[Spellyans] An SWF glossary

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Mon Jun 7 04:42:17 BST 2010

I should add, Michael, that the sidelining of SWF/T is not simply  
confined to a 60-page glossary.  It's happening all over the place.   
And merely saying that: "I'm not afraid of them" isn't going to  
improve the situation, or spike their guns.  If you're not afraid of  
them, then you should be.  Remember 1987.

Yes, SWF/T is flawed in the ways that you've detailed.  Only by  
publishing in it can we show this - detailing the flaws in footnotes  
and appendices.

By the way, I don't really follow the argument that SWF caused KS to  
abandon 'beis' - what the SWF decided upon was a problem that 'beis'  
surely solves.


On 7 Efn 2010, at 04:30, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> I warned about the deliberate sidelining of SWF/T months ago.  I  
> also warned that, if we did not start to produce in SWF/T - whatever  
> its shortcomings - then we would only be helping this process and  
> pave the way for the return of KK in 2013.  Have we learned nothing  
> from 1987?
> I repeat that warning right now.  If we don't publish in SWF/T  
> during this next 3 years, then KS will not even get the opportunity  
> for a look-in in 2013.  It has to be remembered that, despite the  
> Commissioners' recommendations, KS is not part of the SWF process.   
> It was sidelined by stealth.  I understand that Michael does not  
> want to publish in a flawed orthography (he has produced Skeul an  
> Tavas in SWF/T, and also my dictionary of place-names which is  
> compatible with both KS and SWF/T) but, if we don't raise the  
> visible profile of SWF/T, and raise it considerably, then we're  
> cutting our own throats.  Pride and preference shouldn't enter into  
> it.  We all need to see the bigger picture and understand what is  
> going on.  We really do need to be publishing SWF/T and KS in at  
> least equal amounts.  It's only for 3 years, for Heaven's sake.
> If we don't publish in SWF/T, then we, too, will be guilty of  
> sidelining the /T form within the recognised process, and helping  
> those who are gearing up to engineer the return of KK.  If that  
> happens, then we can hardly complain because we will have  
> contributed to it by failing to support the /T form.  We have to  
> open our eyes to what is happening!
> To put it very simply - the sidelining of SWF/T is deliberate.  It's  
> to ensure that, in 2013, the argument will be: no-one uses it; no  
> one publishes in it, so it can be discarded.  There isn't an active / 
> T form to be corrected (and KS gets pushed out right there). This  
> leaves only the /M form, which is flawed, and we have the perfect  
> solution.  It's called KK.  If we get to that stage, anyone who  
> thinks that KS will get the slightest look-in is deluding himself.
> Now - am I going to be listened to this time?  This is one issue  
> where I never want to have to say: "I told you so".  Wake up and  
> smell the manure!
> I have produced an SWF/T glossary - Eng-Cornish and reversed as  
> well, which I can e-mail to anyone who wants a copy.  Not huge -  
> about 2,000 headwords.
> (By the way, I'm supposedly a member of the Corpus Group.  How come  
> I'm not being sent details of proceedings?)
> Craig
> On 6 Efn 2010, at 22:40, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:11, Eddie Climo wrote:
>>>> I don't follow this logic. I publish with Traditional  
>>>> orthographic forms. Those are /T forms, whether or not the  
>>>> orthography I publish with differs from the SWF in any other  
>>>> particulars.
>>> I'm sure you don't wish to follow where this logic leads, but KS  
>>> is not the SWF/T. That orthography was the focus of my posting,  
>>> not KS.
>> The point is not whether it is UC/T or UCR/T or KS/T or SWF/T. The  
>> point is that all of those share the Traditionalist aesthetic. It  
>> is admiration for the Traditionalist aesthetic that was part of the  
>> twenty-year opposition to KK. (The other part was based on  
>> criticism of KK's mistaken phonology and other "improvements".)
>> The Traditionalist aesthetic is independent of the SWF. The /K  
>> aesthetic is likewise not confined to KK.
>> The SWF contains within it both aesthetics because both were  
>> recognized as important to segments of the community.
>> My criticism of the SWF/K-only glossary is not dependent on whether  
>> I have published literature in SWF/T or not. My criticism is as a  
>> member of the community of people who prefer the Traditionalist  
>> aesthetic. As a Traditionalist member of the Corpus Group, I have  
>> made my dissatisfaction with the present editorial practice clear.
>>>> I don't publish in the SWF because as someone who admires and  
>>>> respects the Cornish language, I choose not to use particular  
>>>> spellings which are considered incorrect, linguistically.
>>> As I said, if you decline to publish in the SWF/T, you can hardly  
>>> complain if the SWF/KK sweeps the board.
>> I decline to publish in a form of Cornish which will perpetuate  
>> errors.
>> I decline to publish in Unified Cornish, because I believe its  
>> inability to distinguish /ø/ and /y/, and its general use of  
>> voiceless consonants after long vowels in monosyllables, to be  
>> errors which ought not to be perpetuated.
>> I decline to publish in the SWF because it I believe its inability  
>> to distinguish long and short /u/ and /y/, its use of final voiced  
>> consonants in unstressed syllables, its inconsistent treatment of  
>> "i" and "y" and "e" in general, its incoherent use of -mm- and -nn-  
>> where they do not pre-occlude, and a number of other features, to  
>> be errors which ought not to be perpetuated.
>> I guess you are arguing that I should publish literature in a form  
>> of Cornish that I don't believe is accurate. I don't believe I  
>> ought to.
>>>> Furthermore, as you know, I worked with Agan Tavas to produce an  
>>>> SWF/T and SWF/K form of Skeul an Tavas.
>>> As the saying has it, one swallow does not a summer make. An  
>>> elementary course book is very laudable, but what else have you  
>>> done for the SWF/T since then? Do you have anything else planned  
>>> for publication in the SWF/T? If not, you can hardly complain if  
>>> SWF/K sweeps the board, can you?
>> Sweeps the board? I am talking about one sixty-page glossary  
>> published by the Partnership, which is itself prejudicial against  
>> the Traditionalist aesthetic.
>>> It's all very well holding your breath until 2013 in the  
>>> optimistic expectation that KS will take over as the SWF Mark II,  
>>> doubtless through sheer force of linguistical excellence.
>> No one is holding his breath.
>>> But, unless someone starts publishing numerous, good-quality books  
>>> in the SWF/T, the SWF/KK would have a clear shot at dominating  
>>> this space. Through lack of competition, their publications —few  
>>> in number, and poor in quality though they might be— would be  
>>> dominant.
>> I won't publish anything with known errors in it -- particularly  
>> not errors which were cynically devised for force Traditionalists  
>> to use non-traditional forms. Cornish deserves better than that.
>>> We cannot let them win by default!
>> I am not afraid of them.
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> --
> Craig Weatherhill
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Craig Weatherhill

More information about the Spellyans mailing list