Interesting point Flamm, but KK users have only been around for twenty odd years. Its only been that long since Ken invented KK. It is always a wrench to change from one way of doing things to another, but sometimes its worthwhile. You have already accepted one synthesised spelling system, for KK people it should be a relatively easy jump to accept another if the orthography lends itself to easy learning which I think was one of the prime motivations for dropping Unified in the first place?
Some KK users have used KK for far longer than some UC speakers have used UC. KK has been in use for longer than UCR, and far longer than KD or KS, so should they be discounted? Are you saying that only the opinions of UC speakers should be considered because it's the oldest system? Are you saying that 20 years' experience of and involvement in a particular form count for nothing? I can't quite see the point you're trying to make.
They will probably find some old scogan who has been speaking UC since the Great War, and use his opinion of how UC is superior because it has been around the longest.
There are more and better materials in KK than anything else (but we could do with more still!)
There are more and better teachers of KK than anything else, and the Kesva already has established links and co-operation with the LEA.
KK is believed to present the least problems to learners but this should be examined empirically, by skilled language teachers.
On the whole you can get a UCR/UC type pronunciation from KK by ignoring some of the distinctions that it shows. A RLC pronunciation is also predictable in theory, but there are extensive differences of grammar, syntax and vocabulary so martesen an vyaj ny dal oy?
KK represents the pronunciation around 1500 which is close to the 'centre of gravity' of the surviving pre-revival literature. It's normal for a standard literary form to err on the conservative side, as it's easier to go from early to later forms of a language than the other way around.
If you mean 'different from English' then KK probably wins. If you mean 'just like the (English) names on signposts, then it loses.
How about, "Is there an existing body capable of administering and correcting/updating/developing the system"
No, Cornish has got on very well without them for years, and can continue to do so.
Is it? Is the object of "The Process" to "get everyone agreeing on a single written form" or to select the best possible orthography for 21st century Cornish?
Of these two, the first is unattainable; I go for the second.
What about a Norwegian solution for Cornish?
i.e. KK as the primary standard written form, and a secondary standard based on Late Cornish (when the supporters of Late can get round to agreeing among themselves as to how to spell it). No need to pretend, as does Kernowak, that the two varieties represent registers. No need to pretend that the grammar of each variety is the same.
First of all, it is not rue that the "players" behind KS will not agree to abide by the decision of the Comission. This is bad-mouthing a group that has invested time and energy in the agreed upon process and has worked within the frame-work of this process.
Secondly, Nicholas Williams has put together an English-Cornish dictionary that is used, not only by those who write UC and UCR, but by those who write KK as well. One further advantage of a Single Written Form is to concentrate the creative energy of all Cornish language enthusiasts that have previously been split by parallel efforts invested in the respective orthographic forms. It is a shame that the "players behind KK" are so inflexible as to recognise this and work together with other groups to come to a solution.
Kernowak doesn't "pretend". Cornish is one language, surely we can have one orthographic system and allow for variant forms where appropriate. Every language does this. You would write a different style English whether you were addressing a solicitor in official business or a friend via e-mail.
Oh, but it doesn't pretend.
The document explains exactly what and why certain forms were standardised. Tudor and Late Cornish are essentially the same language, with the same difference that are found between our English today and Charles Dickens's English. Or for a more appropriate analogy, literary Welsh and Cymraeg Byw.
Don't you think that a fully lexical KS <dhewgh why> is essentially the same form as writing down a more 'racy' KS <dha why>? Do you think that the attested Tudor form <thewhy> (BK) is really any different from Late Cornish <tha why>?
This is the right question to ask! Palores wants to have KK as THE standard and appease the Revived Late Cornish users by "allowing" them their little orthography. Will this Late Cornish standard orthography have the same official status? Will there be dictionaries, grammars, learners' material for this "secondary standard"? What does "secondary standard" mean anyway, where publication, official correspondence, teaching in schools is concerned? If Palores finds the Norwegian solution so appealing, will Revived Late Cornish Standard be taught west of Truro while KK "rules" central Cornwall, as Nynorsk is predominantly taught in rural south-western/western Norway? How are these two standards to be implemented? Will it be possible to write articles or letters to the editor of a Cornish language monthly magazine in both standards?
I thought the agreed upon process was about finding a SINGLE written form not two Standards. I for one find it much more sensible to have a Single Cornish Language that allows for the variation that occurred in the traditional language.
No. <dhewgh why> is a pronominal preposition + enclitic, <dha why> is a preposition + pronoun; the grammar is different. Anyone trying to encompass both a Middle and a Late Cornish base must allow for different grammar; it cannot be done satisfactorily in a single written form.
Note that <dhewgh why> will not satisfy those who support a Middle Cornish base, since they will want <dhywgh hwi> as in KK; and <dha why> will not satisfy those who support a Late Cornish base, since they will want <dha wei> (or something of the kind). It is impossible to produce a single written form which caters for both varieties. Creating a compromise spelling satisfies no-one; it serves only to boost the ego of its creators.
The last group use this volume only with the utmost circumspection. They are aware of its shortcomings. They know that instead of making up new words, Nicholas Williams often prefers to re-spell English words in his idiosyncratic way. They know he often follows Nance slavishly, without giving proper consideration to the best form of words. They know that his use of i and y is haphazard. From the entries in the dictionary, they surmise that his knowledge of certain subjects (physics comes to mind) appears inadequate for the task of creating a modern vocabulary.
Husband spares poison wife prison
A Cornish wife who poisoned her estranged husband three times escapes prison after he pleads for mercy for her.
Surf lifesaving event in jeopardy
A Cornish resort faces losing a major lifesaving event because it does not have a big enough swimming pool.
Son sat on post office robber
An axe-wielding robber is thwarted after a postmistress's son sat on him until police arrived.
Driver dies after car leaves road
A driver from Plymouth dies after his car leaves the road and careers down an embankment in Cornwall.
Plans in gear for speedway track
Speedway could be coming back to Cornwall if a planning application for a track at Bodmin is accepted.
Rescued girl's parents at bedside
The parents of a French teenager in intensive care after nearly drowning off Cornwall are at her bedside.
Independent review team is named
Review of management at the Royal Cornwall Hospital's Trust to be lead by former nurse with 50 years NHS experience.
Charity hospices in £1m shortfall
Two hospices that care for thousands of terminally ill adults could be forced to close in a funding shortfall.
