[Spellyans] A 'Censored Message'? Can this be?

Craig Weatherhill 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  
>> fractured.
>> Carrek
>> 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
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Craig Weatherhill

More information about the Spellyans mailing list