Posts: 239
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 17:06
What better way for the government to keep the Cornish language from progressing than to appear to honour their Regional and Minority Languages Charter obligations by funding a Partnership, a Commission, a Process etc. etc. etc. which produces a dog's breakfast of an orthography and which creates more splits and disagreement than it heals?
Out of curiosity I briefly joined the Spellyans list, as they claim that they can 'fix' it. However, don't hold your breath - I came to the conclusion that their real agenda is to continue to oppose Kernewek Kemmyn, Ken George and the Cornish Language Board.
So what they want to do is to purge the SWF of any resemblance to Kemmyn.
The fact that this would estrange the SWF even further from existing fluent and competent speakers seems not to concern them at all. Odd that - you would almost think that the government was pulling their strings!
Since 1995 Dr Nicholas Williams has been an implacable enemy of Kernewek Kemmyn. Members of this list might like to read what this leading member of Agan Tavas thinks about royalty, and why he is against independence for Cornwall.
Penny
From: nicholas williams <njawilliams@gmail.com>
To: Penny Squire
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July, 2008 4:44:41 PM
Subject: Royalists
Why is it so odd to find royalists who are interested in Cornish?
Jenner was an utter royalist and a Catholic integrist, and the Cornish themselves supported Charles I against Parliament.
I don't quite know where to start because you seem to be making a number of unrelated assumptions.
In the first place I am English and have lived in Dublin teaching Irish in University College for over 30 years.
I have become convinced that the real mistake the Irish made and what has damaged the language was complete independence.
In 1922 the Irish handed over educational policy to the Roman Catholic church and in Ireland that means an authoritarian an anti-intellectual church. The church here has been led since the 17th century by the English speaking Catholics of the Pale, the Old English. They always despised the Gaelic Irish and during the course of the 18th century effected the start of the language shift. In 1794 when the major seminary in Maynooth was founded, the language of instruction was Latin and of the house English—even though at least half the students were native speakers of Irish.
Even now the RC church is opposed to Irish. The present archbishop of Dublin knows no Irish and his predecessor didn't either. I spoke Irish recently to an Irish bishop, Donald Caird, retired Church of Ireland archbishop of Dublin. When I'm in Westport I go to the Church of Ireland church there. The rector translated the Book of Common Prayer into Irish (the fifth time the BCP has been translated). Ken Mackinnon and I met at the launch in Downpatrick in 2004. The Gaelic revival of the late nineteenth century was started by Protestants, Douglas Hyde and Maxwell Close, and other. For many years the Irish department in UCD had the highest concentration of Protestants in the college (UCD is the successor to Newman's Catholic University).
In 1922 the Irish voluntarily left the United Kingdom, the richest country in the world at the time, and thus impoverished themselves. Massive emigration from the western sea-board further weakened the language. I am writing this on the north east coast of County Mayo, where emigration was catastrophic.
By impoverishing themselves they left themselves without money. There was no proper radio station in Irish until 1970 and no television until the late 1990s. Even now there are no proper dictionaries. Compare and contrast Wales.
Two further points here. By giving themselves a sovereign state the Irish believed they were a nation. Given that they have for the most part abandoned their language and their Catholicism they are now left with nothing. A Hungarian friend said to me recently: "The Irish have no culture".
It is much better when trying to maintain a minority language in these islands to deal with Westminster than with an independent Irish govt. or with a devolved government. Already things are said to be harder for Welsh dealing with the assembly and administration in Cardiff than they were dealing with the Welsh Office. The English civil servants are supportive and feel guilty. The local politicians just don't want to spend money on a language most of them don't know. That is why independence for Cornwall would be the end for the language.
Now to the matter of Royalism.
It is possible that you take me for a monarchist, but I am not. Monarchists are right-wing, integrist, chauvinist. My own view is that in a modern pluralist democracy a king or queen as head of state is preferable to an elected president for a whole variety of interlocking reasons.
Let's look first at the question of minority languages. After Catalan, the three most thriving linguistic minorities are the Basques, the Welsh and the Frisians. But Spain, the UK and the Netherlands are all monarchies. Is this a coincidence? I think not. Compare the different treatment of Inuit in Canada (monarchy) and Alaska (state in a federal republic). In Canada they have Nunavut their own area, where the working language is Inuit. The Canadian government supports them financially. There is nothing comparable in Alaska. There is funding for Welsh in Wales but how is Breton doing in France, the ultimate republic? "Pour l'unité linguistique de la France il faut que la langue bretonne disparaisse" (ministry of educ. edict from the 1920s) Very badly.
Constitutional monarchies work on the twin principles of loyalty and honour. A citizen is loyal to the king and therefore keeps his laws, and if required fights for him in his forces. He is honourable in that in public life he acts in the public interest and is perhaps rewarded by the king with a public honour. Ireland is proportionally more sleazy than Britain because it has no honours system. Many republics have honours systems but they are relics of former monarchical times.
