"Kensa Lyver Redya" dyllys in Kernowek

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
User avatar
Eddie-C
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:31 am

Post by Eddie-C » Fri May 01, 2009 7:45 am

Cador whek,
As morvran's entire post was visible immediately above yours, what was the point in copying it all out again, word for tiresome word?

Give us a break. Sure, quote excerpts for comment, but not the whole darned thing, there's a pal!

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am

Yes, Little Weasel. My agenda is obvious. I intend to make a wide variety of excellent material available in good, traditionally-based Cornish without the errors or inconsistencies the AHG process could not avoid.

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Fri May 01, 2009 9:59 am


morvran said:
I have never claimed to support the SWF,

Then why complain that I am publishing in an amended version of it? You don't like either one.


or the idea of 'compromise'.

No, you wouldn't support compromise. I imagine that this is because Ken George's experimental orthography is more interesting and "logical" to you than genuine Cornish is.


This was because I could foresee that the result would be a mess.

Got a crystal ball there next to your armchair, eh?


The result imo is a mess, and I don't therefore support it.

You never stopped to consider, as we did when we invited Ken to work with us on a Fifth Form, that if we had worked together it would be less unsatisfactory. But your side's linguists refused to participate in the process, and your side insisted that our side's linguists not be allowed to participate directly in the process.

The result is less a "mess" than it might have been, however. It's easy to correct what's wrong with the SWF.


I have been entirely honest and consistent in my views throughout.

One doubts. You are so very often disingenuous (a form of dishonesty). And you're not all that consistent. You can't even admit when you've been shown to be wrong (as you were with that Lhyudian Y not long ago).


Others however have judged matters differently and either been unaware of the technical problems, or else have downplayed that aspect. That is they were and are prepared to accept a 'mess' provided everyone else did.

What "others"? You mean like Loveday and Polin, who are evidently now teaching the SWF? I expect they are finding errors and inconsistencies in the SWF. I know that Andrew and Ray and Craig, who are teaching SWF/T, are finding problems with it. They're all predictable problems too. And correctable.


The people who formed the UFS and Spellyans groups claimed they were working towards an acceptable compromise.

First off, you're wrong about who is who here.

UdnFormScrefys was a group of people who worked on a compromise orthography called Kernowak Standard (which we ought now to call KS1). Input from users of KK into that process was somewhat lacking, due to refusal from all but a very few KK users to discuss the matter with us. You yourself talked about talking (evidently against the advice of your fellows on the Kesva), but instead of actually admitting that if smart people who loved Cornish worked together, you tried to impose conditions on us before you would talk. One of those conditions was to insist that I withdraw an announced book from publication. Of course, that book was one in a series of books which were made available to the Commissioners. These books made plain the problems with KK. I believe that these helped to make it clear to the Commissioners that KK could not be selected to be the Single Written Form. Evidently, you and your colleagues believed that these books were a threat to Kesva hegemony. But I doubt very much that if I had withdrawn the book before publication that Ken and you and whoever would have met with me and Nicholas and Neil and others to work on a Fifth Form orthography.

Spellyans is a group of people who began working on an orthography called Kernowek Standard, after the SWF was published. This orthography, KS, is not just KS1 Mark II. KS1 helped to shape the SWF, but Kernowek Standard took as its starting point the SWF. One significant difference, for instance, is the use of i for [iː] and y for [ɪ] in monosyllables and their derivatives. This was a major change from KS1. There are others. (But you never studied either KS1 or KS, so you wouldn't know, and I'm sure you don't care.)


They provided a substantial proportion of the delegates on the AHG and had substantial input to the AHG as advisors etc.

As you know, your side refused to allow Agan Tavas to choose its own delegates to the AHG, and indeed refused to allow a representative of UFS to even come to the meeting and describe KS1 to the group.


Indeed KS was explicitely named as one of the poles from which the SWF compromise was to be attained.

Yes, it was. And some of KS1's principles are at the root of the SWF. An orthography is a medley of different elements, however. Cacophony spoils the medley.


The meetings were held, an agreement was reached, not without difficulty, but reached nevertheless.

Right. Of course there wasn't really enough time (due to deadline constraints that had to do with funding) to complete discussions in an open way. We urged a meeting of the Linguistic Advisors but such a meeting did not take place. Had it taken place, the SWF would have had the input it needed, and the Advisors would be able to feel that they had direct input to the process. But there was no time, and so, after 5 1/2 days of work, 8 non-specialists made an agreement which was binding on the CLP.


All parties afaik signed off that agreement, which was to hold for the next few years.

As far as I know, this is incorrect. The CLP has taken a decision to use the SWF unchanged for 5 years. They and only they are bound by this. Teachers like Loveday or Craig who wish to help their students pass exams may choose to teach the SWF unchanged. Everyone else is free to do as they wish. You are free to use your zedified version of Kebmyn. Someone else may choose to stick to UC, or UCR. I don't know what the Cùssel are doing. We're free to choose to use the SWF if we wish. We are also free to examine its errors and inconsistencies, and to offer the general public an adapted version of the SWF in which these are rectified.


That is it was to be used for that time so that any problems could be identified from the experience of those using it.

We have already identified these.


The UFS/KS/Spellyans faction campaigned for a compromise, and achieved a compromise. Why therefore are they now not prepared to keep their word and honour that compromise?

Once again, please do not confuse UdnFormScrefys with Spellyans. UdnFormScrefys campaigned for a compromise. The CLP achieved the SWF, but it has errors and inconsistencies. We in Spellyans do not believe that learners should be shackled with these errors and inconsistencies. (Surely even you can appreciate this.)


(The fact that I happen not to support the SWF is neither here nor there, since I have never backed it or worked for it in the first place).

Pilatus ... lavit manus coram populo. Clean as the driven snow, are you, Keith?


Or, if they never intended to use it, why bother with the Process, AHG etc. Since they were always free to develop, use and promote KS?

We provided an analysis of errors and inconsistencies in the draft SWF prior to its publication. We even provided solutions to the problems. Every one of these was either rejected or ignored. We don't know which. There was no dialogue. No disposition of comments. So the SWF was published as it is, and we have developed KS to correct its errors and inconsistencies.


The only conclusion I can come to is that they were intent on damaging the standing of the Kesva and the mainstream of the Revival. And indeed still are.

No, Keith. The Kesva has damaged its "standing" all by itself. And it is but one organization in the Revival. It has no authority over other organizations. (Don't try to tell us otherwise. Even at the last MAGA meeting—which you, predictably, snubbed—when any of us criticized the Kesva, the criticism was taken as an attack. It was the new chairperson of the Kesva who got all narky about the criticism. Charm was absent.)


If not why object to KK, as the most used and favoured form, being the standard?

We object to KK because it is not fit for purpose. It fails to make linguistic distinctions which are a part of Revived Cornish; it mandates linguistic distinctions which are not a part of Revived Cornish; it abandons Traditional orthographic forms.


What advantage have they gained from having an SWF they won't use, vs KK which they won't use?

The SWF is better than KK. It needs correction, but it does not offend.


None at all. Only to disadvantage the majority of other users.

"Majority" means little given the numbers of users of Cornish. The last two decades have not moved the language forward very much. Fortunately, the SWF and KS offer hope for a robust, academically-acceptable future.


A completely dog in the manger attitude.

Phrases used attributively are hyphenated. It's "a completely dog-in-the-manger attitude". Nice use of the infixed "completely", though.


Again, their essentially negative aims are quite clear from the discussions earlier this month on Spellyans re. "goat". I invite everyone to read through those exchanges and reach their own conclusions.

Your rhetoric is showing. Our new Kensa Lyver Redya is a lovely and charming book. Has a complete glossary of all words and word-forms, too. Nothing negative about it.

And I'm not worried about your "evaluation" of our discussion of the spelling of gavar, either.

Mostly I feel a little sorry for you.

truru
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 12:52 pm
Contact:

Post by truru » Fri May 01, 2009 11:58 am


morvran said:
The only conclusion I can come to is that they were intent on damaging the standing of the Kesva and the mainstream of the Revival. And indeed still are.



The Kesva is not the be-all-and-end-all of the Cornish language. No matter what it was set up to be in 1967, in 2009 it does not have that status.


Evertype said:
I have never claimed to support the SWF,Then why complain that I am publishing in an amended version of it? You don't like either one.



To be fair, KS can't really be labelled as an "amended SWF", language revisions have to be agreed by the regulators, the SWF is the SWF, good or bad, what it was in 2008. The only time an amended SWF will come about is 2013, where it will be known as "the SWF". Spelling English phonetically can't be called "amended English" if just a handful of people decide to start doing so.

User avatar
Eddie-C
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:31 am

Post by Eddie-C » Fri May 01, 2009 12:52 pm


truru said:
KS can't really be labelled as an "amended SWF", language revisions have to be agreed by the regulators, the SWF is the SWF, good or bad, what it was in 2008. The only time an amended SWF will come about is 2013, where it will be known as "the SWF". Spelling English phonetically can't be called "amended English" if just a handful of people decide to start doing so.

Your logic is flawed, I'm afraid. KS starts from the SWF and, in order to correct its flaws and omissions, amends it. 'Amended SWF' is just what KS is.

And if we were amending English spelling, then we could legitimately call it 'amended English' -- although I haven't the foggiest who the 'regulators' of English might be! In a similar way, Nicholas Williams developed his amended version of UC --without needing any 'official' sanction-- and was quite free to choose to call it 'Kernewek Unys Amendys'.

Of course, what KS *is not* is "CLP-sanctioned amended SWF"; that is what will emerge in 2013, after the official review process, and it will hopefully address the flaws and omissions in the present SWF.

But, then, we've never claimed otherwise.



edited by: Eddie-C, May 01, 2009 - 01:04 PM

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Fri May 01, 2009 1:16 pm


truru said:
[quote=Evertype][quote=Keith]I have never claimed to support the SWF,

Then why complain that I am publishing in an amended version of it? You don't like either one.[/quote]To be fair, KS can't really be labelled as an "amended SWF", language revisions have to be agreed by the regulators, the SWF is the SWF, good or bad, what it was in 2008.[/quote]
We don't label KS as an "amended SWF". We label it "Kernowek Standard". It is, however, correctly described as an "amended SWF".

I see Eddie has pointed out that it has no "official CLP sanction", but then, as he says, we have never claimed otherwise.



edited by: Evertype, May 01, 2009 - 01:17 PM

truru
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 12:52 pm
Contact:

Post by truru » Fri May 01, 2009 1:30 pm

The single word "labelled" wasn't the point of my post, Michael, as you well know.

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Fri May 01, 2009 2:39 pm

What was your point, then, Truru?

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Fri May 01, 2009 2:46 pm


gokyreloaded said:
Then I suggest you not make any referral to the SWF in your publications so as to avoid confusion.

I'm sure your suggestions are made with our best interests at heart, Little Weasel.

In Alice, we write:
Raglavar said:
Yma an … lyver-ma screfys i’n spellyans aswonys avell Kernowek Standard. Pòr ogas yw an lytherednans-na dhe’n Furv Scrifys Savonek (Grafow Hengovek), saw nebes fowtys bian i’n Furv Scrifys Savonek re beu amendys i’n spellyans awoles, hag y fëdh sinys diacrytek ûsys i’n spellyans kefrës dhe dhysqwedhes dyffransow inter geryow kehaval bò dhe notya vogalednow a yll bos leverys in dyw fordh dhyvers. Pynag oll a allo redya an Furv Scrifys Savonek, a vëdh abyl dhe redya an versyon-ma heb caletter vëth oll.


I don't believe that there is anything ambiguous about this.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Fri May 01, 2009 2:47 pm

Don't talk wet, Steve. KS is there to assist the SWF, in preparation for the 2013 review. We do noit intend to make the mistake that KK did 20-odd years ago, when a completely untried, untested , unscrutinised system was gerrymandered upon the language revival without any public consultation. That it was heavily flawed was only exposed afterwards, once properly qualified experts had been given a chance to examine it (for the Cornish public, this came too late).


By publishing in KS, we are offering those revisions to the SWF in full view. There are 4 years in which its devisors can receive feedback from the Cornish using public, for the system to be fully visible and scrutinised. Remember that KS was one of the bases upon which the SWF was constructed, and that SWF/T is very close to it. It has a few mistakes and inconsistencies to be ironed out, and 2013 is the date set for that to be fully discussed. KS is not an alternative system, although you guys are intent upon putting such propaganda forward. It exists to assist the SWF with the review in mind. Nothing more, nothing less. At the end of it all, we want the Cornish available to all to be the best that can be achieved. KK failed in that respect. The SWF (particularly SWF/T) is so very close to achieving that. The lessons that will be learned by KS scrutiny over the next 4 years will benefit the SWF.

KS devisors will listen and consider arguments put forward on linguistic grounds. Already, aspects that have been little understood and little debated have been discussed, detailed, researched and finalised. This sort of approach can only be good for the language. Arguments put forward by the likes of Goky (you're all twats/unintelligent/planks/clowns, therefore KS is crap, will not do. Proper linguistic arguments, which he is incapable of).

Reeves, I do not write in UC. I have not written in UC for 25 years (except for a few phrases in 1991). Now who's the liar? What text books do I use? Kernowek Es, which is being progressively rewritten by Andrew and myself to accord with SWF/T.



edited by: marhak, May 01, 2009 - 02:54 PM

Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Fri May 01, 2009 11:06 pm

lying again, you really shouldn't keep repeating this "gerrymandered" nonsence unless you can produce some evidence. Or even come up with a plausible suggestion of how it might have been done. Or a motive for that matter. But then you don't need a psychology degree to appreciate that people generally believe what they want to be true, often in the face of all fact.

Remember this is Credulous Craig who actually believed that Gorsedh Kernow dated back to the Iron Age, and got very cross when he found out he'd been had.

When will he wake up to the fact that he's been had a few more times too?

User avatar
Eddie-C
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:31 am

Post by Eddie-C » Sat May 02, 2009 9:42 am

Lying again, Keith? You really shouldn't keep repeating this 'not gerrymandered' nonsense, unless you can produce some evidence.

Especially since, unlike me, you weren't at that meeting in Truro in 1987. Why, all you're doing is repeated unsubstantiated, second hand, hearsay. I, on the other hand, was there and saw it all -- that meeting was gerrymandered, packed, fixed. It was a stitch up.

Kicked out from the KKesva, exkommunikkated by the KK hierarchy, rejected by those he revered: the inner KK clique.

A long and proven track record of lies, half-truths and phony "statistikks".

Nothing written since 1993.

One lonely old fossil.





edited by: Eddie-C, May 02, 2009 - 03:30 PM

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests