[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Wed Aug 15 21:54:15 BST 2012

I agree with your last statement.  Especially when you bear in mind  
that the original brief by the Commissioners was that SWF should be  
based on KD with KS input.  KK was to play no direct part in it.    
That's what we all agreed to at Tremough and was roundly applauded by  
all there except about six.  Yet look what happened at Treyarnon.   
Somehow that six got their way, and we end up with a SWF that defaults  
to KK, and with a "main" form that employs KK graphs and rejects  
traditional.  KS was not allowed any part at all.  It was pushed out  
and KK brought back into the equation.   Why?  Through discussion with  
KD, KS moved towards their direction by replacing <ue> with <eu>.  It  
replaced <-eugh, -ough> with <-ewgh, -owgh>.   KS made the  
concessionary moves.  The non-traditional parties never responded;  
never moved one inch towards us, and now they are actively sidelining  
traditional graphs as I warned they would three or four years ago.


On 15 Est 2012, at 19:25, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Dear all,
> The only "advantage" of universal ‹k› and ‹hw› is that it tidies up  
> the mutation table a little. So if we traditional-graphers here want  
> to see traditional graphs supported on par with the so-called main  
> form, or even supercede them, we should work out a teaching guidance  
> system how to teach mutations with traditional graphs.
> The other propaganda issue that the KKesva and KK supporters tend to  
> use is that Welsh has c-only and Breton has k-only so Cornishich  
> should also have an "only" form for /k/. I always like the fact that  
> Cornish was geographically and linguistically the piggy in the  
> middle between W and B, so I always found it appropriate that C  
> should have ‹k› and ‹c›.
> I think we need to put in a group suggestion for the 13Review that  
> says we want traditional graphs to have the same  recognition as the  
> main form, and that it is completely the individual writer's choice  
> whether s/he uses SWF/k or SWF/t.
> But since one of Maga's main concerns is the 'number of variants',  
> maybe we should have traditional graphs only and drop SWF/k  
> altogether. What do you think?
> Dan
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Hedley Climo wrote:
>> Ogh, Jon whek,
>> MAGA supports SWF/T by not having it in their dictionary, nor in  
>> their signage, nor on their website, nor in their 'taster' sessions… 
>> nor anywhere else.
>> In the self same way, as Jenefer says, they support *all* the other  
>> forms of Cornish: historical MS Cornish, UC, UCR, RLC in its  
>> diverse guises, KS etc. And, from what we're seeing, we can look  
>> forward to even more 'support' for Traditional Cornish including  
>> SWF/T) after 2013, when it will doubtless disappear utterly from  
>> MAGA's remit
>> Why, that's just how the KKesva and the KKowethas have been  
>> supporting 'the whole Revival' since 1987. Did we not hear the 'Big  
>> Yin' (or was it the 'Big Yang'?) from the KKowethas as she told us  
>> just those same old whethlow at Lostwithiel last October?
>> Of course, all that 'support' has worked wonders, as shown by the  
>> plethora of fine publications in authentic Cornish produced over  
>> that period by Spyrys a Gernow, Agan Tavas, Cussel an Tavas,  
>> Evertype, Gwask an Orlewen and others.
>> Rak meth ha sham! Fatel yu hedna cales dhe gonvedhes?
>> Tullys A Taunton.
>> On 2012 Est 15, at 14:13, Jon Mills wrote:
>>> Dear Jenefer,
>>> If, as you say, "the point with the glossary is not orthography",  
>>> then why is it in only one version of the SWF. A decision must  
>>> have been made not to provide the traditional forms. That decision  
>>> concerns orthography. You say that "The point with the SWF is to  
>>> provide a neutral spelling for official use." But the spelling  
>>> chosen for the SWF Glossary is not neutral. It derogates against  
>>> those who prefer tradtional forms. You also write, "It does not  
>>> mean and never has, that other orthographies are not supported."  
>>> So how precisely do you intend to support other orthographies?
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>> Jon Mills
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120815/528a784f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list