If a citizen is loyal to the king or queen he keeps his or her laws. But he can be any colour, any ethnicity and any religion. You can see this in Belgium where the only apparent force keeping the country together is Albert II. In a republic on the other hand the citizen is loyal to the republic, which is an abstraction and in effect means the people, which means the majority. That is why republics are for the most part less comfortable for minorities.
Moreover an elected president either has power as in France and US and thus too much. Or he has no power as in Germany or Ireland. But even there he has to be elected. In Ireland the president is always a party political nominee. Only one president (Mary Robinson) was not nominated by Fianna Fáil. In order to become president, the candidate has to campaign. The campaign is inevitably divisive and then once elected he or she has to unite the nation. What an absurd system!
Some people will then say that they abhor monarchy because aristocracy goes with it. But Canada is a monarchy with no aristocracy and so is Norway (to say nothing of Australia and New Zealand). There are still aristocrats in France and Germany and Poland. Did you know, for example, that Jaruszelski was made prime minister by the Communists because he was a Polish aristocrat and was more acceptable to the Poles than the Jewish Geremek? (I hope I have spelt these names properly).
The king or queen is by definition not elected and also has no power. In Britain the HM not merely has no power, she has less freedom than any of her subjects. Any of them can speak on a radio phone in. She can't. Any of them can join a political party. She can't. She can say nothing without the approval of her government, elected by her people. She is in effect a captive, whose sole job is to function as a public servant. Her warrant on goods means that the items are of high quality, her acting as patron of any organisation (and the royal family collectively are patrons of thousands of them) gives the organisation a seal of approval.
The monarch's unique and historical role means that in her person she represents power but does not exercise it. This is a safeguard against a coup d'état, but of course Britain will not have a coup d'état, any more than it will vote for a republic.
There is also a religious dimension to this since she is Gratia Dei Regina and she was consecrated for the task by her coronation. You may well not be religious, but I am and so is Ken Mackinnon and we are both royalists. Ken is a Methodist, I am an Anglican. Though Britain has no written constitution the Christian understanding of God is in it by virtue of the Queen's being queen by the Grace of God and we still say "God save the Queen!" Her position as supreme governor of the CofE is a different matter, because she is also queen in Wales and NIreland where there is no established church.
Monarchy used to be more powerful. Now the power rests with the people through parliament but it is the monarch's parliament. That is why in the British system we speak of the Queen in parliament. In fact she is queen only by the will of parliament because her father was made king by parliament in 1936. If you think about many of our monarchs were made thus: Charles II, William III, George I for example.
Because the monarchy is pre-feudal it is quasi-religious. The king's person is sacrosanct since he is God's representative. George the III was the last king to let people touch him as a cure for scrofula (the king's evil). But even now you can assassinate a president but not a king. When the Germans invaded Norway they asked the king to appoint Kvisling as prime minister. He refused on the grounds that Kvisling had no mandate. For a week he equivocated and all the while Norwegian patriots were secretly shifting Norway's gold reserves onto ships and the gold and most of Norway's navy sailed away to Scapa Flow in Shetland and were thus saved for the allies.
In 1981 Milans del Bosch and Tejero and others staged an attempted coup against the democratic government of Suarez in Spain. They cut the king's telephone lines but he being a radio ham got in touch with all his senior officers and told them that he was their commander in chief and to support the coup would be treason. He then went on television and told the Spanish people that he, Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón, their king was the guarantor of the constitution. He asked them to demonstrate in favour of democracy. The next day a million people came out on the streets of Madrid and the coup failed miserably.
This answer has gone on too long already, but I leave you with one thought. The constitutional monarchies are Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They are among the most stable and best governed countries in the world. Res ipsa loquitur.
Re sawyo Duw an Vyternes.
Nicholas
Posts: 4470
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 20:49
I am currently a leading member of Agan Tavas and I am already on record as holding the personal belief that the Royal Family and its hangers-on are a complete waste of the good air I breathe. And I support the notion of Cornish autonomy.
Does it then follow that every member of Agan Tavas agrees with my view? Of course it doesn't. It can't if we all agree with Nicholas as well, can it?
That was a cheap shot, Penny, and you should be ashamed of it.
edited by: marhak, Aug 26, 2008 - 07:50 PM
Posts: 1439
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:09
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 1189
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:33
You're almost as poor at lying convincingly as Keith is. Take care you don't reveal your real identity! What you fail to mention is that you joined Spellyans with that conclusion already firmly in your prejudiced little mind. You joined as a troll, and it was as a troll that you were kicked out.
You contributed nothing, and you've not been missed.
Dear god! Do you really believe that what we do revolves around KK? You have delusions of grandeur for you chosen orthography!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KS: selven an Furf Screfys Savonek? -- Ya, hep wow!
Kernewek Hengovek? -- Sur, nyns us nahen!
Posts: 1828
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:34
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 4470
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:41
Re; John King - you forgot the TSW series "An Canker Seth" (which was bad Cornish anyway - shouldn't it have been "An Seth Canker" or "An Seth Kencras"?). Pauline Sheppard took part in it, as well. I still have the scripts for that series.
Posts: 4470
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:51
I have opposed it since its demonic birth in the mid 80s. I have always said so, and will continue to do so. I was honest and open about it then, as I am now. I have recently said that I will not, under any circumstances, be using the untraditional graphs of the SWF ("main"). You might not like that, but I refuse to be dishonest about it.
Steve, I think there's a point that you're not getting, either. And the second word of it is "off".
Posts: 336
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:53
Fascinating approach, whether or not one agrees with the content, from Nicholas Williams. I've never, ever, come across another English person who thinks, and speaks, and writes, and behaves like this. Unfortunately.
Posts: 2744
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 21:58
It's very surprising then that more people have not taken up UCR then
I have an awful feeling that a lot of this backbiting, personal insult, anti-KKing and OTT critism is in retaliation as to how great the take-up of KK has been. Perhaps all this anti-KK behaviour should be renamed 'sideforming'
Posts: 1439
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 22:04
And therein lies a tale. The name of the series was based on the name of the pub that featured in it. It was intended to be called "The lobster pot" and afaik JC provided the correct translation. However when they did the set, the artist couldn't draw lobsters, or got mixed up or something, and put a crab on the sign instead. The producer then decided it had to be "The Crab Pot" and looked it up in a dictionary, and as you might expect got it all arse-backwards, and came up with "The vase crab". Well belive it or not, as they say.
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 4470
Posted:
26.Aug 2008 - 23:42
Oh, well, at least someone tried.
It's loss of Cornish that bothers me. Greatly. You'll search in vain for Ventonegga on the maps, a name recorded at least from the 1600s. You won't find it. It's now called Brook Cottage.
edited by: marhak, Aug 26, 2008 - 10:43 PM
Posts: 2092
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 00:17
'Cos unlike you, he happens to be a qualified linguist! That'll do for starters, stamp-collector!
'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 835
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 09:00
We all know, but we dont care. So why should it matter where this other guys affiliations rest?
Posts: 368
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 09:31
Posts: 630
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 09:40
Posts: 368
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 09:57
That little point didn't bother you when you chucked out UC and supplanted it with KK in the late 1980's, did it? What a crap point.
I also suspect you are probably an old hand here on C24. There is a place for anonymity in these fora, but multiple accounts just gives the impression that there are more than one of you supporting or rejecting an idea. I think "pennysquire" is nothing more than yet another sockpuppet for one of the vocal KK supporters here. I just don't know which one, but I have my suspicions.
And its obviously not goky!
As you have been exposed here and on the Spellyans list, why not have the bottle to come clean as to who you really are or at least which of the pseudonyms you use here are behind the bogus Penny? Until such time nothing you say can have any credence or value. Bury this sockpuppet and use one of your known ones you coward.
Posts: 4470
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 11:40
Posts: 1828
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 13:21
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 239
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 14:36
I have already stated my reasons for joining Spellyans, and I will add here that I joined in my real name. It's hardly my fault that you all got a sudden attack of paranoia and starting hurling troll accusations around. I left because I was not convinced that the SWF was fixable anyway - and nothing I had seen on the list had convinced me otherwise.
I also has no wish to be a member of any group which had you as a member (although I am prepared to expose your follies in a public forum). I wrote a letter explaining this politely to Michael.
In addition to all this I am very far from being convinced of the intentions and agendas of many Spellyans members.
I know very well that Dr Nicholas Williams is not the Chair, an Officer or Committee member of Agan Tavas. However it is pretty obvious that he has been your chief originator of anti-Kernewek Kemmyn propaganda and campaign policy - whether or not he has a title or job description is not material.
What is material is that the single most influential member of Agan Tavas holds the views described in his own words at the beginning of this thread.
The whole thing is simply too convenient to be a coincidence. What better way to creat endless problems for the language revival? If Dr Williams had not existed the British government would have had to invent him.
Perhaps they did?
Penny
edited by: pennysquire, Aug 27, 2008 - 02:57 PM
Posts: 239
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 15:09
KK was supported and promoted by fluent and competent speakers in the late 1980's. It still is. You have scored a brilliant own goal!
Unless you are really called Taran, that's another own goal.
Penny
Posts: 1828
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 15:12
edited by: goky, Aug 27, 2008 - 03:13 PM
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 1189
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 15:41
Despite its false claims to the contrary, KK failed on each of those 2 KS criteria. You appear to be accepting that KK is full of errors, which is what some of us have been saying for a long time now.
And, for the record, you did not leave the Spellyans list because you were "not convinced that the SWF was fixable" (as you untruthfully claim). You were actually kicked out of the Spellyans list for being unmasked as a lying little troll. It's interesting that your own vanity can't admit the truth, but not really surprising, given how 'economical with the truth' you've shown yourself to be.
edited by: Eddie-C, Aug 27, 2008 - 07:00 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KS: selven an Furf Screfys Savonek? -- Ya, hep wow!
Kernewek Hengovek? -- Sur, nyns us nahen!
Posts: 1439
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:10
No he's qualified in Classics and Irish lit. He is definitely not a linguistics professor.
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 4470
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:20
Right. Let's have the facts. Nicholas Williams read classics, English language and Celtic in Oxford and was awarded a PhD in Celtic at Queen's University, Belfast in 1972 (when most of you were little more than an itch in your father's scrotum).
So ,there you are. His doctorate was in Celtic linguistics and so was his professorship.
Can we now have an end to the lies and the character assassination?
Posts: 1189
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:26
Nicholas Williams has a long bibliography of highly regarded publications on the Irish Language, as well as numerous books and papers on and in Cornish (including a New Testament, Dictionary, Grammar, poetry and other writings).
What pisses you off is that he has chosen to write detailed, technical linguistic refutations of your chosen Kebmyn orthography. And, despite all your lying claims to the contrary, neither you nor any of the other lumpen 'intelligentsia' (self-styled!) of the KK kamp have been able to rebut his arguments.
Instead, you're left with nothing but lies and ad hominem attacks, having utterly lost the linguistic arguments. You should try on for size your own words against us, "pathetic BAD loser, who deserves no respect".
edited by: Eddie-C, Aug 27, 2008 - 10:33 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KS: selven an Furf Screfys Savonek? -- Ya, hep wow!
Kernewek Hengovek? -- Sur, nyns us nahen!
Posts: 1439
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:28
I'm fairly sure you're wrong, but check the archives. Michael had a fit of paranoia after he found Tim on the list, and because of Penny's attitude which he didn't like he said he'd be moderating her posts. I don't believe she was kicked out, so you're just slandering the poor maid. Anyway ask Michael.
Why anyway all this paranoid about who everyone is, why is everyone identity-mad these days? A fact is true or not regardless of the source. Either an argument adds up, a statement is verifiable etc., or it isn't.
edited by: morvran, Aug 27, 2008 - 10:29 PM
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 2092
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:32
Liar liar, pants on fire!
At least we know who you are, Keith, old son and we know who you are working for too.'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1439
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:41
I think it was some aspect of literature, but I could be wrong. Do you know the title or subject of his thesis?
Classics is not linguistics, it's Greek and Latin literature and ancient history. English isn't either, nor is Celtic. All of these may include some aspects of linguistics, but may not. It rather depends on who teaches the course. There are departments of linguistics at Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Manchester and elsewhere in the UK. There are many in the USA, Australia and Europe. NJAW has never been on the staff of any of these, and afaik has never taken a qualification in linguistics. He is not therefore a "professional/academic linguist" he's just another opinionated train-spotter.
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 2092
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:47
What was the title of your thesis, Professor Morvran? Let me think..........
Was it something to do with baboon's assholes? Be that as it may, you sure like talking out of yours!
'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1439
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:51
Rebutted them backwards forwards and standing on my head. We've rebutted them over and over until we're blue in the face. However Williams and his disciples are real true believers, fact and reason cut no ice with them because they Know they are Right. It's like the debates between biologists and creationists, they know they're right because God said so. Read Pool's "Second Death of Cornish" and you'll see that he actually uses religious language to describe Nance, he thought he was a prophet who could Do No Wrong. NJAW gave up Cornish for decades, and only came back at the beck and call of the dinosaurs. He obviously wanted to be a big fish in a small pond. Btw. "The Ego has Landed" was the (fitting) title of a report of Williams' infamous "lecture" (harrang would be a better word if I could spell it) at Lostwithiel.
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 2092
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:57
Don't know about the eagle/ego having just landed but it sounds like Morvran the Baboon has just farted!
he just can't get to grips with the fact that he is not qualified to pass judgement on the work of linguists. Jealousy as he will no doubt be aware, is one of the seven deadly sins!'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 4470
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 22:58
Nicholas Williams has never been on the staff of any of the colleges you list because he can hardly be in more than one place. He taught at Dublin. Fact (in case "Pieter" is reading this).
If you want his full list of letters before his professorship: MA, PhD, DipCeltStud, FLS, ITIA.
What's yours? RTLC? (Ring-tailed lemur courtship). I'd love to see your party piece sometime.
edited by: marhak, Aug 27, 2008 - 10:00 PM
Posts: 4470
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 23:03
Now THAT's ego.
edited by: marhak, Aug 27, 2008 - 10:04 PM
Posts: 47
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 23:26
I heard it too, an btw when does morvran sleep?
Posts: 2092
Posted:
27.Aug 2008 - 23:32
'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 4470
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 08:55
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 09:44
That is not an own goal. I was reffering to the process of replacing an extant orthography with one with radically different graphs. It doesn't matter whether all the population of the Congo or even Santa Claus supported it. It is not the fluent and competent speakers that are affected by orthography change. It is learners. No own goal, you simply missed the point.
No, you simply didn't read my post correctly. I said:
I also said:
No own goal, simply you not reading carefully enough, jumping to erroneous conclusions and making inaccurate observations. This seems to be something you may well be more generally guilty of?
If pennysquire is your real name then you have my unreserved apologies, but from your tone, and the fact that you popped out of nowhere for five minutes on the Spellyans list and then came here to denounce it with your very first post, which was suspiciously confidently written for a first post on a forum like this, does nothing to allay my suspicions that you are not who you say you are!
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:26
The reason for a lack of anonymity on Spellyans is that it is less likely to end up in a shit flinging match like most of the crap flung around on here. People are "normally" more civil to each other if they think they are addressing a real person. Conversely they don't give a shit what they say to some pathetic, arse-wipe sock puppet identity, and as this is a betrayal of trust, tempers can get a little frayed and harsh words can be said. (I should clarify that this last comment is an illustration, not an insult directly aimed at pennysquire in this case.)
Also, opinions that can be attributed to a specific individual are more likely to be more considered than those that are hidden behind a pseudonym. If you are entering into a serious discussion, why would you need to be anything other than yourself unless your aims were less than constructive? If you take the time to wade through the list you can see that Tim Saunders came on to the list as "Harry" to make fun of it by sounding a bit retarded. It wasn't exactly a successful exercise and he only ended up looking foolish.
I don't know what "pennyquire's" motives were, but she has shown herself to be a troll, if not by 'her' activities on the list, then by squeaking here on C24. she had a partisan agenda from the start as a lot of her posts were discussing KK phonology, this was abandoned by the AHG and is not part of the SWF. The Spellyans list consists of people who do not accept or who have turned their backs on precisely this phonology. There was no point in bringing that up.
If you really want to see the contributions she made and the civil way in which those were handled, then read the lists. I am not going to quote her here, out of context, look for yourselves if you are really bothered. "pennysquire" is obviously as much a partisan KK supporter as any of her compatriots here, and probably *is* one of the existing KK proponents here. In that case she came to the list, not to fix the SWF 'Trad' spelling, which is what the list attempts to achieve, but to attempt to hinder that process and make mischief, probably looking to scratch together ammunition to bring to a viper pit like this one.
We have enough sockpuppets here without another being added to the list.
edited by: Taran, Aug 28, 2008 - 10:31 AM
Posts: 1828
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:34
Anyone that defends KK, gets immediately attacked by Eddie and others, and then bashed and thrown out.
It is NOT a site for serious discussion, (except how to spell Crocodile).Now Taran be a good boy/girl and stick to the Spelly list and not bother us here.
edited by: goky, Aug 28, 2008 - 10:34 AM
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 4470
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:42
There is no point in Stephen Reeves posting out-of-context quotes from the Spellyans list on here, except to select a disembodied sentence or two to fire off his cheap shots. The Spellyans archive is open to all, so you can see those quotes in their full and proper context.
We are NOT, repeat NOT, attempting to sabotage the SWF. We support it, we were full participants in it, but we also recognise that some fundamental mistakes were made. We believe that we can fix those faults for the good of the language (not one form or another form - we have even identified points on which Ken George can be shown to be correct!) without detriment to the SWF. Some of those faults have simple solutions; others are far more complex and require research, discussion and a variety of viewpoints before an answer can be determined. These are going to take time but we're not prepared to rush and end up making further mistakes. This was the main problem with the SWF and AHG process - not enough time was allocated to AHG discussion which was not fair on any of its members or, indeed, upon Cornish language users. That was the fault of those involved in its organisation and not the fault of any of the language groups. By blaming each other, we are missing the real target. Bureaucracy.
In this way, we can present solutions to the review of the SWF in 4 and a half years time (yes, half a year gone already!). We're in it for the language, not for ourselves.
edited by: marhak, Aug 28, 2008 - 09:45 AM
Posts: 1828
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:44
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 1828
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:46
edited by: goky, Aug 28, 2008 - 10:46 AM
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 4470
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 10:47
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 11:18
Untrue, there are a lot of different opinions there. The list is civil unlike this forum. KK is irrelevant there.
And I will not go away when I feel like it, not just because you would like me to.
Posts: 537
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 12:50
Yes, but people don't act "normally" when they discuss the language, "Taran".
Some posters here have decided that they know who "Bardh", "goki" and "morvran" are. And just look at the very personal details that have been revealed about them - despite these details being not in the slightest bit relevant to any debate.
Their politics, sexuality, education, alleged moonlight flits ... you name it ... have all been used as an opportunity to hurl another insult. About their personal lives.
It's simple.
Because then the only things that can be discussed and considered are the words on the screen.
You don't get sidetracked, having made a point about the language, by a brainless response that says there is firm evidence that you once visited Newcastle on the train, or that you have an interest in apes' bottoms (snigger).
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 13:32
Not here they don't
I will not endorse any insulting by any one and I do not find it edifying. I have come close myself on a few occasions, but that is the heat of the moment (but of course that would not excuse me from having committed the offence). The unfortunate thing about a forum is that, unlike heated arguments, the words are not dissipated, but remain to haunt those who wrote them.
As to the last part of your reply:
You say that and then contradict it immediately with an example of just such a deviation from the subject.
I take your point that with anonymity the real personalities behind posters cannot colour people's perceptions of their postings, however this is more than made up for by the assumed pesonalities of these pseudonyms.
Pseudonyms abound here, and there is a popular game that people like to indulge in, trying to guess the identities of those behind the names. Especially if they are adversarial.
Goky is open about his identity, as is marhak and evertype. Bardh remains anonymous, but is well known, as seems to be morvran. Others are more unidentifiable, like yourself, branvras, hunlef and palores. As, I suppose, by my relative newness here, am I.
The vitriol that comes from some of these exchanges seems to be rooted in old personal animosities for some. For others it is frustration with the intransigence and arrogance exhibited by some posters that leads to these outbursts, also some like to do it to elicit a response, trolling if you like.
I don't see that anonymity has done anything to focus the mind on the subject in hand and remain on topic, actually I would say from the evidence here that the reality is quite the contrary to what you have said - that is if I have understood your post correctly.
edited by: Taran, Aug 28, 2008 - 01:33 PM
Posts: 2092
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 13:40
That's no way to talk about JTreworth's face, you scoundrel! The resemblance to a baboon's arse is all in your fertile imagination, my friend.
He can't help being FUGLY
edited by: Hunlef, Aug 28, 2008 - 12:42 PM
'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1439
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 14:28
Second, the tradition here was always that people post under a pseudomyn if they so wished. Marghek did this and we had a bit of a guessing game over who he was. In fact he more or less denied he was Craig W. for a while. It was Michael Everson who through his own unease about exactly who everyone was, began 'outing' people -- myself included. (But we're all ROTFL over Pieter=Loveday, even though we don't know who Pieter is!).
Now since my ID is known, I've been the butt of endless silly remarks, lies and suggestions, about what I may or may not have done or been, decades ago. Half at least incorrect or mistaken. Given that sort of treatment, is it any wonder people choose to hide behind a mask? As indeed you do "Taran".
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 537
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 14:31
It's not a contradiction. I was not suggesting that deviating from the subject is impossible if posters are anonymous.
My point is that if I say something about the language you can avoid addressing it, but not by posting details about me and my private life.
Because you don't know anything about my private life so you have no 'ammunition'.
You can make it up, of course, as some have done here, but that's as effective as firing blanks, and as you know I am trying very hard to highlight fiction wherever it occurs.
I think the contrary to what I am saying would be something like "if everyone's real identity were known that would focus the mind on the subject in hand and result in people remaining on topic".
I can't agree. The evidence here is that when a person's identity is known, personal details about them are used to focus the mind not on the subject in hand but on those personal details, completely irrelevant though they are, as a means of insulting them. That's clearly exactly what has happened.
If everybody's identity were known it would happen even more. Look at the posts that were made about Loveday Jenkin just because people thought (for absolutely no good reason whatsoever) that she was posting here.
Posts: 1828
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 14:42
edited by: goky, Aug 28, 2008 - 02:42 PM
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 15:46
I never said you were, and I don't think you are. It is also quite possible that you wouldn't know if she was a sockpuppet or not, unless you work as a coordinated team, again I do not think that to be the case either.
Granted. I accepted that.
I also said :
To pietercharles, I see what you were driving at and yes, I agree that anonymity prevents personal attacks whilst your identity remains a mystery. In this environment (here on C24) that is definately an advantage
My point about the lack of anonymity on Spellyans is that it currently does not have anyone with bad blood between them participating on it. Ill considered or personal remarks are frowned upon. Also the comments are directly attributable to a known individual, not some faceless, ambiguous internet identity. Although there is no background checking. The posters simply ask of each other that they are straight and truthful in their introductions, which one certainly wasn't and another two are questionable.
I was also not proposing that if we all used our real identities here then everything would be rosy. This is an ill tempered place and has been since before I posted my first comments here. My comments above were to explain to morvran why the lack of anonymity was a good thing on Spellyans. It seems to work quite well there.
edited by: Taran, Aug 28, 2008 - 03:48 PM
Posts: 2092
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 15:50
Of course, Stephanie, you wouldn't stoop so low, would you, dearie?
'Condemnation without investigation is ignorance' - Albert Einstein
Posts: 537
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 16:21
That's not because you all use your real names.
It's because for the most part Spellyans has been ignored by KK users. If they were to post there they would take exception to the tone and veracity of some, if not many, of the posts - I know I certainly have - and bad blood would develop. Just as it has on C24.
You possibly don't think anything has been posted on Spellyans that would upset and anger a KK user. If that's the case, then I have to tell you that you're wrong. However, I can understand how you might come to that conclusion - if you are in the midst of an anti-KK clique you can expect disparaging, even insulting, remarks to be the norm and hardly noticeable.
Well, they are mostly, and I respect that. But look very closely, "Taran", at which ill-considered and personal remarks have been frowned upon...and which ones haven't.
And I don't think that is acceptable behaviour. If you join a list that requires you to state who you are then you should be honest about who you are.
I agree. But as far as I can see it's for the reason I have explained above. I've actually been furious about some of the mis-representations that have been made on Spellyans. And that's just tough - "put up or shut up" as "marhak" once told me. With Spellyans I decided to do both.
Posts: 368
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 16:43
Spellyans is not talking about KK, except in passing or second guessing motivations and tactics. It is talking about the SWF Trad spelling. They don't care what KK supporters think as KK proponents will not want to contribute constructively to the list. Some KK users do however, and they are not mortally afflicted by the comments. The atmosphere there is such that people can criticise the position of one another without stooping to insults, which are not allowed anyway.
There have been a few terse exchanges there, but no really childish behaviour.
As I have said before, KK is irrelevant there. It is purely related to the SWF trad form. A form you will never use and one that none of the main KK proponents will use either. As some of you have stated that you will not use the SWF, then what is the harm in letting those who wish to use the politically second class, disadvantaged form of the SWF from correcting errors or improving it?
What is important is that the discussions are open to anyone sufficiently interested to read them and the membership of the list is open to anyone who wishes to participate, as long as they follow the list rules.
Posts: 537
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 17:00
And I AGREE that KK is irrelevant to the purpose of the Spellyans list.
And I KNOW the posters don't care what KK supporters think.
But we were talking about why there is no bad blood on the Spellyans list. And none of your observations is at variance with what I was saying - that the lack of 'bad blood', as you call it, is not down to the fact that you all use your real names.
As for
well, I've answered that one before. On the face of it, nothing, and you couldn't stop it anyway. The worst aspect of it, in my view, however, is that it will be another four and half years before some people start learning the language. If indeed they do - by then they might be able to use the exciting development of KQ or KY or K9 as a good reason for not starting.
Posts: 1366
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 22:59
Untrue. I had no "fit of paranoia". I am certain that there are people subscribed under false names on Spellyans. Tim was one of them. Poor stupid sod--he'd have been welcome to subscribe under his own name so long as he respected the rules of the list. Civility and honesty.
Penny didn't satisfy me as to her identity, but resigned from the list because she doesn't like Eddie, or his sense of humour, irony, and satire.
Those of us who have criticized KK on linguistic grounds and members of the Kesva on political grounds have done so using our own names. In general we've been treated to criticism and abuse from people whose names we didn't even know. That's tedious.
Also tedious is the nastiness of all of this discourse. I think the way that Penny forwarded a private e-mail from Nicholas to her to this list shows a remarkable lack of courtesy and judgement. I think Keith's recent attempt to "prove" that Agan Tavas "split" the revival is just plain silly. KK never attracted academic credibility, nor did it attract unanimous approbation from the community at large. Otherwise people wouldn't have stuck with UC, or its amended version UCR, or worked with the RLC material. The CLP gave us a process which in the end was less than satisfactory because many of the people with the most linguistic knowledge weren't permitted to take part. One reason for this is Ken George's refusal to support the idea of spelling reform at all. I'd like it to be remembered that we asked Ken if he would work together with us on orthographic reform. I wonder what might have happened had we got round a table to actually work together. In the end he believed KK would be chosen by the Commission, so he wouldn't talk to us.
Keith misquotes me a lot. He wilfully misinterprets what I meant when I said "We all must lose so we all may win." I said, and I meant, that we must make the sacrifice of giving up UC, UCR, RLC, and KK so that we could use a better system. I never, ever, meant that we should accept an orthography with easily identifiable shortcomings. All I and my colleagues ever wanted was a robust orthography that was based on Traditional Cornish graphs and that was phonetically accurate and unambiguous. I don't like the non-Traditional graphs in the SWF/Main, but we don't have to use them. We do object to the non-Traditional graphs in the SWF/Traditional. I don't think Keith is credible when he complains that I ought to be happy about them because they are a "compromise". For 20 years we insist on Traditional graphs. Then we get a Traditional form with non-Traditional elements? I don't see how that's "compromise" when the Main form has KK's favourite shibboleths.
Penny doesn't think we can correct the errors. I disagree with her. But we're free to continue to use UC if we want, or UCR. For my part I prefer the SWF—but not without correction of some of its flaws. I and others will publish some discussion of those flaws and propose solutions to them. We will probably publish using the corrected form. I strive to ensure that it is as close to the SWF as it can be—no one who learns that will have any problem reading a corrected form. Perhaps the corrected form will become popular. Perhaps the corrections will make sense and be taken on board in due course. I can see no reason to abstain from the effort, however. And I don't see it as counter-productive or against the spirit of everything. Orthography reform is a process of dialogue. Some people may want to use the SWF for a while before finding out what its inconsistencies are. That's fine. The CLP will do so. That's fine. We are free to prefer an Authentic Written Form if the SWF/Traditional fails to meet some minimum requirements (accuracy and authenticity). And if that AWF is pretty much based on the SWF (itself owing much to KS and to the actual pronunciation of the dialects of Revived Cornish), in dialogue with it in terms of improvement, how can that be anything but positive?
I think that KK supporters who criticize us for wanting the SWF to be truly excellent do so disingenuously. Keith doesn't want the SWF to succeed at all, by all he's said. He doesn't want us to show what might be wrong with it and how it could be improved, because he still sees the SWF as a threat to KK. I don't see the SWF (or its improvement) to be a threat to UC or UCR. I'm content to move beyond UC and UCR. I've agreed to lose: to give up a considerable investment in effort (the UCR dictionary for instance) to try to help move the Revival forward.
Posts: 2744
Posted:
28.Aug 2008 - 23:14
I'm glad to see you now agree with me that main form SWF does contain a lot from KK; previously you argued with me about this.
Posts: 1366
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 00:03
UCR accomplished what it set out to do. It got UC and RLC users talking. That led to KS. (KK users pretty much didn't want to talk to us, though UdnFormScrefys did take many KK concerns into account. We accepted eu in place of ue, for instance. That was a concession. We made it in good faith; we preferred ue.
The SWF/Main contains the graphs kw, hw, and k in place of c. That is not structural content or linguistic content. It is purely cosmetic. It happens to be visible.
Personally I don't believe that those non-Traditional forms will prevail in the long term. There's no advantage to them ("cat kestrel kitten collie cuckoo kitten kyrie qween centre civet" isn't difficult for anybody).
Mike who?
Posts: 4470
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 00:06
Credit where it's due.
Posts: 1828
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 00:43
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 1439
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 02:37
If you want to replace KK, then you'll have to come up with something that nearly all Cornish users think is an improvement. For KK users that would have to be KK with a few inconsistencies removed (<'i'> and <y> in loanwords for example) and /z/ probably.
For UC users there can be no improvement since UC is perfect, since UC is what it is, entirely self-referential. It's advantage is it's absolute stability -- no revision for c920 years. People stuck with UC 20 years ago because they just didn't want any change at all.
So all I think you'll attract with KSII are a few 'Lates' and 'floating voters', mostly the few who currently use UCR/SWF.
If I were you I'd put your prejudice aside and do a bit of market research.
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 368
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 09:37
Then those who dedicated themselves to KK could do just the same goky. That little point works both ways.
Posts: 1828
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 11:28
edited by: goky, Aug 29, 2008 - 11:28 AM
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 4470
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 11:53
Posts: 1828
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 12:16
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 4470
Posted:
29.Aug 2008 - 15:47
How would you KK fanatics feel if I started a "Ken George is Barking" thread?
No, you wouldn't like it. You'd protest that I was every sh*t under the sun for doing so. So why do you do it?
edited by: marhak, Aug 29, 2008 - 02:50 PM
Posts: 1828
Posted:
30.Aug 2008 - 05:49
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 984
Posted:
30.Aug 2008 - 08:52
I do not agree Hunlef. As a self confessed 'Engish Person' can his own agenda contaminate his opinion? Also, we all know that Professionals do not agree and it is a matter of opinion in many aspects. Therefore just because he is qualified, does NOT mean his opinions are correct. I do not agree with him on so many things. I am Cornish and proud of it and I have seen these so called experts mess around and bugger up everything they touch. Also they tend to have a pompous attitude to everyone else, and I hate that.
Posts: 1283
Posted:
30.Aug 2008 - 23:14
Posts: 164
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 00:27
Is such a thread promoting the anonymous (in the main) character assassination of a named individual morally reprehensible?
I think so, and whoever started it should be ashamed of themselves, frankly.
Posts: 1439
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 00:32
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 164
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 00:41
Posts: 1828
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 00:44
It is in the wrong orthography
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 164
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 00:54
Is NJW Chinese? Didn't someone say he was a Ninja?
Posts: 164
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 01:00
Posts: 1828
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 01:07
but I digress.
The blog The Great Goky Blog
Posts: 368
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 17:11
You do have to question 'her' motives, as well as her identity. Despite her protestations, I still think 'she' is a sockpuppet for someone else.
Posts: 1189
Posted:
31.Aug 2008 - 18:20
Certainly, s/he has an inflated view of her/him/it-self!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KS: selven an Furf Screfys Savonek? -- Ya, hep wow!
Kernewek Hengovek? -- Sur, nyns us nahen!
Posts: 239
Posted:
2.Sep 2008 - 16:23
My reasons for starting this thread were nothing to do with bitchiness, nastiness or pettiness but everything to do with patterns and anomalies.
Nicholas Williams' views - which I posted at the start of this thread - are not those which one expects to find among leading Cornish language activists, who display a strong tendency towards democratic and republican views. The overlap between leading members of Kowethas and Mebyon Kernow is and always has been considerable, as anyone who has studied An Gannas and Cornish Nation will realise.
Royalist, Unionist and anti-home rule views in the Cornish language movement are, on the other hand, very uncommon and give rise to questions of loyalty.
The profiles of those associated with Dr Williams are also remarkable, sufficiently so as to have given rise to a certain amount of discussion here and elsewhere.
The British government has engaged in the infiltration of political and language organisations in order to gather intelligence and to undermine autonomist movements in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. It would be naive to believe that the same tactics are not being employed in Cornwall.
Penny
edited by: pennysquire, Sep 02, 2008 - 04:23 PM
Posts: 368