[Spellyans] SWF Review

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Sun Oct 6 16:15:39 BST 2013

On 6 Oct 2013, at 09:01, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:

> The problem is that, despite original assurances, SWF/T is not being afforded any workable platform.  Perhaps we should have seen this coming - SWF was supposed to be KD with KS input, and ended up with KK (not considered as an element by the Commission) being used as the default model.

Craig, I have explained this many times. KD was essentially KK with Trad Graphs. It had the robustness of KK, and the faults of supporting KK phonology. 

> However it would appear that good faith has not been exercised in return so, if the Review ends up simply as diluted KK as feared by some, then Agan Tavas has the full right (and justification) to withdraw its support for SWF.

What will be more interesting will be a linguistic analysis of whatever it is that the Review Board comes up with. From what I have heard privately, real problems are not being addressed, though cosmetic problems are, and as far as I can tell in the direction of KK. These are rumours only, 

> The danger there is that we could find ourselves back in the bad old days of an acrimonious split, and that will kill the language stone dead.  To the absolute delight of London.

The language will not be saved by any government. The language will live if people learn it and use it. 

> The daft thing is that, as far as graphs are concerned, there are only 4 common differences between SWF/M and SWF/T.

Honestly the Trad Graphs thing is the last of the problems with the SWF. The SWF is not fit for purpose because of linguistic ambiguity and error. 

> A compromise solution isn't hard to achieve, but I'll say no more because I've done so before and been slapped down for suggesting "horse-trading" (which I know a little more about than most).

Compromise with whom? Who owns Cornish, Craig? 

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

More information about the Spellyans mailing list