[Spellyans] An SWF glossary
craig at agantavas.org
Mon Jun 7 08:09:13 BST 2010
We know all that, Michael - you're preaching to the converted.
Nonetheless, what I'm afraid of is that you're not seeing the big
picture. It doesn't matter what I want to see published in SWF/T.
The fact is that, however flawed it is, we have to keep its profile up
in order for KS to inform its revision in 3 years time. If we don't
then we - and KS - are out of the game. I fully understand why you
don't want to publish in SWF/T: you need to understand why we must.
You're proud of KS. You have every right to be. But beware of
complacency. Pride comes before a fall and, in order to avoid that
fall, one needs to be prepared to swallow some of that pride - at
least temporarily - and do things you don't wish to do. We need to
promote SWF/T to pave the way for KS.
On 7 Efn 2010, at 07:58, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2010, at 05:42, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>> 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.
> That's when hooligans took over your major publishing house and
> imposed a bogus form of Cornish on the Revival. I've heard the story
> many times.
>> 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.
> You want me to publish "Alice in Wonderland" not as a book to be
> read, but in a mistaken orthography with footnotes and appendices
> explaining why "the orthography used in this book is substandard"?
> Why? Is this going to help learners improve their Cornish?
> KS engages with the SWF and puts right what is wrong with it. There
> maybe other ways to put right what is wrong with it, but KS is the
> way we do it. We plan to publish a formal review of the SWF in
> advance of 2013. But the SWF, whether /K or /T, is not fit for use
> by anyone but the Partnership.
> Its use of unattested "iw" in some words because Ken George admires
> Breton and Welsh is indefensible. Its use of "-in" in unstressed
> syllables deriving from Latin but "-yn" in unstressed syllables in
> Celtic words has already been footnoted in Skeul an Tavas. Learners
> are still expected to learn this distinction -- to what good? Does
> it help pronunciation? No. Is it easy to remember? Sure, if you know
> your Latin etymologies. Its substitution of "o" for "u" to represent
> shot [ʊ] is surely going to cause mispronunciations, as is its use
> of "-v" and "-dh" in final unstressed syllables.
> No one can pretend that KS isn't a response to the SWF. I've given
> up UCR. I'm not pushing for its reinstatement. I'm publishing new
> material, and lots of it, in an orthography based on the SWF. This
> is a lot different from the Kesva's publishing of George's newest
> foray into lexicography.
>> 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.
> We wished to "tread lightly". Re-spelling bys/bes words as beis is a
> major change from the SWF. Marking the words with diacritics bÿs/
> bës is less obtrusive and does not change the basic word-shapes.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans