blurred with time, and a single standard form might one day emerge.


Andrew J. Trim

From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:16 PM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Language tags for Cornish orthographies

> On 29 Sep 2008, at 13:26, <ajtrim at msn.com> <ajtrim at msn.com> wrote:
>> What is the impact of this? What do we gain by having a tag and  subtag? 
>> What does it do? Who needs to agree to it? How would people  know?
>> It is difficult to comment on this until we understand the  consequences.
> It means you can tag text not only as Cornish, but as one or another 
> orthography of Cornish. You can do this now
>> I assume that <kw> is short for "kernuak" in it's various spellings.
> No; "kw" is the ISO 639-1 two-letter code for Cornish. "cor" is the  ISO 
> 639-2 three-letter code for Cornish,
>> If so, the subtags should also be in Cornish (and in their own 
>> orthography.)
> Erm, no, that's not how it works. These are arbitrary strings intended  to 
> have some mnemonic value.
>> That would rule out the proposed subtags that start with "cor" and  also 
>> exclude those containing "SWF".
> Having thought about it, I believe the appropriate subtags are:
> coruc UC
> corur UCR
> corkk KK
> corks KS
> corsm SWF/M
> corst SWF/T
>> Should each language group propose their own tag?
> No. This isn't that kind of endeavour. This isn't about personal  identity 
> or preference; it's just technical. Neutrality and simplicity  is probably 
> a good idea. (Note that I did not propose "Kennywek" for KK.
>> Should it be coordinated by a central authority?
> What, the application process? There is no need for that. Anyone with  a 
> need to tag text can apply for a subtag. (I have a need to tag text.)
>> There will probably be further orthogaphies proposed at various  future 
>> times. Their "owners" may want to have their own subtag too!
> The internet protocol is big enough to handle future expansion.
>> Is KD still current or has it faded away?
> I believe it has faded away. No one, so far as I know, is planning to  use 
> it as a practical orthography.
>> Do we need another subtag to indicate original traditional spelling  from 
>> the historical texts? What about Lhuyd's spelling?
> There would not be a convenient way of indicating traditional  spelling. 
> This really is for Revived Cornish; tagged text might be  able to make use 
> of spell-checkers, or to identify text for automatic  transduction from 
> one orthography to another.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list