Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Jun 12, 2008 10:54:53 GMT -6
Here are the four different arguments being made about the arestadâ:
I really think we need to examine these four arguments in depth. I will give my responses to these arguments very soon.
Nic: As to the matter of language: el Glhetg should be used and spoken, but not in the watered down version that hardly even seems to resemble how it used to look. Let us have our language in its former glory! Beauty is better than efficiency. Then let us encourage its widespread use by our own example and by providing materials from which people may learn it. | Xhorxh: Nic said: "As to the matter of language: el Glhetg should be used and spoken, but not in the watered down version that hardly even seems to resemble how it used to look. Let us have our language in its former glory!" That's your personal opinion, Nic. The Talossan public will decide which version (the Glorious or the Watered-Down one) will become widely used. If you as a CUG member have been outvoted you must accept the will of the majority. The CUG is democratic and Talossa is democratic too. And just because an Arestada has been issued it doesn't necessarily mean that its decisions will be widely accepted by the public or become an unchangeable law. Let's wait and see. Nic said: "Beauty is better than efficiency. Then let us encourage its widespread use by our own example and by providing materials from which people may learn it." If compared with clumsy beauty, I think no-frills efficiency is still better. |
Vüri: As to the matter of language: I view this as an interesting turning point in the national language and culture of the nation as a whole. However, I must agree with Xhorxh. With time, possibly years, we will know if the Arestada was a success or not. However, even if the changes of the Arestada fall out of use, I do not think the changed langauge will go unused. The prime example of this is Norwegian. This language is written in two different styles, Bokmål, or "book tongue," and nynorsk, or "new Norse." These two different forms of writing the same language have coëxisted peacefully since Nynorsk hit the scene in the 1800s. Historically, spelling and orthography changes have been met with much resistance. Using the same example above, Nynorsk is only primarily used by 10% of the Norwegian population. Yet, the two spelling systems do not change the intelligibility of the language when spoken. It creates minor complications when reading but otherwise remains mutual intelligable. Another example is the recent German spelling reform. The majority of Germans feel the reform was completely unnessecary and took to much away from the historical look of German and the prominent use of the Eszett (ß). I feel that Talossa is now entering this period. People are always apprehensive towards the change of something so familiar to them as language. I feel a reason the Arestada wasn't met with immediate outrage was the lack of speakers of the langauge. The majority of Talossan citizens do not know anything of their national langauge, thus, they are fairly apethetic towards such changes. As for me, I like some of the "Old Talossan Spelling" and some of the "New Talossan Spelling." I like the use of the e-umlaut, it makes irregulars easy and it's just an all around cool looking letter. One problem I have with Modern Talossan is the disuse of ß, þ, and ð, which I believed added a great sense of uniqueness to the language. I will continue to use these letters in my writings. I'm glad we got rid of the circumflex and many of the unnessecary accents but there was a certain level of the language that was also destroyed. But that is inevitable with change. I'm getting off topic, but I believe we should now focus on at least minor language education to our citizens. For one of our official languages, it's fairly unknown by the general population. Anyways, as I said, I agree with Xhorxh. We'll find out in a few years if the change is smoothly integrated. Yet, I also agree a bit with Nic. I stradle the middle ground here. As for now, we must focus less on changing the language and more on utilising it. After all, we are the Committee for the Utililsation of the Language. | Dréu: I wish to propose a different way of looking at things. In every language there is some sort of thing that separates out the common speakers of a language from the very educated speakers of that language. In English, that thing is the semicolon. In Hebrew that is the dageshim. Now, the common speakers of that English may not know exactly how to use a semicolon, but when it is used by someone else we can pretty much understand what is being said. For instance, if I say, "I am not alone; my wife came back to me." Everyone, regardless of education (as long as they are literate) will understand exactly what I am trying to say, even though the readers may not understand how to use a semicolon themselves. The same is true of Hebrew. If I put a dagesh in a mem (marking that it is a "double letter"), the everyday readers of Hebrew will understand exactly what I am trying to say, even though they would not know where to put a dagesh themselves. With that in mind, I wish to propose something different. In Talossan, those who spell "es" "és" are simply those who know what pre-arestada spelling is like, and hae studied Talossan pronunciation/stress rules enough that they know where to put all of those "extra" accents that were gotten rid of during the Arestada. Those who don't put the accent will simply either be seen as those who wish not to because they are writing informally or because they don't know the pre-arestada spellings. Everyone can understand each other for the most part. Sure, it's "deceßar" instead of "deceßarh" and "fostarë" instead of "fostarh" but I think anyone with a little feel for el glhetg will be able to understand. So, just my two cents. |
I really think we need to examine these four arguments in depth. I will give my responses to these arguments very soon.