Piffle! How much thinner a skin can you get than 'Pieter's? Or hadn't you noticed, Steve? Or chosen not to notice? He's whingeing, whining, crying 'foul' at the slightest excuse. I'm just holding my firm, solid ground.

And you chose not to read my affirmation that Pol and I discuss.  Shallow, Steve, shallow.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier,  You know who I am, so does 'Pieter', so does everyone on this list.  My opinions are therefore written honestly and openly, regardless of whether they're liked.  No one knows who 'Pieter' is, and he thinks that this gives him the moral right to snipe, defame, distort, denigrate, etc.  Or to brand valid and constructive criticisms an "attack" (if it's a gratuitous attack you want, take a good long read of his/her last post).  Anonymity to conceal viciousness doesn't provide that right.  It is dishonest; he/she is dishonest.  And cowardly in the extreme.

I believe that all of the criticisms in Form and Content in Revived Cornish, from each of the contributors, are verifiably fair. And that the Language Board, in behaving they way they did towards anyone who criticized KK, merited that criticism.

Keith has on several occasions agreed that my criticisms of the quality of their publications is merited—I tried to make the comments constructive, laced even with some good-natured humour (I know, Piet, you don't think I have a sense of humour).

You only have to read Craig's articles on place-names to see that a very great many names promulgated in the Language Board's publications are faulty.

Nicholas' criticism of the translation of the KK New Testament may have been unpopular with some users of KK, but even if he were not right on every single point, it is clear that many of the translations are simply inaccurate.

One of the Commissioners told me that he thought Bernard Deacon's criticisms of the public behaviour of the Board ("The Cornish Language Board against the world") were the most valuable part of the book.

You may sputter about how unfair it all was. But from my perspective, I have only ever seen hostility from the Language Board, all because people who cared about Cornish cared enough to show that KK was flawed. In my first review of the Gerlyver Kres, I offered guidelines to improving its typography. They were dismissed utterly by Ken in his second edition. When we realized that only a Fifth Form could succeed as a Single Written Form, I invited Ken to talk with us. We all hoped he might do so. Instead, he accused me of having a financial interest in the outcome and refused to communicate with me. (I have never received a penny from the CLP.) Evidently he thought KK would have its day in court and the wise Commissioners would surely choose it as the SWF. Fortunately that was not the case. (Unfortunately, a proper Orthography Congress was not called, and people like Ken and Nicholas and Keith and me were not really allowed to participate effectively; hence the unsatisfactory nature of the SWF.)

Well, over to you, now, Piet. If you're true to type, you'll ignore any substance in what I've said (or deny that it was there at all) and you'll pick a sentence or two to show what a lying, deceitful ghoul I am.

I have to say that I'm getting a little fed up with a lot of this banter.

The Kres is a lot more useful to learners of Cornish than Williams one way dictionary because it's two way like any normal dictionary should be. A one way dictionary is almost as if it's for the writers use and pleasure only. I could go on and say williams' dictionary seems to me to contain a lot of English loans,etc and the words do not seem as easy to interpret/read when opened side by side with the Kres.

As we've heard from place names today (eg Carvath/Carveth) there is a lot of ambiguity/unknowingness associated with them so criticism is a bit thin. Julyan Holmes had the same interpretations of Lanyon many years before Marhak/CLB attempts so nothing is that sacred. Whether people translate St Column Major/Minor into Cornish or search for some long lost hamlet nearby is a matter of preference, etc. There doesn't seem to be a respect for future need/requirement, just some dubious past.

The first time I came upon these books/papers that "slagged off" other users of the language made me sit up and think. Much of the criticism comes from a camp that managed to get 10% of Cornish users/learners on side and then abandoned their form of the language and are trying to invent another form. Their criticism has to be viewed in context.

Fair enough, Stevie – all goalkeepers are crazy – and I was no exception (but I could fly when I had to).  Penzance AFC will never forgive me for an evening game under floodlights at Penlee Park when they were all over us and we sneaked it 2-0 with late goals.  I was stopping shots I had no right to get anywhere near, including a penalty that Tony Claypole belted to my right hand corner – bloody near broke my wrist!  (and was half-cut because I'd been to some fool's wedding reception that afternoon!).  The one I really remember was the looping shot over me to my far top corner which I was miles away from – and I got the damn thing!  Held it, horizontal in mid air and arching backwards towards my own post (which I only missed by inches).  THAT tested the silver-steel additions to my lower spine that had been there since 1973 (yep, crazy!).   Having once been the Cornwall Schools high-jump champion, and a reasonable gymnast helped a lot there.  AND I scored a goal in another game, from the whole length of the pitch – still got the newspaper cuttings for both games).

When I started in my mid-teens at Falmouth Town, they used to sling crosses in from either wing on training nights.  I had to come and claim them – and they'd send guys in to hit me (they could hit keepers back then).  And the buggers did!  Went home with two broken ribs after one training night.  Overall, it was a strategy that worked – my biggest strength as a keeper was dealing with crosses.  I had it rammed into me that, if I'd called, I HAD to claim the ball and to go straight through anyone in my way – even my own defenders.  I cringe when I see the overpaid, undertalented pansy keepers in the Premiership having nervous breakdowns every time a cross comes in – and they're not allowed to be hit!

I will agree that two-way dictionaries are a must.  The SWF process came along before the Cornish-English edition of the UCR dictionary could be produced.  We all thought, probably rightly, that it should be put on hold in the hope that a true compromise could be reached.

Re: Carveth – what is certain, Mike, is that 'bedh' (grave) isn't involved in any of the three locations, yet Sandercock/Brown categorically state that it is.  Why didn't they talk to me, to Julyan or to Pol – because they obviously didn't.  The derivation of Lanyon (Madron) has been known for decades.  Pool has it in his Place-Names of West Penwith.  Thomas (Charles), too.  Nance had it even earlier than that.  Padel confirmed it in the mid 80s.  Why, then did the authors of that booklet ignore all those people and state something, for public consumption, that simply isn't so?  'Pieter' isn't asking that question.  Why, I wonder?

Did I consult with anyone?  Yes, I certainly did.  Several who knew the subject.  And I had a whole lot more evidence than Gover to work with, amassed and studied over 3 decades.

Which reminds me – be very careful if you're working with Gover's manuscripts.  They're full of errors, with some name forms given to the wrong locations.  Oliver Padel warned me of this, and he is currently working to rectify each and every one – a hell of a task.