[Spellyans] An SWF glossary
nige.martin at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 13:20:41 BST 2010
"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"
Yes please Craig, please email me a copy at: nige.martin at gmail.com
On 7 June 2010 05:30, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> 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?)
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
> Craig Weatherhill
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans