[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Aug 6 09:17:14 BST 2012

On 5 Aug 2012, at 22:38, Nicky Rowe wrote:

> Maga are working under the idea that it was agreed at Treyarnon that trad forms would not be a separate orthography, just personal forms that can be used by individuals - which is why the dictionary does not have trad forms.

That isn't a reason why. 

> It is the differing interpretations of the agreement that is causing the problems - Jenefer has said the lack of clarity was useful in 2008 but has caused problems since. 

Jenefer should have no "problem" here. She should instruct Albert to produce a dictionary in SWF/T as well as SWF/K. 

> If that is what was agreed then you can't really work against it.

They produced a glossary in SWF/T. 

> But if you have a different interpretation of the agreement then you need to tell them. They are not "working against" traditional forms, they are just working to what was agreed (or what they think was agreed).

I believe the correct word here is "bollocks". 

On 6 Aug 2012, at 09:00, Ray Chubb wrote:

> Nicky, I think you are missing the point.
> We all know what the agreement was but the Maga web site is trying to pretend that traditional/native Cornish does not exist.  Surely no public body should be ignoring maybe up to 57% of the people that it represents and the heritage on which the revival was based?

I'd really like to know what is "wrong" with the traditional graphs. Cat/kitten/queen is easy enough. Certainly easier than KK's dysfunctional "etymological vowels" in unstressed syllables. 

> Maga is, in fact, working against traditional forms by ignoring them, this is an unacceptable situation.  You say that the traditional/native graphs are just personal forms that can be used by individuals but is every individual confident about where to apply them?

Perhaps when the Review is open people will make their views on this known. 

> If the Partnership do not wish to place a SWF (t) dictionary on the web site, although I think they should, they should at least give visitors to the site the opportunity to see what other forms of Cornish look like including manuscript spelling.  Potential learners could then make an informed choice.

If the Partnership do not wish to place an SWF/T dictionary on their website, then the source documents could be made available to another publisher who could make the changes and publish the dictionary. 

> Agan Tavas have allowed traditional/native Cornish orthography to be removed from public awareness by the Partnership, so far without a murmur. We have done this for the sake of giving the SWF a fair crack of the whip. I think it is time that we started making a few demands for our silence.

For my part I am happy to have seen Agan Tavas' support of Desky Kernowek. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Spellyans mailing list