The Annoying Thing We Have to Do to the OrgLaw Ac

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

siervicul said:

alexandreu said:

Right, but remember! No one except those who know the old orthography will be able to speak it, and is our national anthem! (A little devil's advocate for you ) I mean, imagine if the Star spangled banner was:

Aw Sæy Kann Ou Si

That would be really strange

Good point. I'm starting to wonder, actually, whether an amendment is necessary at all. To the extent that changes in the language require only orthographic updates to the text (and not substitution of one word for another), the substance of the text (and its meaning) are unaffected. So perhaps the OrgLaw can be presented with new-style orthography by the Scribe of Abbavilla without amendment.

After all, the U.S. Constitution was never amended to update its orthography from the 18th century, but it is nevertheless commonly presented today with "choose" instead of "chuse," "defense" instead of "defence" (to reflect modern American, rather than British or Talossan spelling), and "Congress" instead of "Congreſs."

I worked way too hard on that bill. We ARE making those changes

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

"I worked way too hard on that bill. We ARE making those changes."


I dunno...

It's a long time between now and March 21st.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

mick said:

"I worked way too hard on that bill. We ARE making those changes."


I dunno...

It's a long time between now and March 21st.

Sorry. "Mick worked way too hard on that bill."

Why March 21st? Isn't the next clark Feb 21?

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Section 12. All bills received by the Secretary of State during one calendar month shall be compiled into a published legislative journal, to be called "The Clark." The Clark shall be compiled prior to the first day of the following month, and shall be published on that day.


Your Bill will not be eligible for "Clarking" until March 1st.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Oh, right. I guess I should have put this bill forward a tad earlier, huh?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Additionally, you are proposing an amendment to the OrgLaw, however linguistic. It will only be passed in six or seven months, and finalized in seven or eight, once a referendum has been completed.

If we had some lawyers, we could ask them, but as it is, I believe we should rely on the opinion of our justices. As long as all changes are entirely in style and not in substance or formulation of the language in any way, I concur with the learned justice that it would be entirely legal to simply make such necessary alterations.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Alright then, I guess my bill will act more as a guide to what to change for Olaf than an actual bill. However, we still have to talk about that Regipäts Talossán thing. Will those who oppose getting rid of the á please rise and present your case?

Edit: I'll give y'all a week to answer. If no answer is brought forth I will assume that there is no opposition, and that I may inform the Scribe to change all cases of Regipäts Talossan as well.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

"I'll give y'all a week to answer. If no answer is brought forth I will assume that there is no opposition, and that
I may inform the Scribe to change all cases of Regipäts Talossan as well."

And who gave you that power? I mean, don't we have like umm... a person that is responsible to make sure the changes are carried out? Do we have a ...something like... A KING that makes statements and does the pointing and ordering?

Or did I miss something?

[Owen Edwards]

Inasmuch as this matter seems to have been devolved to an informal, procedural matter, need there be a royal warrant on the matter? Such...attention to detail on this sort of matter is rare in constitutional monarchies.

I fear the SoS bridles a little un-necessarily, over what amounts to the offhand stylization of pronouns.

Obviously, a time limit on responses to the point of advice should be advised by the relevant minister.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I just find it unusual that a citizen is going about ordering the Scribe to do things.

[Owen Edwards]

A slip in form due to a too-hasty edit - Pete knows I've done it enough times!

Who would be the appropriate minister to advise on a time limit to the point of advice? Indeed, perhaps that minister should then pass on the message as an administrative dictate from the Ministry involved itself; though one should not blame Dreu's initiative on this, without it we would not have sorted this out.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

If it would satisfy all parties, I would suggest that the Ziu refers the matter to the relevant experts: the CUG. That body has proven itself responsible and deliberate, and I believe could be trusted to make relevant diacritical changes to the language without changing the meaning in any wise. Unless someone has any objection, I will write up such a request tomorrow so that it can be voted upon. It would not seem as though we must needs wait for the Clark, as this request would have no legal effect, but we should still be formal enough to politely ask this of that body.

Would this work for everyone, assuming the CUG is willing to do it?

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Works for me. I know I definitely may have made some mistakes in my bill.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Works for me.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

agbdavis said:

If it would satisfy all parties, I would suggest that the Ziu refers the matter to the relevant experts: the CUG. That body has proven itself responsible and deliberate, and I believe could be trusted to make relevant diacritical changes to the language without changing the meaning in any wise. Unless someone has any objection, I will write up such a request tomorrow so that it can be voted upon. It would not seem as though we must needs wait for the Clark, as this request would have no legal effect, but we should still be formal enough to politely ask this of that body.

Would this work for everyone, assuming the CUG is willing to do it?

For what it's worth, the Ministry of Culture also has a Bureau of the Glhetg. Or so I've been told.