|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 20, 2008 22:32:05 GMT -6
Because you occupy that position and are also in the CUG, it seemed that we could gain your expertise without burdening you wholly alone with the task by asking the CUG to help us in this matter. What with the bar exam and what not, you have a lot on your plate, I know.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 21, 2008 12:16:45 GMT -6
Here is a draft of the resolution. Note it is just a draft, so don't start voting.
BE IT HERE RESOLVED BY THE ZIU: That this body recognizes the importance for today's Talossan-on-the-go to be able to easily read the Organic Law, the highest law of the land, in the modern dialect to which he is swiftly growing accustomed, rather than slogging through acres of diacritical marks. Accordingly, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa extends its gratitude towards the Comità për l'Útzil del Glhetg for the recent arestada, and requests of that group that it update the Organic Law's orthography to be in keeping with modern standards. The CÚG is asked that it change absolutely nothing substantive while engaged in this task, but only make such specific linguistic changes as would not alter the meaning of words in any wise by way of adjusting the orthography to reflect the recent arestada.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2008 11:24:42 GMT -6
Here is my question, and it may have been asked already, after other language reforms, did they find it necessary to go and rewrite or apply the changes to their constitutions. For example, after the German spelling reform of '97, did the Budesrepublik alter the German Constitution for the new changes?
Would it be so bad to keep it for historical value, I think what we're seeing is the development of a strong Kingdom-based dialect as well as a seperation of "legalese" and "spoken Talossan," which is bound to happen in any language.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 24, 2008 12:56:39 GMT -6
Here is my question, and it may have been asked already, after other language reforms, did they find it necessary to go and rewrite or apply the changes to their constitutions. For example, after the German spelling reform of '97, did the Budesrepublik alter the German Constitution for the new changes? I'm far from the most qualified person to answer that question, but it appears to me that the version of the Basic Law on the Bundestag site ( here"]http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/funktion/gesetze/grundgesetz/index.html]here) uses the old spelling. I don't think the French constitution was updated after the 1990 orthographic reforms, either (which were even less popular than the German ones).
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 24, 2008 13:33:38 GMT -6
The Magna Carta seems to be pretty intact in it's original form.
But we probably should ask King John.
He is the one that signed it, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 24, 2008 13:37:40 GMT -6
I fear you would find political law students will be reading translations of the Magna Carta rather than the original.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 14:21:43 GMT -6
The Magna Carta was written in Latin, so it hardly applies. Note we don't call it the Great Contract, but the Magna Carta.
I would have to agree with the necessity for readability. We have a vanishingly small group of fluent speakers and readers (quite literally vanishingly), and it would actually hurt our culture and language to begin accumulating more than a few items we deliberately leave in an outdated form which newcomers will struggle with. While it would be cool and have a great deal of gravitas if we had an archaic highest law, that law should still be a vital part of our living language.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jan 24, 2008 14:37:30 GMT -6
What about 3 versions of the OrgLaw?
The original text, the English text, and this new-fangled writing style text?
It could be our Talossan version of the Rosetta Stone.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 24, 2008 14:40:52 GMT -6
What about 3 versions of the OrgLaw? The original text, the English text, and this new-fangled writing style text? It could be our Talossan version of the Rosetta Stone. That would be interesting. Maybe we should leave the Talossan that's in the document alone for now, and work on translating the whole thing into Talossan, then just pass a simple amendment making both the English and Talossan versions official.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2008 15:27:23 GMT -6
i would agree with Sir Cresti. I believe the official version of many acts are in the original language which it was written in. But it would also help to have a translated version into English (which shouln't be affected with the recent reform) and into "modern" talossan, as opposed to Early Talossan.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 15:31:18 GMT -6
This brings up another legal problem. If we have an "original" OrgLaw and a "real" OrgLaw that is actually in effect, presumably authority would pass from the original to the real one. But there is no provision for this in the OrgLaw, so in effect we would be ending the old one and ratifying a new constitution. This is more serious than it would first appear, although not insoluble.
EDIT: On second thought, this is a pretty esoteric reading of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 15:34:08 GMT -6
Okay, here's my view on this whole matter.
1. It makes 0 (Zero) sense to have changed the spelling and then keep the â in Cosâ in any form. Sure, your can keep it on historical documents, but it's official title MUST be Cosa.
2. Ratifying a new constitution is pointless and time-consuming
3. I still think my bill is the most efficient way of doing this whole thing and I will definitely be submitting it to the SoS to be put on the next possible clark.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 15:37:19 GMT -6
Okay, here's my view on this whole matter. 1. It makes 0 (Zero) sense to have changed the spelling and then keep the â in Cosâ in any form. Sure, your can keep it on historical documents, but it's official title MUST be Cosa. 2. Ratifying a new constitution is pointless and time-consuming 3. I still think my bill is the most efficient way of doing this whole thing and I will definitely be submitting it to the SoS to be put on the next possible clark. Dreu, just one page ago in this thread you agreed that the best way to handle this was to ask the CUG to make the changes, rather than submit the bill in which you said "you know you made some mistakes." Remember? I am not partial to filling the OrgLaw with the self-admitted mistakes of legislators.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 15:39:14 GMT -6
Sure, that was a while ago. I now realize that it would simply be more democratic for people to vote on this. After all, they didn't get a vote in the CUG's decision to change the orthography right? It seems only fair that the people of Talossa get to have the final say.
EDIT because of your EDIT: I will make sure to double check with Sir Cresti about everything, and I will probably ask the CUG to double check my work, please note that I have made a change to the bill which would changed everything, including the Talossán thing.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 15:42:25 GMT -6
Except that the people of Talossa are by and large far from experts in the national language, as you should well know at this point. That's why we HAVE a CUG, rather than allowing common usage to wholly dictate the course of the language. I will oppose and encourage my compatriots to oppose this bill as submitted, given that I do not feel qualified to vet the orthography nor do I feel most people could, and the person who wrote and submitted it (you) admitted you made mistakes.
It is wise, in general, I believe, not to pass bills that we know are erroneous.
|
|