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 15:45:35 GMT -6
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 Sure, your can keep it on historical documents, but it's official title MUST be Cosa. Pretty soon we'll have to bring in some epistemologists to help us sort this out. Plus Bill Clinton, who can discuss what the meaning of "is" is.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 15:47:24 GMT -6
Checking it over again, I only see one possible mistake, I'm not sure if it is or not though, it probably isn't. There will be NO mistakes when it is submitted.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying we should keep the â in Cosa? And that we should keep the PM's oath in pre-arestada? That seems a bit ridiculous. People would have to learn two different sets of spelling just to read the OrgLaw.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 15:48:14 GMT -6
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 Sure, your can keep it on historical documents, but it's official title MUST be Cosa. Pretty soon we'll have to bring in some epistemologists to help us sort this out. Plus Bill Clinton, who can discuss what the meaning of "is" is. Sir Cresti. Your campaign is a fairytale.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 15:48:55 GMT -6
MC Gavárþic'h, If you're going to check with His Honour Sir Cresti and the CUG about everything beforehand and so on, then what is the point of passing this bill fastening into law these items, when a law does not appear to be required? If we are mistaken, we have to pass ANOTHER law repealing that section before we can even make any more changes! Plus, passing this would make it legally-mandated CHANGES to the OrgLaw, which would arguably be a referendum action. We would have to wait seven months before we would see any change!
If you want simplicity and effectiveness, let the people who know their business do it.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 15:51:22 GMT -6
It's definitely required. If we can change Cosâ to Cosa (which are actually two different words, the â in Cosâ would be now pronounced "a" as in "cat") without passing any laws, then why not just change the word "Lupul" to "Gavártgic'h"? It's only one word right?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 15:54:31 GMT -6
The MC is now just being deliberately obfuscatory.
As covered earlier in this discussion with some labour, the argument is that the orthographic changes are not in fact changes to the meaning of the language in any wise, since not even a new connotation is being created. Appearance alone is changed. The shift from one royal house to another would be an entirely new word, changing not just appearance, but also meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2008 15:59:24 GMT -6
Altering Cosâ to Cosa, from my understanding, did not alter the sound.
I agree with Srueu Davis, I do not support an act that is going to add errors to theOrg Laww. This is the most important document in our Kingdom we're messing with. Let's do things right!
I do not also, however, see a reason to alter it in general. We could have a translation for the Talossan languagee reform, and new bills may very well be written in post-reform Talossan.
I think the author(s) need to take a step back. We've all written things in our lives (acts, essays, shopping list) and we do tend to get attached and at times over protective when others criticize it. Let's relax a bit folks.
*is getting a nosebleed from being on the high horse). * *edit, grammar*
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 16:00:24 GMT -6
Only in Talossa am I ever a stickler for the law.
I believe in democracy. even for the smallest of things. Hey! What if Talossa said "Hell no! We want to keep the old orthography." I can't really understand why they would do that. But they could right? Don't they have the right to?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 16:03:56 GMT -6
I would remind the MC that we are a representative democracy, not a perfect one. That is, in fact, why you are an MC at all. You are a representative of the will of the people, who have elected your party to be their voice. Your judgment is supposed to be used, you are not supposed to refer "even the smallest of things" back to them.
If there was some movement among the majority of Talossans to keep the old orthography, despite all appearances, they would then elect a party which promised to do so after perceiving that desire and representing it. This is the basis of a representative democracy.
If the MC does not want to help decide things, he is perhaps in the wrong seat.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 16:04:25 GMT -6
Altering Cosâ to Cosa, from my understanding, did not alter the sound. This is actually debateable. The Arestada says that sometimes a's at the ends of words are pronounced like a schwa. But it's kind of hard to say.
|
|
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 16:08:53 GMT -6
Y'all do realize , that we can have the look of the OrgLaw change (removing all the ^, ', ~ , etc) without changing the meaning of the words.
Down here in the southern part of Talossa-
We need a permit to add a room on to our house. We don't need no permit to paint our house.
It's my opinion that if we can make the place prettier and more modern- WITHOUT writing a law- that's the way we should go.
Edit : Btw, I meant "You" as in "Y'all" as in "Everyone posting here". I did not mean to imply one individual .
Just in case Y'all got that impression.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 16:08:57 GMT -6
I would remind the MC that we are a representative democracy, not a perfect one. That is, in fact, why you are an MC at all. You are a representative of the will of the people, who have elected your party to be their voice. Your judgment is supposed to be used, you are not supposed to refer "even the smallest of things" back to them. If there was some movement among the majority of Talossans to keep the old orthography, despite all appearances, they would then elect a party which promised to do so after perceiving that desire and representing it. This is the basis of a representative democracy. If the MC does not want to help decide things, he is perhaps in the wrong seat. Touché, Senator Davis. I will do some soul-searching and then get back to the rest of whether or not I want this bill to move forward.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 24, 2008 16:23:49 GMT -6
Returning to the substantive issue, I believe we were discussing the options:
-This bill, which I think a majority of us agree is not wise although a valiant move towards beginning this discussion, for which we should thank MC Gavárþic'h.
-My proposal of a motion asking the CUG to make the relevant orthographic changes to the OrgLaw.
-The proposal by His Honour Sir Cresti that we forestall action, and instead translate the whole document into Talossan and then pass an amendment making both this new version and the English version official.
I have to point out that His Honour's plan means that all future amendments will have to be in both languages, and it is very difficult to word things with identical meanings in two languages. Further, two official versions of the OrgLaw means that we might have subtleties of meaning between the two, leading eventually to severe problems. And even further, this landmark of a Talossan OrgLaw is well worth striving for but still difficult at the present moment, given the slim minority of individuals capable of reading such an OrgLaw and the need to actually read it to govern the country.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jan 24, 2008 16:36:39 GMT -6
After some deep thought, I withdraw my bill. I instead give it to the CUG for reference and ask that they make a report of exactly what they are going to change.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 24, 2008 18:12:50 GMT -6
Given that the alternate suggestion was a Point of Advice from the Ziu - which matches the substantive alternative now agreed upon - does it not feel like we've just wasted two extra pages here?
|
|