[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

[Jon Mills]

I agree that it isn't 1904. However a criticism frequently levelled
against revived Cornish orthographies is that the prescribed forms lack
legitimacy because they are unattested. Are we reviving the Cornish
language or creating a conlang? Attested forms should not be ignored be
cause they are inconvenient or at odds with 20th century practice.Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Michael Everson"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms
  Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:44:12 +0100

  On 11 Sep 2008, at 08:57, Jon Mills wrote:

    What is wrong with writing the attested form 'Cornowok'?


  It isn't 1904. We don't have tabula rasa. Our task (in Spellyans) is
  to identify shortcomings in the SWF and putting them right in a
  practical orthography for use.
  Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080911/fc4516a0/attachment.html