Let me be crystal clear about the procedure from here.

1) The Provisional Standard, which will be used for the glheþinaziun of NewWitt and for all other official purposes until replaced by a long-term standard, is whatever Marcel as Provisional Convenor of SIGN says it is until SIGN is operating, and that is the PDF in Marcel's signature until I'm informed otherwise by Marcel.
2)  The rest of you should be prioritizing getting SIGN up and running so you can establish the rules and procedure whereby we will create a long-term standard. As soon as the SIGN rules are established, Marcel's "linguistic dictatorship" ends. I am not opposed to discussion about linguistic norms; but I think the #1 priority, without which no real progress is possible, is to establish SIGN.
3) I'm not happy that @the Ladîntsch Naziunál has so far ignored my question about how he intends to do his job.

I am more than happy for all the debate and discussion in the world, but I am setting priorities for action here because I will not allow another 2 years of faffing around (and if I can't stop it, it will at least be clear it was not my fault that the language community collapsed).

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 09, 2019, 04:12:14 AM
I mean, I do not really care. Both seem valid and logical, but the "-rh" is somewhat unique, and worth keeping as an infinitive suffix, too.

No, no, NO. It is probably the worst (as in most aesthetically displeasing) thing about the post-Ben reforms.

Seriously, we get further away from our goal if you try to unpick the provisional standard. If you want to make a case for that spelling, do so as part of the long-term project, and try to get a consensus.

Glüc's done great work, but I'd like to see his predecessor, the longest-ever serving SoS and the creator of our Database system, get something too

With respect, the only answer to that at this stage is a) that's the Talossan language that I and every other pre-2006 Talossan learned; and (b) "why not".

Nitpicking the terms of a provisional, short-term standard will lead to there being no short term standard and we're stuck in the same limbo as the last 2 years. If you want a different rule in the long-term standard, then by all means, propose as much in the long, thorough process that you yourself have recommended, and let the best proposals win.

Quote from: Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun on December 08, 2019, 07:13:49 PM
do you write -r [ʃ] for the infinitive, but the future suddenly has a -h- inserted before the suffixes, when pronunciation of the /r/ as [ʃ] does not change?

That is the classical pre-2006 spelling rule. From La Scúrzniâ Gramáticâ Del Glhetg Talossán, Secund Ediziun

Quote21.11 The simple future tense is formed from the infinitive by dropping the -ar ending of the infinitive and adding the
following endings to the stem of the verb:
"I" form -arhéu "We" form -arhent
"Thou" form -arhás "You" form -arhetz
"He/she/it" form -arha "They" form -arhent
21.12 The ending -arh- is pronounced [aS] throughout the future tense conjugation. An example of a regular future tense
conjugation follows:
Lirar [liraS] -- to read
eu lirarhéu [liraSeu] -- I shall read, I am going to read
tú lirarhás [liraSas] -- Thou shalt/art going to read
o lirarha [liraSë] -- He will read, he is going to read
noi lirarhent [liraSënt] -- We shall read, are going to read
voi lirarhetz [liraSec] -- You will read, are going to read
os lirarhent [liraSënt] -- They will read, are going to read
21.13 The -arh- endings were originally spelt -ar- (liraréu, etc.) but it was difficult to remember that these "r's" were to
be pronounced <S>. The addition of the helpful letter "h" was mandated by the Arestadâ of 19 August 1993.

For those who came in late, the role of the Ladintsch Naziunál and his Büreu del Glheþ Talossán is to:

Quotespecifically promote the use of the Talossan language... work in concert with all extra-governmental societies and groups to do the same, and... advise the Department of the Census in the Chancery regarding the creation of Talossan names for citizens who request them. Within the Büreu there shall be a division known as the Talossan Translation Service whose task shall be to translate official or historical documents into el Glheþ Talossan. ..
(and also) advising and making proposals to the Government on how to promote the use of the Talossan language.

So I would like to invite @the Ladîntsch Naziunál to tell us what he intends to do to put the above into practice.

If I can get the UrN despite being branded the Kingdom of Talossa's Public Enemy #1 for the first 15 years of my involvement, anyone can, lol

Anyway, back on topic. I get a notification when I'm Mentioned; can I also get one for Likes to my posts, as Oldwitt did? Oh, I see there already is one, under my avatar - but since you don't see avatars on Latest 59, I don't see that regularly. Can it go in the top menu, near where Mentions is?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on December 08, 2019, 10:41:35 AM
I don't know, it looks to me like /l/ > [ð] / V_V was just a misinterpretation on Hool's part that somehow managed to get into talossan.com unnoticed.

Can I suggest - as a "rule of thumb" - that where KR1's materials and post-2005 CÚG materials differ (on matters other than orthography) KR1's materials should be preferred?

On the subject of pronunciation I have no idea whether the CÚG were in the habit of actually speaking the language and thus would be able to see whether certain pronunciations were "practical".

Iac's suggested SIGN rules are more complicated than the existing CÚG rules which broke down under apathy.

I say: start as simply as possible, add complexity over time if necessary.

I like everything you're saying here - a refreshing new approach, a clean break with the old era.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on December 07, 2019, 06:45:57 PM
Research on older forms of Talossan:[/b] does anyone know what, say, mid-80s Talossan look like? Wouldn't it be useful to know what it looked like in at least some circumstances? We should definitely try to research that more.

Here's a historical sketch of the evolution of the language from KR1, written in the late 90s.  Sadly most of the actual texts would be in old issues of Støtanneu which have never been put online and only exist in KR1's archives, though there are very brief extracts in the 1992 History of Talossa.

So how should a new language organisation operate? Open thread.

---

If you're interested in comparison, the old CÚG rules are attached.

Thanks, Marcial. I think your PDF contains a good compromise for a "Provisional Standard" which is "good enough for Government work", as the saying goes.

But it is very crucial that we don't confuse the short term for the long term. We need a CÚG replacement that will do proper language research of the kind Epic suggests. We also need a Standard Talossan right now. The two are not in conflict. In fact, I hope that by establishing a standard that some speakers might not like, you guys will be motivated to organise SIGN properly, do the research, and create a better standard.

I look forward to Epic, Marcel, Iac and others (with my contribution, of course) setting up the rules by which SIGN will operate. Making rules of authority and of decision-making that will allow us to create Arestadâs or whatever in the way that CÚG used to; and carrying out the research that Epic talks about that make sure we make good ones.

In the meantime, I say that Marcel's proposal is good enough for right now.

If you people had got it together to make something happen in the 2 years (!!!) I've been trying to herd you like recalcitrant cats, then this measure would not be necessary.

You don't get to pass the buck, disappear, not do the work, and play "wish someone else would..." anymore, because it's me with whom the buck stops. Extreme measures are now necessary. I am giving Marcel the power because doing this the consensus way got nowhere.

Nevertheless, once SIGN is formally established, democracy will be restored within the language community. If you have a better way to break the deadlock of the last 2 years, now is the time to recommend it.

Many people complain about inactivity in Talossa, call it a "nation-threatening crisis", and then complain about any serious measures meant to change that.

If the CÚG were ever to bestir itself to object, that might have some relevance.