Page 6 of 10
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:34 pm
It's long since passed into folklore.
Really? You typed it in verbatim from memory? Or you looked it up? Most sites on the internet which cite it give attribution. Your not giving it attribution looked like plaigiarism.
You do seem to be a very possessive person, your obsession with copyright etc.
Poor dear Keith. I showed no "obsession" when I told the droid that he did not have the right to "convert" my book without asking the publisher.
Where there is no financial gain to be had, I can only assume you must be some kind of control freak.
Of course you assume wrongly. But then you're just making an ad-hominem attack on me for the sake of it, aren't you?
And all because you believe "non-KK = bad". Says a lot more about you than anything else. Poor fellow.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:38 pm
[quote=Evertype][quote=truru]Don't sidestep the question
To whom, then?[/quote]To anyone who asks! Stop being facetious.[/quote]I guess that I will have to make such a determination when someone serious writes to me and asks.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:40 pm
I can only assume you must be some kind of control freak.
Anal retentive is the expression I would use for Everson.
Is sphincter control some sort of problem for you?
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:51 pm
[quote=Evertype]There is the question of how well they meet identified requirement criteria.
Identified by whom? Agreed by whom? All you're doing is avoiding the question. [/quote]Oh come, now, Keith. Our user requirements were made public by UdnFormScrefys at least in Revision 11 of A Proposed Standard Written Form of Cornish, 26 March 2007. We set out our requirement criteria there. But you knew that.
[quote][quote]Does this mean we will hear no more of your "KK is a conlang" cant?
I don't follow you. KK is an artefact. That doesn't mean it respects Cornish. It seems to respect George's vision of Brythonic reconstruction more than it respects genuine Cornish. As such, it has features redolent of a conlang.[/quote]I think that is disingeneous.[/quote]The word is "disingenuous".
First you admit that all systems are constructed, then you single out one as 'artificial' (a synonym for 'constructed') because you don't like the particular way it was done. Well, we don't like the way your systems are constructed, mostly without any objective criteria as far as I can see. So again, in the absense of any independent outside judge or criteria there is nothing to choose between systems apart from practical effectiveness and popularity. We might expect these to run together, since people generally prefer things that work to things that don't but this is an emperical question.
No, I signalled out one for respecting George's vision of Brythonic reconstruction more than it respects genuine Cornish. It is the only orthography for Revived Cornish which does this.
As such, it does, in fact, have features redolent of a conlang. That is an objective assessment. I could say the same thing about Interlingua. UC, UCR, RLC, and KS do not have this feature.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm
[quote=Evertype]Copyright laws exist for a reason. The Kensa Lyver Redya is protected by those laws. R3D3 cannot "convert" that book without permission.
And the million dollar question is... would you be willing to give that permission?[/quote]For the translator's slice of US$1,000,000?
Never, Sir, never! I spurn your filthy lucre!
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 5:04 pm
But when it became clear that Vocalic Alternation needed to be a formal part of the orthography, the KK representatives insisted that this would only be acceptable if the M-type graphs were given primacy.
Michael, please. This is not how it went down - and you know it, or at least you should!
What I know of Andrew's account of how the negotiations went (and which you are basing your views on) is *not correct*, and I have been telling you this for over a year. I really do not know why detailed notes of the AHG meetings have not been published, but that is something we all should ask Jenefer. That such notes - which would help me prove my point - have not been circulated is not my fault, and I am deeply frustrated about this.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 5:24 pm
[quote=truru][quote=Evertype][quote=truru]Don't sidestep the question
To whom, then?[/quote]To anyone who asks! Stop being facetious.[/quote]I guess that I will have to make such a determination when someone serious writes to me and asks.[/quote]
OK, let's try it a fourth time.
In a hypothetical situation, where someone expressed to you a serious interest in translating the book from KS into the SWF, and in this hypothetical situation Eddie agreed to it, would you give them your approval? Also, would you be willing to publish it?
Now I don't think there's anything wrong with my spelling, punctuation or grammar in this post, so you can't nitpick at that instead of answering, and the questions I've asked are (hopefully) concise and unambiguous.
edited by: truru, May 03, 2009 - 05:25 PM
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:31 pm
Truru, from a practical POV your question is irrelevant. It's clear what ME & Co. are doing. They find an out of copyright book somewhere on the internet, preferably with pretty pictures in it. Translate it to their idea of Cornish and republish with the original illustrations included. Saves a lot of time, expense and creativity, (they seem to have rather little of the last) and allows them to churn out volume after volume of unwanted cranky Cornish.
There is nothing afaik to prevent anyone else retranslating that work, or translating one of the many equivalent works into any other sort of Cornish. That this is not being done is probably because it's a rather silly game that no one else wants to play.
It's purpose is entirely political as should be quite clear.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:59 pm
[quote=Evertype]But when it became clear that Vocalic Alternation needed to be a formal part of the orthography, the KK representatives insisted that this would only be acceptable if the M-type graphs were given primacy.
Michael, please. This is not how it went down - and you know it, or at least you should![/quote]Should I?
What I know of Andrew's account of how the negotiations went (and which you are basing your views on) is *not correct*, and I have been telling you this for over a year.
You say it is "not correct" but I have detailed written notes taken in debriefing with Andrew after each of the five AHG meetings. So I know what Andrew's account was, it being fresh in his mind each time we met.
I also do not recall any time (in the past year) when you said to me that it was not the case that VA was traded for the demotion of Traditional graphs in favour of the "Main" graphs. I recall that you claim that Andrew agreed to final -i in monosyllables, and I know that he disputes your claim.
I have no reason to doubt Andrew's account. I do know that his pre-VA account was that the Traditional and Kebmyn graphs were simple options, and as far as I can see, the account that VA was horse-traded for Kebmyn graphs and the primacy of the "Main" form makes very good sense indeed. I can hardly imagine any other scenario in which the KK faction would have accepted VA (without trading it for something).
I really do not know why detailed notes of the AHG meetings have not been published, but that is something we all should ask Jenefer. That such notes - which would help me prove my point - have not been circulated is not my fault, and I am deeply frustrated about this.
I have heard an explanation as to why, but I shall not repeat it on this forum. If you would like to know it you may write to me.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:03 pm
[quote=Evertype][quote=truru][quote=Evertype][quote=truru]Don't sidestep the question
To whom, then?[/quote]To anyone who asks! Stop being facetious.[/quote]I guess that I will have to make such a determination when someone serious writes to me and asks.[/quote]In a hypothetical situation, where someone expressed to you a serious interest in translating the book from KS into the SWF, and in this hypothetical situation Eddie agreed to it, would you give them your approval? Also, would you be willing to publish it?[/quote]I will make such a determination when someone serious writes to me and asks. I don't even know who you are.
I am not disposed to discussing "hypothetical" business decisions on a hostile list like this. You have only to look at what Bailey is saying above to see that nothing I say here would do any good.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:59 pm
You're so predictable. And you wonder why people question your motives.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 8:04 pm
And for that you have only yourself to blame.
[edit : comment to ME, not Truru who got a in a post before me].
Let my try again to show how Michael and his friends have been somewhat less than honest. They have indeed been very good at politics of the crowd-manipulation variety, but have used this skill to the detriment of the Language.
Let us begin with 'compromise', a word Michael appears to have forgotten the meaning of, although in the past he was at great pains to explain it to us all. As he said himself, compromise means "everyone has to lose (something) so that everyone can win". Michael tells us there are faults in the SWF, I agree, there are indeed faults in the SWF. Unfortunately the faults I see are his choice features, and vice versa. It should be obvious that no one could have got everything they wanted, instead we have a compromise where we get some of our features and they get some of theirs, but no one can be totally satisified with the result. If they were it would mean one side had got all their own way, and clearly that would not have been a compromise. [Please show the logical error in this argument, I can't see any].
So once again, they asked for it, they got it, and now they're complaining about it and not supporting it. Clearly they feel cheated if they don't get their own way every time, in the face of most Cornish users. How can that be fair?
Now ME seems to be agreeing with my position, and probably Ken's, that a compromise would be a 'dog's breakfast', a bit of a mess. This of course is why we were opposed to a compromise solution in the first place -- because it just wouldn't work very well for technical reasons. I can't really believe that Michael has just discovered this rather obvious fact.
The Process was accepted by many because we assumed that, as is the usual practice, the most used and best resourced version would become the official standard, perhaps with some small changes recommeded. The only reason why not, would be if there was clearly some technical fault in it's construction. We therefore expected the 'world experts' (so we were told) on the Commission to either accept KK as the most established form, or to find some fault in its construction. Of course they did neither. From early on it the idea was pushed by the likes of Deacon, that no existing form could be accepted. This was of course to prejudge the Commission's decision, and was simply part of their plan to damage the Kesva, and hence the movement as a whole.
Playing along with this strategy, Williams announced to the LWG that he would 'give up' UCR in a spirit of 'compromise'. This was a rather hollow gesture because (a) no one had really taken up UCR, two or three people at most, and (b) he already had a group of anti-KK people working in secret for the past few months on 'son of UCR'. [Yes I know a couple of nominally KK users were duped into participating, but they were rather peripheral to the language movement and perhaps didn't really know the score]. This of course totally wrong-footed the KK side, because although we had perfectly good reasons for rejecting compromise (it wouldn't work and it wasn't needed), it made us look the bad guys. Why the public were lead to ask, won't there people co-operate for the common good? There were and are perfectly good answers, but they are not the sort of thing that can be easily wrapped up in a sound-bite.
The Commission were allowed to get the impression that all factions had substantial backing, presumably because the minorities shouted the loudest, because the Survey results were not made available to them, and because they were disuaded from entering into dialogue with any of the languge bodies. All very odd, but unless or until the official records are opened to the public (as we were told at the beginning of the Process they would be), it's impossible to say quite how this was done. They therefore dodged their responsibility of examing the various parties claims in detail, and simply recommended a rather vaguely defined 'compromise' solution.
This was forced through, and some of the more flexible types on our side sat on the AHG and in good faith thrashed out a compromise. The result is a mess, but a case might be made for having a mess that everyone could agree to work with. However no sooner is the ink on the agreement dry that it becomes plain that Michael and his friends (Dan excepted) are not going to support the compromise they insisted on, but begin to immediately work to destabilise it.
To them the Process and the AHG have served their political ends. The Kesva has been sidelined by the CLP, and the CLP supports the SWF which is half-way to their target from the KK position. So just another push in a few years time, and maybe they'll be three-quarters there. Give them an inch ... Does anyone really think they ever had a genuine intention of compromising with anyone? Is there anyone who would trust them now?
Whether by accident or by design, the mismanagement of the Process has worked to the advantage of whatever forces oppose the revival of the Cornish Language, presumably because of it's value in helping to legitimise Cornish independence. Whether by intention of out of sheer stupidity, the anti-KK lobby have allowed themselves to be used as tools to the serious detriment of the language movement. Not only have long-established institutions been weakened, the image of Cornish in linguistic circles has also been damaged, and that at a time when the concept of reviving languages has at last been accepted as legitimate and worthy of academic support.
edited by: morvran, May 03, 2009 - 08:06 PM
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 8:36 pm
You're so predictable. And you wonder why people question your motives.
So, you think I should be disposed to discussing "hypothetical" business decisions on a hostile list like this?
I enjoy your blog.
As to my motives, they are to make available a growing range of attractive books in good Cornish.