[Spellyans] SWF Y (was Re: Falmouth)

Jon Mills j.mills at email.com
Wed Apr 30 12:16:03 BST 2014

My statement does not entail criticism being restricted to criticism by academics. I reiterate that if the SWF is academically sound, it will continue to be criticised.
Of course, it is important to recognise that there are competing orthographic ideologies within the Cornish language community. The SWF must serve the Cornish language community as a whole and not merely the ideology of a section of the community. The SWF attempts to accomodate today's varying ideologies by incorporating Main, Traditional, Middle and Late variants. However, due to the hierachical nature of variation within the SWF, this is implemented in a prejudiced and unegalitarian fashion. This is a recipe for future strife.
Within the Cornish language community there are competing othoepies. The SWF needs to facilitate the generation of each pronunciation-variety unambiguously and in an egalitarian manner. This is by no means impossible. In fact KS already does this.
Ol an gwella,
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Newton
Sent: 04/30/14 11:37 AM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF Y (was Re: Falmouth)

On 30 April 2014 10:21, Jon Mills <j.mills at email.com> wrote: > I agree that the SWF needs to be stable. However if the SWF has shortcomings > it will be criticised. The SWF must then be corrected in the light of these > criticisms or it will continue to be criticised. Thus the SWF can only > achieve stability by being academically sound. That presumes that the criticism will only come from academics. I fear that there is no possible spelling system that will please everybody and will prevent all criticism. Different people have different things they look for in a spelling, and being academically sound is just one criterion people will bring to the table. So rather than chasing after an unattainable goal, let us take what we have been served and – to paraphrase Jan – go forth and use it now that it is stable! And, by all means, criticise it _while_ you do so. > Excluding academics, for political reasons, from the process of > creating the SWF is counterproductive. I am not sure of that. I suspect that we differ in our opinion of what the SWF process was intended to produce. Cheers, Philip _______________________________________________ Spellyans mailing list Spellyans at kernowek.net http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Dr. Jon Mills, 
University of Kent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20140430/65162391/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list