[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Aug 9 14:15:28 BST 2012
On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Lowe Jenefer wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am away working at an event in Brittany at the moment and therefore only infrequently checking email. However, I feel I must just set the record straight. My position and that of MAGA is to work to the agreements made unless and until those change in any way, via the review. I have sent out the attached document, produced by the AHG as part of the agreement and spec, many times, but it continues to be ignored.
Thanks for this. So what you are saying is essentially that the SWF/t forms are no different from any other orthography, be it UC, KK, KS, UCR or the various orthographic forms of RLC as individual writers and publishers can publish in these orthographies anyway.
Since the reason for use of the SWF/t forms is aesthetic, so is the use if the SWF/kk forms. Except of course that the traditional orthography of Cornisg preferred the traditional graphs as well as Revived Cornish which has been in use since 1904. I see no reason to continue with the "main form graphs" as a nod to Ken George which the tradition of native written Cornish and the tradition of Revived Cornish are so overwhelmingly connected to these traditional graphs. The only advantage, and that is a very small one in comparison to the damage Ken George's graphs have caused within the Revival, is to clean up the mutation chart a little. This came at a very high cost, wouldn't you say?
Why revived a traditional language without its traditional spelling (albeit with modernized standardisations)?
We should turn the situation around and use the traditional graphs officially and in place names and have the kk graphs as a teaching method concerning mutation along with the official spelling. I will suggest this for the 13 Review.
END OF RANT...
> It has always also been available on the website along with the spec. It sets out clearly what was agreed on variants and on traditional graphs and it is that agreement to which we adhere. The agreement put traditional graphs in place for those who wish to use them, but was emphatic that this did not create another 'form' - it wasn't a case of use all or nothing of the traditional graphs. I think the paper makes the position at the moment absolutely clear.
Yes, it does. It makes clear that the traditional graphs of the SWF have no more standing than any other Cornish orthography.
This document says the SWF is what it is and you can write whatever you want privately…. I don't agree with this….
> That is why we are not looking at a dictionary with traditional forms but explaining the alternatives available within the one dictionary. The online dictionary will enable searches for traditional graph spellings and should be available, once a couple of technical issues are resolved.
Please, however, this is a delicate topic and I think, also for political reasons it should be treated delicately. To be inclusive and that's what the SWF wants, we should have taken over the graphs of most of the Revived Cornish spelling systems rather than Ken George's radical reform of Revived Cornish - my opinion, but many people feel the same way and cannot stand the sight of the KK-graphs in the dictionary. Hence the alternative would be to include the t-graphs along with the head word, or offer a separate version of the dictionary. No one is asking you to make a duplicate of every written document issued, but I feel reference material is something else.
> We are very happy to accept traditional graphs in use -
> in newsletter articles for example, but it was never the case that they would be used officially and we have to stick to the agreements made.
But in the 13Review the agreement may be changed?
> Michael is right - SWF is not KK, the basis is different and we do need to keep aesthetic and linguistic points apart.
Yes, I'm capable of doing this.
> This is exactly why the agreement at Treyarnon separated out the linguistic variants catered for by the Middle and Late variants from the aesthetic considerations represented by the traditional graphs.
> Trond was very clear on this point and right to be so. That is why he originally termed the traditional graphs 'side forms' - meaning they exist beside and along with the official forms.
Why was there no specific function ever assigned to the tg-forms, such as place names for example which would have been ideally suited. They were exempt from the SWF, but now they suddenly appear in SWF/KK-forms. Why?
> And Michael - once again the initial information on the conference is available in the latest newsletter you have received. Full information will go out as soon as the details of venue are confirmed.
> I may not be online again for a day or two but hope that this will help to explain why we take the stance we do in support of the agreement as made.
> Yn lel,
> Jenefer Lowe
Thanks for your explanations Jenefer.
> Development Manager / Dyghtyer displegya
> Cornish Language Partnership / Keskowethyans an Taves Kernewek
> Cornwall Council / Konsel Kernow
> Dalvenie House / Chi Dalvenie
> County Hall / Lys Kernow
> TR1 3AY
> tel: / pell: 01872 323465
> email / ebost: jlowe at cornwall.gov.uk
> website / gwiasva : www.magakernow.org.uk
> Gwrewgh agan sewya der Twitter!
> Gwrewgh agan kavos der Facebook! Find us on Facebook!
> The Cornish Language Partnership is funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government and Cornwall Council.
> Arhesans Keskowethyans an Taves Kernewek yw provies gans an Asran rag Kemenethow ha Governans Leel, ha Konsel Kernow
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Prohaska
> Sent: 05 August 2012 16:05
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site
> I can't remember. It's likely I wrote to Jenefer or Elizabeth about it.
> On Aug 5, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> > On 5 Aug 2012, at 14:27, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> >> I have offered to make a SWF/t version of the dictionary and my offer has simply been ignored…
> > Who was it who ignored it?
> > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spellyans mailing list
> > Spellyans at kernowek.net
> > http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> This e-mail and attachments are intended for above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us immediately at enquiries at cornwall.gov.uk.
> Please note that this e-mail may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with the relevant legislation and may need to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
> Security Warning: It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. The Authority will not accept liability for any damage caused by a virus.
> <variant and side final.doc>_______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans