Some thoughts about the Process

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
Post Reply
User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:53 pm

A few messages seem to have got lost in the "noise" on this list. I'm going to move them here. Maybe no one will want to talk about them. That's OK, but I thought I'd give the posts a chance.

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

Post by Evertype » Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:54 pm

This is my response to Keith's distortions of the time schedule and my communication with Ken. It contains the letter I sent to Ken and Ray, which was circulated to at least some members of the Kesva.


Morvran said:
The "KK leadership" were kept entirely in the dark about the UFS project until it was made public just days before the deadline for individual submissions.



The deadline for individual submissions was 2007-03-30. I had written to Ray Edwards on 2007-02-16 and told him the following:


Evertype said:
[quote=Ray Edwards]Do you think it is possible to establish a new Standard Written Form of Cornish, acceptable to everybody, by putting together a compromise format assembled from the four competing systems?



Yes, we do. Not quite "assembled from the four competing systems", but authentic and addressing the valid concerns people have about the relation between orthography and pronunciation.


Ray Edwards said:
If so, how long do you think it would take?



Realistically, not very long. You may have heard that a consensus began to emerge at the Partnership's Linguistic Working Group towards a fifth form. This came as no surprise to me.[/quote]

Now the linguistic Working Group had met on 2007-02-12. And at that meeting, there was discussion about a Fifth Form. Albert Bock, Benjamin Bruch, Neil Kennedy, Rod Lyon, Nicholas Williams, had all discussed the possibility of considering a compromise form. Polin Prys and Tim Hambly and even Julyan Holmes were reported (to me by Neil and Nicholas) to have been, to some degree, open to the idea. Ken George is reported to have distanced himself from the idea, isolating himself from the forming consensus. (I am aware that Julyan rejected this notion on the CornishOrthography forum. Nevertheless I report honestly what was reported to me by Neil and Nicholas, in the way that it was reported to me.)

So, Keith, it is certainly not the case that the idea of "compromise Fifth Form" was news to Ken or Julyan. Both of them heard about it on 2007-02-12, fully 46 days before the deadline for individual submissions. (It is doubtful that this is the first time that the idea of a Fifth Form could have occurred to them, as the terms of reference of the Partnership Process itself contemplates a Fifth Form explicitly -- as you well know.)


Morvran said:
All there was by way of prior contact was Mr. Everson asking cryptically, "what are your minimal requirements", a question which out of context made no sense.



That's simply not true. You have leapt ahead to discussions mostly between you and me on the CornishOrthography forum; it is you, I think, who are trying to distort the context.

On 2007-02-28 I wrote to Ray Edwards (in response to his letter to me of 2007-02-16), copying Ken (whom Ray had cc:d when he wrote to me) and explained that a group of us had been working on a Fifth Form, and invited Ken to consider the ramifications of this. The letter which I wrote was honest, and it was open.


evertype said:
[quote=Ray Edwards]Thank you for this reply which I find surprising as I would never have thought Nicholas would be willing to make concessions on his very carefully thought out system.



It should not come as a surprise. When Nicholas proposed UCR it was an attempt to create a compromise between UC and RLC. As I said even as far back as 1999: "Unified Cornish Revised, as Williams himself admits, will not be the last word in that process - but it is the best way forward".

Yes, UCR was carefully thought out, and was intended to be a compromise orthography. It did have some effect in getting UC and RLC people talking together.

But UCR was worked out first in 1995, and that was before Bewnans Ke was available. Comparison of Bewnans Ke with all varieties of Traditional and Revived Cornish, together with the challenge of the Partnership Process to accept one of the existing four forms or to participate in "the evolution of a new fifth form", has led Nicholas -- and me, and a number of others -- to move toward that compromise form.


Ray Edwards said:
Ken George sent me a report of the first meeting of the Linguistic Working Group last Monday. I was impressed by the fact that everything passed off peacefully in spite of having the main protagonists of the various systems all together in one room. One might have feared a blood bath!



It must have been difficult and tense, that meeting, at least at times.


Ray Edwards said:
Ken tells me there was a split between those who wanted to adopt Kemmyn as the Single Written Form and those who wanted to create a fifth form. As far as I can see there was no one there who strongly supported Unified, and Modern Cornish is still in a process of revision to bring it more in line with Lhuyd so it left just KK and the NW system in contention, and apparently NW joined the fifth form brigade.



I am not sure your characterization of Modern Cornish is correct. Dick Gendall is working with Lhuydian material, and Neil Kennedy's orthography as settled on by the Cussel, is also drawn from Lhuyd and Tonkin. Neil and Bernard favour a compromise form now, and have made a case for it to Dick. I don't know what Dick has made of it.

In any case, it would be a mistake to believe that it was only at the Linguistic Working Group meeting that people thought about moving toward a compromise form. To be honest, a group of us began working on the question in September. There was no conspiracy to do so. A whole set of separate discussions between a number of people including myself and Nicholas spiralled, much to our own surprise, into a converging agreement and consensus. I host an e-mail discussion group which became the forum for our discussions.

We believe that a compromise fifth form can address several specific "minimum requirements" of the various factions, including most KK supporters. We also believe, having worked on various details of this for five months now, that we have a good idea as to what it should look like. In the coming weeks we will be publishing details of what we believe it should be to the Linguistic Working Group and Commission. We are currently endeavouring to engage with KK users to see what they have to say about what we are suggesting.

It is my hope that you and Ken will engage with us about it.

The Revival is split, and that does the Revival no good. The promotion of KK has failed to eliminate rival orthographies and the belief that KK could be chosen as the Single Written Form in the face of 18 years of sustained opposition is, in my opinion, not a reasonable belief.

The only hope for the Revival is for the split to come to an end. The only hope for the split to come to an end is for us to work together and move toward a new form. I can imagine no other scenario which could end the split. The current Partnership Process may help to move us toward a new form. It is indeed surprising that consensus was arising at the very first meeting of the Linguistic Working Group that a fifth form could be considered. I thought it would take longer.

And I doubt that that the seedlings grown of that consensus will wither. I think it is likely that the Linguistic Working Group as a whole will recommend to the Commission that a compromise form be chosen. It would be regrettable for such a recommendation to be less than unanimous.


Ray Edwards said:
I know that a good many KK supporters. including myself applied to be members of the Group but were not accepted.



I also applied to be a member of the Group but was not accepted, Ray. I remember you telling me that you had applied but expected not to be selected because in your application you made it clear that you thought that KK was the only possible Single Written Form and that any fifth form should be dismissed. In my own application I made it clear that I was interested in compromise but I was "vetoed", it seems, because KK supporters on the selection committee considered me unsuitable, in the same way that some KK supporters who applied were rejected by UC/UCR/RLC supporters on the selection committee. Oh well.... The Linguistic Working Group is what it is. It lacks some expertise that might have benefited it. But the Partnership runs its own process.


Ray Edwards said:
Ken did not say how many supported the fifth system and how many KK.



Dick Gendall was not there, as you probably know. People may have different interpretations of what happens at a meeting; the report I have from Neil and Nicholas is that at least 8 of the 10 experts there were inclined to consider compromise. Julyan seems to have been favourable to it during the meeting, though on the CornishOrthography discussion list he maintains that he (and Ken and Polin and Tim) did not agree to consider compromise towards a fifth form. My colleagues say that Polin and Tim were amenable to considering a compromise. Everyone agrees that Ken made it clear that he did not want to see KK changed and did not want to see KK replaced by a fifth form.


Ray Edwards said:
So, surprisingly, there appears to be a possibility that the fifth system option might prevail.



This possibility fills me with elation and with hope that we can really achieve something with which we can all work, together, as comrades and no longer as enemies.

It will take courage from you and Ken and others to come to meet us halfway. If you cannot, then perhaps the Revival will remain split. For our part, we are trying to meet you halfway.


Ray Edwards said:
This will mean:

1) It will have to be put together. courses written, and teachers found and trained in the new system in time to teach it in schools in the Autumn. Well, I know Nicholas can work very fast but this strikes me as impossible.



Nicholas does not work alone. You may not be right about the timetable. But it is irrelevant. The Revival is split, the wounds still bleeding. "It would be hard to implement a new form, so we will stick with KK" is not a recipe for un-splitting the Revival. It is an excuse not to grasp the nettle, as we are trying to do, and try to devise a real compromise. If we do that, we can write the courses, and the dictionaries, respell the novels, re-edit and publish the traditional corpus, and do all the other things that will be able to be done in an unsplit Revival. The status quo is not good for Cornish.


Ray Edwards said:
2) Only these teachers and maybe a few more enthusiasts will be familiar with it and everyone else will continue using their present system.



In 1986 only a few people knew KK when it was implemented. (Let us not rehearse the arguments about whether it was adopted by consensus or not.) Some people were willing to change. Those who were, were able to do it.


Ray Edwards said:
'An Gannas'. the only all Cornish monthly will continue in Kemmyn, and Kemmyn will continue at events organised by the Kowethas an Yeth. There was an overwhelming vote for Kemmyn at the survey held recently by the Kowethas.



The Kowethas, like the Kesva, is a KK-specific organization. There are a handful of non-KK people in it, but a great many people who do not support KK simply will not join it because, frankly, why would they want to give £6 a year to an organization that doesn't want to support the kind of Cornish orthography which they prefer?

And the "overwhelming vote"? Please don't try to dazzle me with figures that we all know don't mean anything. Neil Kennedy told me he has over 200 people who use RLC on his mailing list. Agan Tavas membership is something like 130 or more. Few if any of these 330 people took part in the Kowethas' survey.which had 176 respondents out of 279 members. You can't get decent statistics out of a split Revival. The priority should be to end the split.


Ray Edwards said:
3) The children will be taught a system which is unfamiliar to every other current Cornish speaker.



The same was true in 1986 when UC was "abandoned". People are smart and adaptable.


Ray Edwards said:
4) The Language Board will continue to run examinations in Kemmyn and Unified as they do now but there will be no exams in the new system unless some other body organises them.



School children will not be taking their exams from the Language Board anyway. And I imagine even the UC exams are given by the Kesva only there because the Gorsedd supports UC. The Kesva, despite its name, is not a representative body for all forms of Cornish. But what you're telling me here is that you aren't willing to compromise, and that you want to continue with a split Revival. Please think carefully about this. Is that what you want?

We are willing to give up UC, and RLC, and UCR, for a new form. We have been working on it for some months now. When we started, we found we had convergence and consensus on what sorts of things we all would have to do to stop using UC, RLC, and UCR -- what sorts of things we all considered to be our minimum requirements for inclusion in a new spelling.

Then I realized that we could ask the same question about KK. And I found that the question had an immediate answer. KK arose as an attempt to deal with the shortcomings of UC, and the principle shortcoming of UC was that if one looked at a word (especially a monosyllabic word), one didn't necessarily know how to pronounce it.

We believe that it is possible to compromise on an orthography that meets the minimum requirements of both camps.

1. The orthography must be based on attested traditional orthographic forms.

2. The orthography must be unambiguous as to the relationship between sound and spelling.


Ray Edwards said:
This seems to me to be a recipe for chaos and I still find it hard to believe that the Commission will not realise this.



We are in chaos. We are split and disordered, and this wastes resources on all sides.

Ken, I know that you believe that we don't have to remain close to the texts, but rather that we should use an orthography which reflects the pronunciation. But we believe that we must remain close to the texts and we now understand and believe that we should use an orthography which reflects the pronunciation.

I am not trying to flatter you to win you over, but it is the arguments made by users of KK over the past while which has finally hammered home how important the second point is. We didn't appreciate this before. We didn't "get it". We do now. And we believe that we can give EVERYBODY an orthography which is based on the traditional texts, which reflects the realities not only the range of stylistic registers found in the traditional texts but also those things common is spoken Revived Cornish of all varieties, because we know that Middle Cornish and Late Cornish are not two languages, but varieties of the same language.

It will (for instance) have , because is attested something like 1270 times in the corpus -- and it won't have , because is attested only in Lhuyd and 9 times in the OCV. It won't look all that much like KK. But it won't
look all that much like UC or RLC either, and neither are we trying to make it look like UCR, because UCR doesn't meet all the requirements. The basis of the normalization is the language and its graphemes, and the requirement to address ambiguity and remove it.

I ask you both to consider all that I have said, and to consider that if we can agree to a true compromise, it will be your victory, and our victory, and everybody's victory. Please engage with us.

Michael Everson[/quote]

I put it to you, Keith, that what I said on 2007-02-28 was a great deal more than what you have claimed. You said:
Morvran said:
All there was by way of prior contact was Mr. Everson asking cryptically, 'what are your minimal requirements', a question which out of context made no sense.

And this simply isn't true.


Morvran said:
And also "are you prepared to give up KK" which was even more meaningless, but which we can all see with hindsight was a clever move to try to wrongfoot us, since Nynja was about to formally 'abandon' UCR.



The OED says of "wrong-foot" that it is a tennis or football term: "1. (by deceptive play) to cause (an opponent) to have his balance on the wrong foot. 2. fig. To disconcert by an unexpected move; to catch unprepared." But this is not an appropriate accusation. We have not been deceptive. We have been open about what we believe. We believe that there are flaws in KK. And we believe that there are shortcomings in UC, RLC, and UCR. And we believe that in 2007 we know much more about Cornish than ever previously, and that a new Fifth Form can represent Revived Cornish more accurately, more inclusively, more clearly, and more faithfully to Traditional Cornish than any of the other four forms.

That is why we have asked the Commission to reject the current four forms and to require that the Single Written Form be a new Fifth Form. And there are currently two candidate Fifth Forms, both of which have been developed by members of the Linguistic Working Group working with others.


Morvran said:
He did this dramatically at the first and only Linguistic Working Group meeting, although it soon became clear that KS was little more than UCR reincarnated and given a facelift to please the RLC faction.


Nonsense. KS is not "UCR reincarnated". If you think so, it is because you decided within hours of seeing the KS draft that it was "a dog's breakfast" and that analysis shows only that you did not really read or study the draft. Indeed it is pretty clear that many KK supporters want to rubbish KS because people like Nicholas and me have had a hand in it. That is about personalities, not about content or linguistics. Indeed there are features in KD which a number of KK supporters have said were quite excellent. Some of those same features are present in KS -- but those same KK supporters evidently did not notice.


Morvran said:
This gave Nynja a nominal 24 supporters in place of his previous dozen or less. Talk about stoutly defending an impossible position ... more guts than sense if you ask me

I note that you always stoop to such metaphors when you really haven't got anything to say. And (in addition to childishly making fun of Nicholas by using a nickname), you try to dismiss us as a "tiny minority" by quoting figures. In just under 3 months since its release, KS attracted a 71 supporters. I do not know how long the Kaskyrgh website has been up, but it has 89 supporters. Let us agree that polls of this sort are hampered by internet-savviness of people interested in signing up to things on-line. But never mind that. 71/89 shows a 44%/56% division. 89 is 32% of the Kowethas' 279 members. 71 would be 32% of 224, which is certainly well below the number of UC/RLC/UCR supporters we know of.

Keith's complaint was that we didn't tell the Kesva about our work on a Fifth Form until "just days" before the deadline for individual submissions. (He assumes that that deadline has relevance to the development of a Fifth Form, which is erroneous.) That deadline was 2007-03-30. Ken found out that some people were considering a Fifth Form six weeks prior, on 2007-02-12. I asked Ken to engage with us on 2007-02-28. That's four weeks before the deadline. The KS draft was released 2007-03-26. Ken refused to talk to me about anything after 2007-02-28, and Keith spent much of the four weeks not by talking about possible compromise, but rather by talking about possibly talking, and by setting pre-conditions about talking (like not publishing a book containing criticism of recent work by the Kesva). And on top of that, it has been three months since KS was released, and Keith and Ken have still not talked to us about a Fifth Form.

My "discussions" with KK people prior to the publication of KS seem to have stimulated invective and insult rather than any evidence of willingness to discuss the best spelling of Cornish. We have all been told by George and his disciples that KK was more or less "perfect" and needed absolutely no revision. It is difficult, therefore, to see why we would have been able to find the room for including them in the "early" construction of KS; they would have had none of it. But that is irrelevant. We know that a number of KK people -- Keith Bailey, Paul Dunbar, Ray Edwards, Ken George, Julian Holmes, Tony Snell -- were aware that a consensual form was being produced well before it appeared. What stopped them from making a friendly and formal request to us via the CLB to be involved in its production? We were the ones who approached them, and we were rebuffed. Given all of this, we did our best. Where was it written that no one was allowed to produce a consensus form of spelling suitable for a Single Written Form without involving all members of the Linguistic Working Group in its production? It was not so stipulated anywhere.

The Linguistic Working Group was established to discuss any proposals that appeared. It has not discussed KS. It has not discussed KD either. Its failure to discuss KS in any serious fashion, or any other proposals, is the result of the refusal of the KK side to admit that KK needs to be changed. To use the "secretive" production of KS as a reason for their failure to discuss things flies in the face of their record since the 1980s of refusing point blank to discuss the basis of their spelling in any reasonable manner and is merely a convenient excuse for not engaging in the process. Let's face it; however KS had been produced, the very fact that it involved Michael Everson, Neil Kennedy, and Nicholas Williams, would have led to its condemnation by the KK hardcore irrespective of any merit it possessed. They know that, and we know that.

Nothlenn
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:59 am

Post by Nothlenn » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:54 pm

Plontyans par dell yw usyes!

Nothlenn
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:59 am

Post by Nothlenn » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:54 pm

Folennow a sownek par dell yw usyes!

Nothlenn
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:59 am

Post by Nothlenn » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:56 pm

Re a boyntow dhe worthybi orta par dell yw usyes.

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

Post by Evertype » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:00 pm

The following comments from Keith Bailey of the Kesva deserve response.


morvran said:
We all 'agreed' to the Process. The process was designed not to 'heal the rift' but just to agree a standard official spelling that the Council and schools could use without fear of being constantly criticised by one side or the other for using the 'wrong Cornish'. Yes it would perhaps be nice to 'heal the rift', but that is an unrealistic goal, so we settled for something that might be achievable in the short-term, the SWF.


"Agreed"? Why the quotes, Keith? Did you not actually agree? Quotation marks are used to indicate irony. So in what you have written we must assume that instead of agreeing, you merely "agreed". That when you complain about "experts" you dismiss their expertise. And so on.

You suggest, however, that the Revival should and will remain split. Unsplitting it, according to you, is "an unrealistic goal". It is only unrealistic, however, if you do not WISH the rift to be healed. Of course to do that, you will have to relinquish your "control" (quotes intended) of the Revival.

A Single Written Form is needed. It is achievable. It is achievable by people of good will who care about the Revival. You, I submit, do not care about the Revival. You care about "running" the Cornish language. You don't care about Cornish. You treat it with disrespect.


We 'agreed' to put the matter in the hands of outside 'experts', as a way of breaking the deadlock, in a sense the question was put to arbitration. It is unfortunate that we can't work out our own solution unaided, or rather with the experts working for the language movement as expert advisors -- that we have had to turn the matter over to outsiders, but it was a pragmatic decision, not ideal but (perhaps) workable.


It is certainly true that the Commission was appointed to decide because the Cornish could not decide for themselves. And what is the cause of that? Remember, please, that until KK was "adopted" the Revival was not split. What happened was that the organization which had worked for the good of the language was taken over by people with an agenda: to impose an orthography reform. The orthography they espoused was "logical" (like Esperanto) but "alien" in terms of the Cornish landscape of place-names. But the zeal of the Kemynistas was such that they attacked and vilified -- as they do today -- anyone who "dares" point out KK's faults and flaws. At present, we have a number of people trying to move toward consensus, toward a Fifth Form. The Kemynistas will have none of it. They do not care for consensus. For them, Ken George's genius twenty years ago solved all of the problems of Cornish. Whoops! Except of course their language doesn't LOOK like Cornish, and instead of attracting consensus it attracts fundamental opposition.


We 'agreed' to a 'Panel of Local Experts' whom the Commission could consult over matters of detail etc. specific to Cornish. In practise this panel (the LWG) did not contain the 'brightest and best' of the Cornish movement, but was selected by a process of political horse-trading within the Partnership. This meant that real experts like Keith Syed and Jori Ansell were left out so as to reduce the number of KK supporters. This is unfortunate, but probably necessary as a compromise to practical politics.


You're right. The LWG wasn't chosen in terms of linguistic expertise. It was entirely political. One of the KK supporters on the Partnership is reported to have proposed that the entire panel be peopled with KK supporters. Now, isn't that inclusive! Not that I disagree with you. There were people from "our side" who were also not admitted to membership of the LWG, and for entirely political reasons.


The Commission is flown to Cornwall, no doubt at great expense, wined and dined by the Council and then goes back to where ever it came from. It did not bother to talk with ANY of the organisations within the movement -- So why did they come here??


They did talk to representatives of all of the organizations, Keith.


Submissions have been called for and passed on to the experts, and by now they should have digested them, and be calling for clarification, asking the LWG questions and perhaps even asking for additional surveys of whatever from the Partership. However to the best of my knowledge this has not happened. We have heard not a peep out of the Commission, nor afaik has the LWG. This is beginning to become worrying.


What, you worried?


Meanwhile, the anti-KK factions drawn together by their common hatred for the common enemy, have attempted to pervert the Process.


This is incorrect. Listen to yourself, Keith. "Drawn together by their common hatred for the common enemy"? We are drawn together by a fierce respect for Traditional Cornish.


Not content to leave matters in the hands of the Commission, as was 'agreed', they have produced KS and also instigated the development of KD to further confuse the situation.


This is incorrect. KD is the result of a decision taken at the first LWG meeting. Rod and Ben and Albert were tasked with drawing up a possible compromise form. Work on KS began after a break-out session at the Tremough workshop suggested that Jordan's 1611 Creation of the World might be a place from which a compromise between Middle and Late Cornish might be derived. It is incorrect to suggest that these activities were unrelated to the Partnership Process. None of us have engaged in these activities in order to "confuse" anything. Your accusation is based on a false understanding of the Partnership Process.


There was no call for 'compromise' within the Process, and no call for additional forms.


This is incorrect. The Partnership's call for applicants to the Linguistic Working Group stated explicitly that "The process is intended to be fair, transparent and time-limited and may result in the adoption of one of the existing forms or the evolution through consensus of a new standard form." Clearly expectation that there might be an "evolution through consensus of a new standard form" can be understood to be a "call for additional forms". Certainly the advent of additional forms can come as no surprise.


Only if and when the Commission has examined all the versions now in use and found them ALL wanting, would it make sense to even contemplate yet another orthography.


I understand that your view is that each of the Four Forms should "have its day in court", and that you don't want to consider compromise until you are told that KK cannot be the SWF. You're entitled to hold that view, but we are not bound to it. The fact of the matter is that when users of UC and UCR got together with users of RLC to talk about the way forward, we realized that none of the existing forms (including KK) could do the job. Neither UC nor KK nor UCR gives adequate support for RLC forms (quite apart from orthography). What we found was that taking Jordan's Creation of the World as a starting point it was possible to come to consensus. And we realized that this meant that we would have to move from our preferred forms to a new, better form. And we believe that this is the best thing for the Revival.


And in this event the new version would be devised under the guidance of the Commission, or of experts recommended by them. Most certainly NOT by some of the existing factions acting out their own agenda -- a course of action guaranteed to make agreement more not less difficult.


The UdnFormScrefys group has made a proposal to the Commission, and we were within our rights to do so. Ben and Albert also made a proposal. There is nothing wrong with this. Indeed we have gone to some lengths to discuss compromise orthography with you and all we get is refusal from you. "Acting out our own agenda"? Our agenda is to see that Cornish has a robust, accurate, and authentic orthography. The group which developed KS and the group which developed KD have both tried to develop something which could attract consensus -- and both have succeeded. KS and KD both have attracted consensus. Quite a few KK users have embraced the ideas in KD. People using all four orthographies have embraced the ideas in KS. KK users on this forum here have discussed additional changes which might be made to KS, and we have indicated that we are prepared to work on that.

The Kesva, it seems to me, is the problem. It seems to believe that it "owns" Cornish, and that its own preferred orthography should be imposed on everyone, even though many people have fundamental objections to it. You won't talk to us because you think you will "win".


Michael asked Ken if he would give up KK in the interests of 'compromise'. Ken, speaking for most of us, said "Why?" Why give up something that's been a great success over 20 years (although admittedly not to everyone's taste) and which is well supported and well resourced, especially as far as human resources are concerned.


Do you really believe this? KK has been anything but a success. The number of people learning Cornish is the same as it was 20 years ago. KK's "easyness" hasn't increased the number of Cornish learners exponentially or anything like that. And there are still plenty of people learning UC and RLC and UCR.


Why should Ken, or the Kesva speak with Michael?


Why not? I understand that you do not want me to be a player in this endeavour, but I am here nonetheless. Once, you even called me "brave" for having approached Ken. And you did try to talk to me, Keith. Except that you set pre-conditions which I would not accept. You (speaking for the Kesva, evidently) would not treat with us as "equals". And you're still refusing to do so.


Did this fall within the agreed and on-going Process? To us it did not appear to. It seemed rather to be a attempt to by-pass the Process;


It did, of course, fall within the parameters agreed. At every step of the way we made sure that the Partnership was aware of what we were doing. In fact, we took their specific advice with regard to releasing the draft to the LWG and the general public. The LWG has seen both KD and KS, and both KD and KS were drawn up in part by members of the LWG. The Commission has seen both KD and KS. We do not yet know what their view is. But you're only trying to cast aspersions on us. "By-pass the Process"? Nonsense.


Was Michael a Cornish user/speaker/learner? It appears to us he is not. I don't think I've ever seen him put two words of Cornish together, and while he over-responds to the slightest imagined insult in English, jokes at his expense written in Cornish pass without comment;


I don't "over-respond to imagined insults" though I do find the abuse I must suffer from you and your friends to be irritating. I have no interest in responding "jokes written at my expense". Nor have I much interest in reading anything written in KK. And I've already told you that I am not going to satisfy your curiosity regarding my knowledge of Cornish. You are just trying to use "knowledge of Cornish" as a weapon.


Michael claimed to represent a group of people (who subsequently turned out to be the UFS group). Who were they? He would not say. What was his remit? He claimed he had none. He was somehow the spokesman for this group, but when pressed claimed that he alone was responsible for his 'offer';


What exactly is your objection here? That I don't have "credentials" which you "recognize"? It's been nearly five months since we asked Ken to talk to us about a real solution to this endless impasse. And you're mis-characterizing what happened. Our group doesn't have a structure. We are individuals. I took the initiative to write to Ken. I was not "given a remit" to write to him. I shared the text of my letter with my colleagues before I sent it. All of this has been said before.


The Kesva has no great desire to make concessions to someone who was mostly know for having just published a whole series of anti-KK books by Williams et alia. None of which really advanced the debate, they just reworked tired old themes, with new injections of invective against Ken and All His Works. This is not how to win friends and influence people. So would Michael, Nicholas etc be prepared to retract any of this, or apologise for many of the uncalled for insults. No, they wouldn't. Would they offer anything at all by way of concessions to the Kesva, and remember we were being challenged to 'give up KK' -- No, they wouldn't, not a sausage, marnas unn favenn rudh!


I don't believe we are guilty of "uncalled-for insults" or "invective", Keith. (You, sir, are the one who called us "devious little shit-bags".)

Why did we publish our books? We wanted to make sure that the linguistic arguments against KK were available to the Commission, of course. Does this come as a surprise to you? I'm sorry you don't like the books. I quite understand it. But really. You said that you would not talk to us if we went ahead and published Form and Content in Revived Cornish. Are you saying that if we had refrained from publishing that book of criticism of the Kesva, that you would have come to the table gladly, ready to give up KK for a new and better orthography? I find that difficult to believe. You used our offer as an excuse to try to avoid the criticism. But KK and the Kesva merit the criticism in that book. It is my own belief that as the Commission examines all of the current forms that it will find that they are all wanting.


That is why Ken, the Kesva etc will not treat with Everson and his mates.


Why? Because we don't believe that KK is a suitable orthography for the Revival? You knew that already.

You're playing chicken.


There is really no deal on offer. Just the usual empty rhetoric.


The KS draft is 170 pages long.


It doesn't matter how often, how carefully or in how much detail you show that most of their views are wrong.


We've been able to publish about 800 pages on the subject. We cite the traditional texts in evidence. The best you have is PSRC and that dreadful little catechism published by Dunbar and George in 1997. You have not refuted our criticisms "carefully" or "in detail". By no means.


They will never give an inch. Otoh, make the least admission of fault (as with the business) and they'll rub your nose in it till doomsday, shouting "flawed! flawed!" like a bunch of five-year-olds in the playground. Is it any surprise that we're less than willing to engage with their endless, tedious, never-ending nit-picking?


Enough with the histrionics, Keith.

KK has failed to attract consensus. The Revival can do better, and must do better.


Concede or deny, prove or disprove, it makes not the slighest difference to them. As Michael and others have demonstrated over and over again here, they'll be back next week, singing from the same hymn-sheet, True Believers to a Man.


How very poetic.


Can someone perhaps explain their dog-in-a-manger psychology? They cannot win, even if they were awarded the SWF by the Commission they simply don't have the skilled manpower to deliver the goods. All they can do is wreck the work of others and divert people's time and energy from promoting Cornish to having silly fruitless arguments like this.


I was wondering when you would stoop to proverb. "The dog in a manger." He's the one who doesn't want the cows to eat the hay even though he doesn't eat hay. It's not a very good analogy to whatever it is that you think we want. What great success can you claim to have had with our trusty and easy-to-learn KK? Twenty years ago the number of Cornish speakers was about 500. That number hasn't changed.

What we want is a better orthography for Cornish. KK has had its chance. It has failed to attract consensus. Its shortcomings have not been addressed. The Revival, together, can do better.


Tim thinks that there are shady anti-Cornish puppet masters (egy Nagy Tuzok?)


It's "túzok" not "tuzok". 'One Great Bustard' is what you have queried there in parentheses. It's the national bird of Hungary.


...manipulating them from behind the scenes. Too paranoid perhaps, but the centalists and bureaucrats who would dearly love to tidy Cornish and indeed Cornwall out of existance must be greatly cheered by their rabid antics.


"Rabid". Well. Ain't that something? The rest of your paranoid statement means little or nothing.


Oh, for God's sake, give over Michael! :-x


Not a chance, Keith.

TO EVERYONE ELSE:
Those of us who have developed KS don't think KK is good enough. We don't think that if it is chosen as the SWF it will do anything at all to improve things in the Revival. We believe it is our duty to the Cornish language to say so -- so if you are upset about what I say, please accept that I feel I am obliged to say it, and understand why. We also believe that more is known about Cornish than ever before, and that a truly inclusive orthography can be developed that will do the job. I say this with all sincerity. There is hope for the Revival. It involves change, however, from the status quo.



edited by: Evertype, Sep 27, 2007 - 09:40 AM

Ysgolhaig
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Ysgolhaig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:03 pm

The UFS project is the smartest thing to come out of Cernyw from a long time, at least since Nance began the ball rolling. The 180 pages of the KS proposal is very well written and not over the top nonsense, like much of the Kemmyn material I have seen lately. Cornwall needs this, more than any of your screaming, yelling and childish banter. The rift between the academics and non in the revival is very clearly drawn, with those not academic placed in the Kemmyn (or 'Cyffrediniaid' in Welsh) camp.

Who gave us the dictionaries that we are fond of in other languages? Academics. The grammars? Academics. This process works its way down to the speaking population, in the way that military technology gradually finds its way to the civilians. It does not work in the other direction fortunately. The bashing and harassment of such fine scholars like Dr. Williams is astounding to witness. Dr. Williams is only unpopular because speaks up and publishes the flaws and short-comings of the Cyffrediniaid group and has the credentials to support his claims. Lads, this isn't primary school anymore! We are adults with a responsibility to give to the people of Cornwall their lost language, one that we in Wales still speak and the Bretons in Brittany do. The Cumbrians lost their Brythonic dialect so long ago and the Cornish, as we know, did too. Let's not lose the language again! This revival is not a game of numbers (i.e., 'who has more speakers', 'who has more books published'), nor just a game in general, it is serious business and no one takes it that way, at least not the Cyffrediniaid and their Cyffredineg orthography.

Several people seem to be the center of histrionic activity that is not beneficial to the Revival, I dont want to cause a flame war or such by mentioning them but a few names will be mentioned. Keith Bailey, Tim Saunders, 'Goky' and others have done nothing productive in this forum but bicker, name-call and generally show pure hostility and a refusal to understand the mire they have placed themselves in by acting the way they do! Michael Everson above has given so many valid points and observations that it only goes to show how incapable of comprehending the academic arguements the Cyffrediniaid are! One example: Keith and many others claim that Kemmyn has been so successful in its limited 20 years, with giving unverified numbers to its learners with the claim that 80% of the Revival use it. Well, there is no evidence to support this wild claim being that many learners are isolated and beyond Cornwall. If Kemmyn was THAT successful, there would be no one using the other orthographies, when in fact those numbers have been climbing for the last decade fast, for two reasons: 1.) Dr.Williams' brilliant work, 2.)The behavior of the Cyffrediniaid towards the rest of the Revival community.

Nothlenn
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:59 am

Post by Nothlenn » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:18 pm

Osta sad? Hemm yw namoy es areth heb substans! My a garsa gweles oll hemma yn Kernewek Standard po UFS, mar pleg, mars yns mar sewen!

Ysgolhaig
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Ysgolhaig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:55 pm


goky said:
Where the frig is Cernyw?? looks like another smart ass has arrived.



Cernyw is the Welsh word for Cornwall, you know 'Kernow' in Cornish? THIS is the primary example of what I and others have been saying concerning the state of things in the Revival. We have people who exist on the fringes of the reality of it and are unable to understand the nature of this situation. They only live to aggitate and perpetuate ignorance and achieve nothing but more animosity. This is the dividing line between academics and non or enthusiasts, professionalism.

I am aware that you Goky live in Toronto Canada, quite a ways away from Cornwall. I live in Wales, just a drive away and my interests are more closer to home than your's.

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

Post by Marhak » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:06 pm

Thank you, Ysgolhaig. A voice of pure sense, unlike the typical response to it from "Goky" who, I'm sorry to say has contributed absolutely nothing constructive to the debate. Quite the opposite and I begin to wonder what his true agenda is. (Wait for his next "O great and wondrous Marhak" spit). If more people thought as you do, we'd have solved this problem by now and Cornish would be looking forward to a bright new future. As you have noticed, those of us who want this, and readily admit that none of the four current forms - including our own preferred ones - are up to the task, receive insult after slur for daring to persuade those set upon intransigence to think again. Any neutral observer would think that we have horns and cloven hoofs, the way some of them react to our view. Keith's responses to Evertype shows quite clearly that he has selectively ignored several points previously put to him, apparently in order to demonise the man.

It's a horrible situation and, if it carries on, it is the language that will be the loser. The Cornish language is the only real symbol of Cornish identity. Am I wrong in wondering if the destruction of that identity is an active agenda in this situation? I fervently hope that such a thought is wrong. Maybe it's simply a perceived "power and ownership" thing.



edited by: marhak, Jul 16, 2007 - 09:08 PM

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

Post by Marhak » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:18 pm

Didn't take long for the pip to squeak, did it? If he is not willing or able to offer anything to the debate, why does he enter it? Answers, please on a postcard, to . . . .

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest