Azul Mateus!

What do you mean, you tried before but couldn't? What have I missed?

So, how old are you, what do you do for a living?

Indeed, I think we can reject citizen Davinescu's proposals as being full of grandeur and in bad faith towards other provinces. I have never liked M-M's tendency for overbearing and arrogant "provinciotism".

What now?

Yes, because we have so many eligible people to act as Justices on the Uppermost Cort, you chuck out the Justice that actually has been active in the last few months. Good idea.

This government is becoming more and more unacceptable, pushing through unwanted laws, suggesting bullying against fellow citizens, or throwing away good and active Justices like we have a great pool of jurists.

Sure, it is not binding, as I said, but we touched upon many subjects such as double jeopardy, what constitutes a trial, what are the elements of a trial in Talossa, etc. At least, the Ziu and the Ministry of Justice should take notice of this, and maybe implement some of these findings into law. But in order to do that, knowing what arguments the Justice actually accepted might be helpful, if not strictly necessary.

And, as for example in England, the Government can still try to have points of case law overturned or corrected in another appeal, if it believes that things were handled incorrectly. This case has effectively only found that any such appeal, correction, nullification, etc. would have no effect on an acquittal handed down, because of the bar on double jeopardy.

While this matter cannot be further appealed, and therefore is indeed not binding per se, it can still prove at least persuasive to future Corts and general jurisprudence in Talossa. And I think it should be given the chance to do just that; there were a lot of arguments from all sides that merit deeper contemplation, debate, recording, and reasoning. All in all, the obiter dicta and rationes dicendi of this case would be invaluable to future jurisprudence.

Indeed, I find this case to be of the utmost importance to Talossan jurisprudence. I really hope that the Cort will write up a more detailed reasoning of their judgement, just to understand what exactly they hold to actually be valid in the Talossan legal system.

I am most certainly not planning on unduly entering the Ziu without a real mandate from the citizens.

Do you feel as though Talossan politics is moving too fast for your liking? Do you look at bills and think "Well, that cannot be right. Nobody really initiated a discussion. Things just seem to be passed through without any meaningful debate!"?

Does that irk you? Do you know why this is? Do you remember TERPELAZIUNS having been a thing? When was the last time you saw a good ol' Terp debate happening?

Currently, most parties within the Kingdom of Talossa, our beloved nationette, all seem to agree upon everything and seem uninterested in meaningful opposition, except maybe for the ZNP with S:reu Börnatfiglheu at its head.

Well, I say: enough is enough. I am announcing the workings of a launch of a new Party.

Name of Party: To be Announced.
Platform of Party: To be Announced.
General Idea: at first, the idea is to be a good and satisfactory opposition party, to work with other oppositionary powers to keep the Government on their toes, and to critically look at how everything can be made more appealing to the general citizen.

inb4 conservative/republican: This currently one-citaxhien-party is envisioned to be a non-hereditary lifetime Monarchist party that values Our National Language. In the long run, it is my hope to look into whether monetary incentives can be given to citizens to accomplish the tasks that everybody seems too busy/bored to accomplish.

But all of this is just half-baked, stemming from the last straw, which is the currently Hoppered http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13848/electoral-roll-act.

What exactly is this? 👀

I, too, support the nomination.

I wonder whether electing a Monarch should really be a "Ziu → Ratification"-style process.

Might we want to involve the knighthood? Maybe they come together to choose a new King that has to be ratified by the populace? Or something?

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on December 09, 2019, 02:01:57 PMSeriously, 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.

Listen, I appreciate that you want things to happen, and you want them NOW, but nothing is going to happen if there is not discussion and communication. And it will be about this provisional standard, and it will be about a future standard, and it will be about previous standards. We cannot move forward if we do not discuss, so can you please, for the love of almighty Hecate, let us discuss?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on December 09, 2019, 02:36:05 AM

I don't. I have /kj/ for <q>, as suggested by the ScurzGram/Treisour (which both say its [kj]) and talossan.com ("q is pronounced as the beginning of the English words "cue" and "cute"."). There are some words where <q> is irregularly pronounced as /k/ though, and I got those directly from the ScurzGram and the 1997 Treisour.

I do think it is safe to assume /c/ for ‹q›, or at least a palatalised /kʲ/, and that the annotation as "kj" was only a crutch, because "c" was used for /ts/ and other IPA symbols were not available (e.g."ëS" for [əʃ].
A few years back, I had the discussion of whether "qátor" wasn't supposed to be /cator/, because it is derived from the Insular (p-)Celtic word for the numeral, which has a palatal velar stop. Cresti, if I remember correctly, seemed to agree.

QuoteThis is intentional. "cioveci" might be up for debate (ScurzGram explicitly says [CovejC] and I remember reading that on kingdomoftalossa.net as well, but talossan.com suggests [tʃoˈvetʃ]), but literally all Glheþ materials say (t)ir is to be pronounced [(t)i.əʃ] (ScurzGram has "irë [iëS]" and "tirë [tiëS]", talossan.com states that all verb infinitives, including the ones in -irh, rhyme with "posh", or "mush" if unstressed, which suggests [(t)i.əʃ] as well)

Interesting. I am not sure however to interpret the part with "posh/mush", because that does not rhyme for me even with the shwa. ScGr2 says: "When the ending is stressed, it is pronounced [aS]. When unstressed, it is pronounced [ëS]. [...] Two irregular verbs have aberrant endings, but still end in -rë. These aberrant verbs are irë [iëS] [...]"
Personally, I interpret this as Madison not understanding how i-stem verbs work. I will shrug at that for the moment, but I would suggest either a spelling reform to "íar(h)" and "tíar(h)", or actually using a spelling pronunciation.

QuoteBecause reverting the infinitive to -r was agreed upon by both sides of the aisle and the -rh- spelling was something that both sides already had anyway. The way I personlly make sense of it is that the H is a remnant of an older future auxiliary (cf. Spanish hablaré, from earlier *hablar he) though I'll admit there are some verbs where this doesn't work (säperéu with a medial [r], for instance).

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.

By the way, one correction I do have, I checked again, is that "acestilor" should have a [ʃ] for the "s", because ScGr2 lists it as "aCeSCëlër".

As to the /l/ → [ð], I think there may be a case for the /l/ becoming a voiced interdental fricative intervocalically, at least optionally, because ScGr2 says:

QuoteOther peculiar phonetic features include the fronting of word-initial [l] to [D] (as in English "this") between vowels: the phrases la divertà ("the fun") and la livertà ("the liberty") are pronounced alike: [la Diverta]. This innovation has even crept into a few word-medial situations, e.g. fodiclâ [foDiklë], "follicle".

Indeed, I have read that work, but that was years ago. My point stands: *why* adopt it?