[Spellyans] An SWF glossary

janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk
Mon Jun 7 07:15:17 BST 2010

Craig wheg

I'll say yes please to your glossary
but please send it to janicelobb at gmail.com
(my tiscali can't handle files!)

Oll an gwella

>----Original Message----
>From: craig at agantavas.org
>Date: 07/06/2010 4:30 
>To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"<spellyans at kernowek.net>
>Subj: Re: [Spellyans] An SWF glossary
>I warned about the deliberate sidelining of SWF/T months ago.  I 
>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 
>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 
>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.  
>was sidelined by stealth.  I understand that Michael does not want 
>publish in a flawed orthography (he has produced Skeul an Tavas in 
>T, and also my dictionary of place-names which is compatible with 
>KS and SWF/T) but, if we don't raise the visible profile of SWF/T, 
>raise it considerably, then we're cutting our own throats.  Pride 
>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 
>to it by failing to support the /T form.  We have to open our eyes 
>what is happening!
>To put it very simply - the sidelining of SWF/T is deliberate.  
>to ensure that, in 2013, the argument will be: no-one uses it; no 
>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 
>only the /M form, which is flawed, and we have the perfect 
>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 
>I never want to have to say: "I told you so".  Wake up and smell 
>I have produced an SWF/T glossary - Eng-Cornish and reversed as 
>which I can e-mail to anyone who wants a copy.  Not huge - about 
>(By the way, I'm supposedly a member of the Corpus Group.  How come  
>I'm not being sent details of proceedings?)
>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 
>>>> 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 
>>> not the SWF/T. That orthography was the focus of my posting, not 
>> The point is not whether it is UC/T or UCR/T or KS/T or SWF/T. 
>> point is that all of those share the Traditionalist aesthetic. It 
>> admiration for the Traditionalist aesthetic that was part of the  
>> twenty-year opposition to KK. (The other part was based on 
>> 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 
>> 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 
>>> 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 
>> to distinguish long and short /u/ and /y/, its use of final 
>> consonants in unstressed syllables, its inconsistent treatment of  
>> "i" and "y" and "e" in general, its incoherent use of -mm- and -
>> where they do not pre-occlude, and a number of other features, to 
>> errors which ought not to be perpetuated.
>> I guess you are arguing that I should publish literature in a 
>> of Cornish that I don't believe is accurate. I don't believe I 
>> to.
>>>> Furthermore, as you know, I worked with Agan Tavas to produce 
>>>> 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 
>>> 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 
>>> in the SWF/T, the SWF/KK would have a clear shot at dominating 
>>> space. Through lack of competition, their publications —few in  
>>> number, and poor in quality though they might be— would be 
>> I won't publish anything with known errors in it -- particularly 
>> errors which were cynically devised for force Traditionalists to 
>> 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

More information about the Spellyans mailing list