|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 16:48:16 GMT -6
The negative response here is puzzling, because no-one seems willing to work on an alternative.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Feb 17, 2008 17:07:56 GMT -6
I would say the Talossan glossary on the main page is more than sufficient. If we need to expand upon it, we can.
Edit-spelling
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 17:14:56 GMT -6
But this IS expanding upon it, surely - that is the point. This is a proactive attempt to expand our vocabulary.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Feb 17, 2008 17:27:27 GMT -6
But this IS expanding upon it, surely - that is the point. This is a proactive attempt to expand our vocabulary. Yes and I certainly agree. However, as the glossary is not regulated by law, [that I know of] Do we need a law to add to it?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 17:32:07 GMT -6
See the body of the debate as to the sense of the Bill.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Feb 17, 2008 17:43:44 GMT -6
I see your point. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 17, 2008 22:49:56 GMT -6
See the body of the debate as to the sense of the Bill. I disagree that the debate addresses this adequately, as the preponderance of other legislators seem to doubt similarly. The bill currently presents these as legal terms. As I have previously stated, I feel this is absurd. There is no pressing need to create a glossary of legal terms, when the context in which they will be needed is still entirely unknown. It makes much more sense to wait until they are needed and coined to suit our actual requirements, rather than to set up a little list of terms we think might come in handy at some point. Such terms should be implemented for utility. You otherwise state (although the bill does not) that they are instead cultural expansion to the language. My opposition to this is simpler to address: we do not legislate the language. It is a living language, and evolves like other languages. The CUG addresses grammatical needs and shepherding it as is needed, but otherwise, let it grow. If we start cramming in pithy little lists, it's just going to confuse things.
|
|
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 Feb 17, 2008 23:03:02 GMT -6
" My opposition to this is simpler to address: we do not legislate the language. It is a living language, and evolves like other languages."
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:11:21 GMT -6
I am, then, appalled at these courts, legislatures and government departments in various nations through history and all geography directing the nature of legal language, both LEGALLY BINDING and CULTURALLY SUGGESTIVE.
Might we write a letter, Alexander, Mick? An angry letter truly telling them off? Meanwhile, perhaps the relevant authorities should seek to clear this up so we inadequate fools do not overstep our boundaries into the hallowed halls of language?
I'm this close to hari kiri guys, my honour is so stained by being involved in this travesty, &c.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 18, 2008 3:17:26 GMT -6
I am very curious as to what you mean. To the best of my knowledge, legal terms have not been coined until they have been needed in almost every instance. Picking one of the first bills I see active in the US Senate, I will direct you to the definitions section, which provides relevant definitions as needed, usually defining them concretely well after they have already been established. It is entirely possible I am mistaken, of course. Could you direct me to some examples of legislation which mandate a new set of terms to be used before those terms are needed?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:46:31 GMT -6
You're suggesting some of these terms have not come up as hazy areas in Talossan legal past? Glancing quickly (am at work, not in a situation to study in depth just yet) at some of the previous boundaries, citizenship and so forth bills, definitions seem incredibly loose and overflexible.
And a response along the lines of "we must ensure this is immediately necessary" (a debatable point anyway) still doesn't deal with the greater issue that this has come up again and again in non-lawmaking conversation, reached no conclusion, and found no space for discussion amongst language experts except the Hon Member who hoppered this Bill.
I am sure Dreu would happily withdraw this if a discussion was tabled in the CUG, or somewhere else that the critics in this thread have suggested.
|
|
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 Feb 18, 2008 9:08:48 GMT -6
I for one are of the ilk that Laws not needed for immediate remedy should not be made.
Of course, standard laws protecting life, limb, and property would be, and are enacted before the event occurs.
But civil laws should only be enacted if there a pressing need to, not before there is a reason.
Do we need to address an outstanding grievance? Is there a party that has been wronged? Is there an injustice that must be corrected?
What is the reason that we must mandate a change in the language at this very moment?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 9:49:45 GMT -6
We've discussed how this HAS been an issue; we've discussed how no-one else seems to be seeking to remedy it (however minor an issue may seem to be, it does not mean we should ignore it!); and we've discussed how there is precedence to the formation of legal language.
Those are the reasons. I have outlined alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 18, 2008 10:16:44 GMT -6
You're suggesting some of these terms have not come up as hazy areas in Talossan legal past? Glancing quickly (am at work, not in a situation to study in depth just yet) at some of the previous boundaries, citizenship and so forth bills, definitions seem incredibly loose and overflexible. And a response along the lines of "we must ensure this is immediately necessary" (a debatable point anyway) still doesn't deal with the greater issue that this has come up again and again in non-lawmaking conversation, reached no conclusion, and found no space for discussion amongst language experts except the Hon Member who hoppered this Bill. I am sure Dreu would happily withdraw this if a discussion was tabled in the CUG, or somewhere else that the critics in this thread have suggested. Since you have not been able to point to any actual problems, but only vague references, I will happily wait a few days until you have had time to look and see. Of course, the actual question I asked was a challenge to your assertion that some plethora of other nations had such bills as these, and you haven't answered that one either. Nor, for that matter, do I see where this matter has "come up again and again". If we are at some crippling point, trembling and unable to move forward with some legislation for lack of these definitions, then could you point me to that conversation, please? Please provide evidence for one of these three claims. We've discussed how this HAS been an issue; we've discussed how no-one else seems to be seeking to remedy it (however minor an issue may seem to be, it does not mean we should ignore it!); and we've discussed how there is precedence to the formation of legal language. Those are the reasons. I have outlined alternatives. Having gone back through the thread and reread the whole thing, I have to admit I am at a loss as to what post you think indicated the need for this legislation. I spoke earlier about these exact same issues, and while you argued for the "cultural backdrop" notion, MC Gavartich has not change the bill any further and it remains an imprecise collection of legal terms with no known purpose. You keep on demanding an alternative or some other remedy, but there is no problem that needs a solution. If you want to pour lemonade on your head and I dissuade you from doing something unwise, do I have to always suggest an alternative beverage? In this case, let's just refrain from refreshing our pates. Really, this entire discussion has become moot, since the bill has been clarked in its current form, and even if it was needed, this is still a pretty badly-written bill. It alleges to provide definitions, while neglecting to define many things. "Post-internet" absolutely requires definition, since it is so broad and legal terms mandated by special nonsense laws should be very specific (or else there REALLY is no point). "pre-Internet period" is subtly different language, and requires consistency and specifics as well. "Anyone who lives in Talossa" would not actually mean what MC Gavartich seems to intend, further, but would encompass Cestourevriac and Ertéierben as well. If that was intended, it sure is not clear. Nor is there any justification for these choices included within the bill, which would have been nice. And "cybercit" uses "GTA" within its definition, which includes large sections of America and not just Talossa and would imply that one who lives in Milwaukee but not Talossa exists in some middle range of definition. For these many, many above problems, as well as the problem that this bill is entirely unnecessary, I will oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Casálmac'h on Feb 18, 2008 10:24:22 GMT -6
The negative response here is puzzling, because no-one seems willing to work on an alternative. Perhaps it is because no one wants an alternative? Just a guess.
|
|