[Spellyans] SWF Review

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Tue Oct 8 18:57:51 BST 2013

I just wanted to know what people felt, being stuck up here it is difficult
to see what is going on with everyone else. I am not being rude about
individuals I was merely posing the question, what will you do if the
review puts traditional Cornish in a box and throws it in a dark cupboard.

Perhaps Dan is right, if we ask nicely they might not lock the door.

I shall try not to say any more on the subject and we can get back to i/y


On 8 October 2013 16:20, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2013, at 14:26, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
> > I just wish to state here, as I have written to you, Michael, in
> personal correspondence, that Albert is a real linguist and that I find it
> unacceptable to call him otherwise.
> Albert is the editor of the specification, not a member of the Review
> Board. (If he is counted amongst the members of the Review Board, it is ex
> officio, which doesn't count.)
> > Also, responding to Jon's proposal, I said he was the voice of reason, I
> meant his statement of consensual reviewing and support of the SWF, not
> however his proposal to remove and deface SWF signage. Ugly Cornish is
> better than no Cornish! ;-)
> Incorrect Cornish isn't.
> > I'm sure many at MAGA are doing the best they can to accommodate all
> positions which must be exceedingly difficult, and I specifically mean
> Jenefer Lowe here.
> I don't get a sense that anyone in MAGA has looked at KS in any way
> seriously. Or understands that KS is itself a revision of the SWF. If they
> had, they would be in dialogue with us.
> > I remain interested in linguistic and orthographic discussions here, and
> hope we can have more of that, while avoiding inflammatory statements to
> give the linguistic and orthographic arguments credibility. I'm tired of
> sound linguistic arguments crepitating on a large scale on account of
> personal or emotional remarks.
> >
> > Michael, I understand your frustration with the list of Review issues
> and months later with the less than adequate excel file. I feel the same
> way about it. I would rather see a detailed representation of the Review
> issues and proposals to adjust the SWF accordingly. Maybe if we ask for it
> nicely?
> I have asked for it nicely. I asked for it in April 2013.
> (And I don't believe for a minute that members of the Kesva haven't seen
> it, whether they asked for it or not.)
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131008/3024ee1a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list