[Spellyans] A 'Censored Message'? Can this be?
craig at agantavas.org
Mon Jan 31 18:14:55 GMT 2011
It's still on my post list. Maybe he forgot that he posted it as
Truru, not Carrek.
On 31 Gen 2011, at 17:56, Eddie Climo wrote:
> Truru (a pseudonym) claims on C24 that our esteemed Moderator,
> Michael (not a pseudonym), has censored this post of his to
> Spellyans. Can this be true? As far as I know, I received a copy of
> it with the rest of the postings on this list.
> Perhaps Michael would care to comment.
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Truru Truru <ebost.truru at googlemail.com>
>> Date: 2011 Mys Genver 30 18:42:44 GMT+00:00
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française
>> Reply-To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
>> May I wade in?
>> I can't speak for all Cornish speakers, I can only speak for my own
>> experiences. The fact that this discussion is even being had would
>> suggest that there is no consensus on the issue of diacritics.
>> Whenever I see 'bys' used in a context where it clearly means
>> 'until', I say [bɪz], and whenever I see 'bys' used in a context
>> where it clearly means 'world', I say [biːz]. I can't give examples
>> of other bys/bes type words because I haven't looked into it very
>> much. But I'm sure there would be other times where (for me)
>> context would suffice.
>> The point has been made that some KK users pronounce bys and pryv
>> incorrectly. I do not believe this is a problem directly caused by
>> the orthography (although it is true it does not help) but by poor
>> teaching. A learner only has to be told once that until is [bɪz]
>> and world is [biːz]. It is not true that this can only work with
>> oral teaching, I have not been to a single class and have learnt
>> Cornish solely through books and yet I know the difference because
>> the books I've read taught it.
>> Also, the point's been made that in languages like French and
>> Spanish spelling words without the diacritics would be spelling
>> them wrong. This is indeed correct, but I don't believe this
>> argument is relevant to Cornish. Cornish doesn't have one
>> orthography, like those languages, it has many, and so I think it
>> would be impossible to claim that spelling a word without
>> diacritics is wrong when there are so many other orthographies that
>> don't use diacritics. It could be the case that in 100 years time,
>> the idea of spelling Cornish without diacritics is as strange as
>> spelling French without them. However we are not at that point now.
>> Today there are generations of Cornish speakers who are used to
>> spelling without diacritics and it might be rather idealistic to
>> expect them all to suddenly start using them after a directive from
>> above says they should.
>> Nevertheless, in my opinion, all this discussion is (if you forgive
>> the bluntness) kind of pointless anyway. The SWF in 2013 will be a
>> political compromise, there's no denying it. We can ignore that
>> fact for as long we like but it will be a fact nonetheless. We need
>> to be focusing on how to make the SWF better in a way that could be
>> acceptable to a majority of Cornish users. If it's obvious that
>> KS's current range of diacritics will not find favour with that
>> majority then we should not be stubbornly continuing the matter.
>> I've got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that a very
>> limited use of diacritics, for things like anomalous vowel length,
>> might find a majority favour. As for y/e, I don't like the umlaut
>> and don't think it fits in well with the overall 'look' of Cornish.
>> I also don't see it gaining widespread favour. I have always
>> preferred <ei> anyway and would like to see this at least mentioned
>> in 2013 to see if opinion has shifted. If not, then I don't see the
>> y/e distinction going away and we shouldn't spend time trying to
>> fix things that can't be fixed in a manner acceptable to a majority.
>> This discussion is part of a larger choice that needs to be made.
>> Either you can focus on proposing fixes to the SWF, which means
>> finding solutions that will be acceptable to a majority of users,
>> or you can ditch the SWF, tread your own path, and go back to KS1.
>> If the SWF is ditched, would this send us all back to the pre-SWF
>> days? Would traditional forms end up being cut off from the arena
>> that matters most - schools? Would KS end up being sidelined? Or
>> would there be a surge of support for KS1, meaning that it might
>> stand a chance at becoming a future SWF? Who knows. The options
>> need to be weighed up. The current KS it seems, in my opinion, is
>> too far from the SWF to be accepted by a majority, but not close
>> enough to your ideal of a KS1-type orthography. What shouldn't
>> happen, not at all, is that the traditionalist lobby becomes
>> 2011/1/30 Eddie Climo <eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk>
>> On 2011 Gen 30, at 17:14, nicholas williams wrote:
>>> Whatever orthography one uses one's first concern should perhaps
>>> be that the Cornish is accurate.
>>> Certainly we always ensure as far as possible that our published
>>> Cornish is correct.
>>> Eddie himself is not without fault here. Let me cite some examples
>>> at random from Whedhlow Dama Goodh FSS/T-C:
>> Oh, dear, are we now to descend to playground jibes? Am I to
>> emulate your behaviour and scour your published works to hunt for
>> errors to fling in your face, Nicholas? Am I to unearth and repeat
>> some of the incorrect assertions you made to me in private as you
>> proofread my 'Kensa Lyver Redya'?
>> No, I think not; such conduct is not attractive.
>> It is gratifying that we have an emerging consensus on this thread
>> about the role diacritics should have in KS, one that diverges from
>> your views.
>> Nicholas and Michael are, of course, quite free to publish works in
>> whatever orthography they choose, and to encumber them with as many
>> diacritics as they please. In the same way, they're at liberty to
>> lard their Cornish with as many macaronic Tregearisms as they
>> fancy, no matter how 'Kernglish' the result might look.
>> However, they are NOT free to do the same with the formal
>> specification of KS that will be submitted to the CLP in due
>> course. That must reflect the consensus of this group, at least it
>> must do so if it is to have my name and my support behind it.
>> Let us hope that the final KS specification is indeed written in
>> the light of this apparent consensus, and is not 'too much
>> encumbered with [mandatory] diaritical signs'.
>> Eddie Climo
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans