... neither do I expect Cornish to look, sound or work anything like English, even dialect English. So why do you?
Who does? I don't. You're being rather patronising. I'm not trying to make Cornish look more English,
You don't need to, the 'traditional spelling' is already heavily anglicised.
however you are trying to make Cornish look less English.
I'm trying to reflect the true nature of the Cornish language (as far as that can be recovered, which is probably a lot farther than you think). Since Cornish is not English, making the spelling "more Cornish" cannot but make it "less English". While I would not go out of my way to do this just for the sake of it, without any other justification, there is perhaps an argument to be made, that if it looks clearly "un-English" then learners and readers will be reminded that it should also sound "un-English".
I'm not the one making assumptions on what I think it should have looked like 200 years ago.
I know what it looked like 200, 300, 400, 500 and a bit more, years ago. Everyone who might have read it then already knew how to speak Cornish, and how to pronounce every word. That is certainly not true today. So the way they wrote then is not suitable for today's conditions.
I want to write it as it did look like,
Fine if you're already fluent. Please go and study the original mss, they deserve all the attention they can get.
of course with necessary changes.
This then flatly contradicts your previous statement. Once you make changes you're not "writing it as it did look" because you're "writing it differently". So if you admit that in fact you don't really want to "write it as it looked then", but to write it differently, then the argument boils down to how and why it should be changed. That at least could be the basis of a valid discussion, provided it's based on informed, reasoned opinion rather than uninformed, personal likes and dislikes.
I don't see z's or kw's or hw's as necessary changes.
Whereas I do. I've explained my reasons, so have others. Often repeatedly and at length. The point I think is that these changes are designed for serious students and users of Cornish, and have been taken up with enthusiasm by most of them. People who want to read and write and pronounce continuous texts. If all you want to do is use a bit of decorative Cornish for a motto or letterhead, then it doesn't really matter, any old rubbish will do. It don't even have to be 'proper Cornish', look around at house/boat names etc. So use UC if you like for that sort of stuff. I don't care. Do professors of English complain about idiocies like "Ye Olde English Tea Shoppe". Of course not, they just laugh quietly. The point being that it's not supposed to be genuine archaic English, it's just supposed to look the part. And the same for most of the "token Cornish" you see around. However I don't see why non-speakers should impose this sort of nonsense on real Cornish language publications to be read by serious students and users.
I don't go around writing French without gender distinction just because it's a pain to have to learn the gender of every word. If I did that, people would wonder what on earth I was doing, with French there's a right way and a wrong way to spell it.
The spelling does however often show the gender, which is helpful, it's a part of that language. In fact French people often misspell words and forget or ignore simple rules like putting an '-e' on the end of feminine adjectives, and an '-s' on plurals etc. There is only "one right way" because they have an academy and a highly centralised education system that try to level out all local and individual variations. Like the teachers here criticising Cornish and other local accents.
Cornish however doesn't have a right way and a wrong way, it has many different ways that are right or wrong depending on your opinion.
Each system has more or less exact rules. If you want certainty use UC which cannot be changed for 1,000 years. However our knowledge and understanding of Cornish is growing all the time, so revisions are needed now and again. These should become smaller and less frequent as time goes on. A bit like fixing the bugs in a complex piece of software.
You think KK still looks too English, that's your opinion,
No, you're doing Michael's trick of putting words into my mouth.
so you want more change.
I don't "want" anything. I believe KK would better reflect the nature of Cornish if the /s/ and /z/ phonemes were distinguished, in the same way the dh and th are distinguished. I think the simplest and most obvious way to do that would be to write them as 's' and 'z'. Do you have a better suggestion?
I've never come across anyone who's seen Cornish and thought it was just misspelled English,
No? What about Late Cornish? What about some of the signs I referred to? Why do you think outsiders often spell Camborn as 'Cambourne' etc. etc.
so I see the changes you want as unnecessary and the reasons for them as weak.
Since you don't speak Cornish, teach it, read continuous texts in it, etc. that's hardly surprising. You are in no position to appreciate the advantages of these features, and so make judgements based upon superficial appearances. It looks unfamiliar, not like the Englished 'traditional' forms of placenames, or the UC which was almost the only Cornish to be seen for several decades. That is because Cornish is not English, it is, because of historical circumstances a 'foreign language' to the Cornish people today. Would you expect a foreign language to look familiar? You say that when you learn French you want to learn it as French, so why do you want your Cornish to be like English?
How you got the idea that people expect Cornish to look like English, considering they're in a completely different language family, is anyone's guess.
There you go, you've just contradicted yourself again. If it's a "completely different language" why do you object to it looking un-English? Is that not just what you'd expect?
I would imagine it's just more of your "ordinary Cornish people are too thick to know anything about linguistics" mentality.
It's not a question of being "thick" (although I admit some here do rather give that impression!) It's a question of being unable to make informed judgements about things they often know next to nothing about. Unfortunately, what with history having gone the way it did, the language being abandoned etc., we're left with the situation where every Cornish person and his/her dog, seems to think they should have a say in how the language is written, because it's "their language", when 99% of the time they don't know hardly any Cornish and don't understand the issues. But if they don't care about the finer points, and want something that "looks quaint and 'Cornish'" then UC will do nicely. I certainly can't see any point in UCR, KS, SWF/whatever.
A bit OT, but on the perils of using language as decoration, see here :
and note the reference to 'KK' at the top of the second column