Further Arestada opposition

[Nic Casálmac'h]

I have long refrained from speaking about this matter, mostly because I was uncertain about how best to express my thoughts, but now I have decided the time has come. I can no longer ignore the fact that my desire to learn el Glhetg has faded. And why? Quite simply because of the changes made in the Arestadâ.

Let me use an analogy (since I use so many of them lately):

Imagine if your mother had long hair and had for as long as you could remember, and then one day went to get it cut and dyed it a different color. Now she looked totally different and you liked her far better the way she used to be, even though you gave yourself time to get used to it. She still sounds the same and is the same person, but she doesn't look the same, and no matter how much you try to get used to her new look you cannot help but prefer how she looked with long hair.

Now that is exactly how I feel about el Glhetg. Well, perhaps not exactly, but it expresses the same feeling: the language still sounds about the same and is still the same language, but it does not look the same.

It is not that those changes did not make sense, nor that some of them were not a good thing, but the cumulative effect was--at least in my opinion--too much, too quickly.

We wanted to make it simpler for people to learn. We thought then the language would be used more often. Is it? Hardly.

I now believe what we should have done instead was concentrate on making materials available for people to learn the language and use it ourselves, forcing people to at least become a little familiar with it through repeatedly seeing it. People learn difficult languages, if they have reason to, and there are far more difficult languages than el Glhetg was.

Another main point was that it was difficult to type. I still advocate leaving off the accents as suitable for everyday use, especially if people are in a hurry.

Have we yet heard more from Sir Tomás Gariçéir?

In conclusion, I suppose what I am asking for is quite clear: repealing the Arestadâ.

Let the controversy begin...

[EM Vürinalt]

Huh, this is very interesting.

I think all the recent talk about the Arestada and our language is because El Glhetg is finally becoming more complete, more speakable.

I think that, while it did remove a great level of Talossinity, it simplified the language so it looks and sounds more realistic. However, by doing this it removed many of those pesky peculurarities (if that's even a word) from our language.

I'm kind of 50/50 on this, personally. I'd rather see a non-reformed version of the langauge be in use for government and literature and a reformed use be made for informal situations.

For example, the bible should be written in pre-Arestada Talossan, while, say..."The Onion" is written in post-Arestada Talossan.

However, that just complicates things.

Like I said, 50/50. I think I'll be a full CÚGer in June so then I can take part more after hearing your opinions.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Preaching to the choir, v'amica, although it would have been nice to see such passion before the Arestada was approved. The GV&SP was discussed to death for months, and the only people who participated substantively in that discussion were myself, King John, Lord Hooligan, and President Asmour.

At this point, I think calling for the repeal of the Arestada is a little radical. The Arestada contains a number of good things, many of which both of us voted for. There are some areas where I have always felt, as you do, that we moved a little too far and/or too fast, but let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do hope Sir Tomás comes through with the commentary on the Arestada that he has promised us, and when that happens I also hope more of our newer citizens speak up on what they think of the reforms to the language so that we can make a fully informed decision about whether and to what extent the reforms made by the Arestada should be reconsidered.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

Indeed, calling for the Arestadâ to be repealed is radical, but I do tend to be rather radical. However, I agree that there were several good things to it. I suppose my thoughts were that we ought to start again, but perhaps it would be better if we modified what is already in existence.

By the time the GV&SP came up, I was to the point where I was feeling absolutely overwhelmed. I did not have nearly as complete an understanding of language in general and el Glhetg in particular as all of you do. I tried to say things. I tried to offer more of an outsider's view. I guess I just felt that I did not really have enough knowledge to participate meaningfully in the discussion and I was still trying to digest the contents of the GV&SP. I can scarcely believe it was discussed for months; at the time it seemed like days. But I was busy with other things as well, I guess.

At the moment, I am inclined to continue to use the old spelling. Perhaps I will be the only one. But, if there are others, or if we use it for more formal instances, then that does not really accomplish what we set out to do, which was simplifying it for everyone's ease and convenience. If you all of a sudden have to know two spellings for each word, it makes it twice as complicated as the original.

So what now? I don't pretend to know any more than I did when we started the whole thing.

What I do know is how I feel about it all. I think it is important how one feels about the language one speaks, especially if one has to choose to learn it, rather than picking it up easily.

I think I shall have to look at it again and see if I can come up with some coherent thoughts for discussion. I think it was primarily the GV&SP, but also the loss of gñh, for which I argued at the time.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

May 31, 2008 19:06:38 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

At the moment, I am inclined to continue to use the old spelling. Perhaps I will be the only one. But, if there are others, or if we use it for more formal instances, then that does not really accomplish what we set out to do, which was simplifying it for everyone's ease and convenience. If you all of a sudden have to know two spellings for each word, it makes it twice as complicated as the original.

I suppose it's rather self-evident that if you don't use a simplified orthography, it can't accomplish the objective of simplifying anything.

[Hooligan]

Sir Cresti is correct, of course, that the only way to truly simplify a language is if all users agree to use the simplified version. Those who continue to use the so-called Old Spelling are entitled to this choice, of course, but the claim that the simplification was not a simplification at all, for the fact that it created two spellings for the same word, becomes the fault of those who decide not to simplify, choosing instead to be the ones intent on preserving the "less simplified" spellings.

This said, I wish to expound that I view the 12 December 2007 Arestada as having created nothing more complicated for the reader of Talossan (well, perhaps slightly, but I will stick with the comparison) than the reader of English faces when he encounters the British spelling of "colour" and the American spelling of "color" for the selfsame word. All English readers everywhere know "magick" as an archaic spelling of "magic", and "musick" as an old spelling of "music", and know "ye" to be an old spelling of "the" (etc., etc., etc.)....and I believe that all readers of Talossan are happy to accept "Cestoûr" for the modern "Cestour" and "pegñhâ" for "pegna".

All of which means, of course, that I embrace "Old Spelling" as much as I embrace "New Spelling", and am all for the preservation of it in (as Nic says) official text and in texts created by those who prefer it.

However, I don't think we have any reason to repeal the Arestada (or, as some -- at least in the body, but perhaps not in the subject, of their posts -- might say: the Arestadâ).

Hooligan

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Whether to use the pre- or post-Arestada version of the Talossan language is up to its users. Only time will tell if the modified version will become widely used.

But then let's not undervalue so hastily, just for the sake of tradition, something that took several CUG members such a long time and hard work.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jun 3, 2008 1:08:36 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

This said, I wish to expound that I view the 12 December 2007 Arestada as having created nothing more complicated for the reader of Talossan (well, perhaps slightly, but I will stick with the comparison) than the reader of English faces when he encounters the British spelling of "colour" and the American spelling of "color" for the selfsame word. All English readers everywhere know "magick" as an archaic spelling of "magic", and "musick" as an old spelling of "music", and know "ye" to be an old spelling of "the" (etc., etc., etc.)....and I believe that all readers of Talossan are happy to accept "Cestoûr" for the modern "Cestour" and "pegñhâ" for "pegna".

All of which means, of course, that I embrace "Old Spelling" as much as I embrace "New Spelling", and am all for the preservation of it in (as Nic says) official text and in texts created by those who prefer it.

However, I don't think we have any reason to repeal the Arestada (or, as some -- at least in the body, but perhaps not in the subject, of their posts -- might say: the Arestadâ).

I definetly agree with you. As I said elsewhere: cünsetuds nor avoliziuns.

[Jack Fenton]

So do I. But don't count on me liking OS words that have all those fiddly little accents, beautiful as they are.