The February Session didn't really go anywhere, in part because I took too long to determine a date and time. I would like there to be a session this month, presumably again on the 21st at 11 AM TST. Please let me know ahead of time if I should reschedule.

If the plan is to have Informal Sessions every month, maybe it is time for us to determine some basic rules of procedure so we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time.

As I understand it, the last time we had anything of the sort was in 2022, during the 57th Cosă, with the now-Seneschal as Túischac'h. As such, would you like to share your experience with me and assist with writing a new set of hopefully permanent rules, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu ? If all goes well, I'd like to have the rules passed as a bill once they're finalised.

If anyone else has questions or ideas, feel free to share them here.

It will be held live. Click here to get to the Zoom call.  The session will feature:

• The Swearing-in of Seneschal Alexandreu Davinescu, Baron Davinescu del Vilatx Freiric
• Address from the Government, delivered by His Majesty King Txec
• Rebuttal from the Tanaischteu
• Terpelaziuns
• Seßiun Rustitsch (Informal Session) of the Ziu, with debate and voting on Clarked bills

I ask the Seneschal and Tanaischteu to prepare their Government speech and rebuttal, respectively.

WHEREAS New Citizen Seats are currently limited to a maximum of 7.5% of party seats in the Cosă, and
WHEREAS this value makes it all but impossible to reduce the number of seats in the Cosă, calling to question this express possibility set out in OrgLaw.IV.2.1, and
WHEREAS the current limit of 15 seats for new citizens has never even remotely been reached,

THEREFORE be it resolved that OrgLaw.IV.4.2 is amended to read as follows:

QuoteThe maximum number of seats that may be assigned to new citizens between general elections shall be 4.5% of the seats apportioned between parties, rounded down to a whole number of seats.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Marcel Tafial

WHEREAS Talossa is not roleplaying, and
WHEREAS therefore, operating under a "D&D Cosă" with more seats than voting citizens is untenable, and
WHEREAS political power ought not be a matter of course that is bought and paid for, but a privilege derived from sufficient popular mandate (or for our newest citizens, a courtesy extended by law),

NOW THEREFORE, be it enacted that the following provision be added to el Lexhatx as subsubsection H.4.1.1:

QuoteThe total number of party seats is twenty.

FURTHERMORE, according to LegOrg IV.2.1, this change will not take effect until the next election following the passage of a calendar year.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Marcel Tafial

As the rules currently stand, Runners may only score via touchdown, i.e. pressing the ball down in the enemy end zone, but are not allow to catch, hold or carry the ball. In effect this makes them kind of useless.

Thus, I propose that Runners be allowed to catch, hold and carry the ball. What do you think?

@Sir Lüc
@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP

Adhering to the tradition of "don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness" that all cultural endeavours in the country follow, I'd like to announce my intention of forming a Talossan Football Board (Cußeglh del Futbol Talossan) with likeminded enthusiasts of the sport to pick up the reins and establish a new authority over its ruleset.

The short-to-medium-term goals I have in mind are as follows:

• Fix errors in the existing ruleset, specifically allowing Runners to catch, hold and carry the ball
• Establish Talossan translations of the terminology used (e.g. how do you say "touchdown" in Talossan?)
• Look into running a proper Talossan Football fantasy league instead of just an NFL one. It would have to be multi-sport, which appears to be theoretically possible but more research and more imporantly support from people familiar with fantasy sports leagues is required

If anyone here is interested in joining, or has questions or suggestions, please feel free to post in this thread!

Back in 2019, I designed a set of Talossan playing cards. Two days ago, I decided to do it again, for some reason. Here is the result.

The four suits are:

• bedposts / torps (clubs),
• daggers / tuzalts (spades),
• lanterns / lanternăs (hearts), and
• bence / bents (diamonds).

I'm not much of an artist, as such I based the court card designs very heavily on the playing cards commonly in use in Morocco, which some slight twists: Jacks are meant to look like hunters, based on their Talossan name (lançeir, lit. "shooter"), the Knights (the southern Mediterranean equivalent to Queen cards) are supposed to be female though I believe I failed at that, and Kings are inspired by this silly image of Ben.

Let me know what you think, and feel free to iterate on these designs if you like.

The current spelling does not distinguish the verb ending -ar which sounds like "ahsh", from the regularly pronounced non-verb ending -ar. What that means is that neceßar can mean "to need" and be pronounced "neh-cheh-SAHSH", or "necessary" and be pronounced "neh-cheh-SAR", and that there is no way of knowing which one it is without context. For speakers of Talossan, this isn't an issue.

However, this situation makes it impossible for laypeople or algorithms to always determine how a word is pronounced, so we might want to fix this, for the sake of all the Cestourats and programmers out there.

The method that the 2007 spelling reform used was to spell the verb ending as -arh, with rh being pronounced like the English "sh" at all times. This works, but has proven extraordinarily controversial with people who were not around when the choice was made (which is to say, mostly Republicans and Sir Tomás Gariçeir, UrGP), which is why I refuse to bring it back. A similar proposal that Sir Tomás made in 2019, "if you really feel the need to have a special spelling to show the /ʃ/ pronunciation of the r here", was to spell the verb ending as -arë, which during Ben times was reserved for irregular verbs only (yes I know how silly that sounds). That also works, but I have my hesitations.

Finally, there's the proposal that I'm currently considering: keep the verb ending as -ar, but spell the non-verb ending as -ár. Back in the Ben days, there was no fixed stress rule like there is nowadays, and so you had to mark the stressed syllable in most words even when it was really obvious. It just so happened, though, that this redundant spelling was never applied to verbs, which means that a word ending in -ár was never pronounced "ahsh".

So the concrete idea is this:
* -ar is always pronounced "ahsh",
* -ár is always pronounced "ar".

Because a word can never have more than one accent mark, nouns and adjectives that already have a stressmark but end in -ar would have to be learnt as irregular words. Only seven words would be affected by this:
* Ceáiçar "Caesar; warlord",
* ísobar "isobar",
* Máxhar "Hungarian",
* Míanmar "Myanmar",
* Stáiar "Styria",
* útphar "odd" (as in numbers),
* xhágar "hunting dog".

I'm not proposing this as a rule change as per SIGN Rule 4, I've just been thinking about this issue for a while and want to know what the rest of you think about this. Which method do you prefer? Do you need to distinguish them at all?

Dear members of SIGN,

I propose that Rules 3 and 4 be changed as follows:

QuoteRule 3
Anyone who is interested can ask to join SIGN. If an absolute majority of members supports this, or if two months have passed with a plurality of members supporting this, the applicant becomes a full member. If the applicant was a member of the Comità per l'Útzil del Glheþ as of Llimbaziuă 2019/XL, the voting is skipped and they become a full member immediately.
Members can be required to signal their continued membership at most once per calendar year. Members that fail to respond to this request are assumed to have resigned from SIGN and lose their membership status. If a former member of SIGN requests to rejoin, the voting is skipped and they become a full member immediately.

Rule 4
A SIGN member can suggest a change to the recommended standard language or this set of SIGN rules at any time. If at least a two-thirds majority of members support this within two months, the change comes into effect on the Sunday three weeks after the change was accepted.

Please post your votes and comments in this thread.


@C.d.I. Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC -
@Françal I. Lux -
@Iac Marscheir -
@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial - PER
@Miestră Schivă, UrN - PER
@xpb - PER
@Lüc - PER
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă - PER
@Breneir Tzaracomprada - PER

Dear Members of SIGN,

Breneir Tzaracomprada wants to join. As per Rule 3, we'll have a vote on it.

I vote PER. Please submit your vote in this thread.

@C.d.I. Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC -
@Françal I. Lux -
@Iac Marscheir -
@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial - PER
@Miestră Schivă, UrN - PER
@xpb - PER
@Lüc - PER
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă - PER

Dear Members of SIGN,

Lüc da Schir wants to join. As per Rule 3, we'll have a vote on it.

I vote PER. Please submit your vote in this thread.

@C.d.I. Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC -
@Françal I. Lux -
@Iac Marscheir - PER
@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial - PER
@Miestră Schivă, UrN - PER
@xpb - PER

Attention all present and future Ladintschen: Översteir 1.2 is now live!

The two new features are:

• Automatic pronunciation guides and syllabification: Clicking on any Talossan word, be it as a search result or as part of the Conjugation or Declension tools, will now show you how a word is pronounced and split into syllables. Pronunciation is given in both the International Phonetic Alphabet and in "Fauxnetics" for English speakers.
  
• Filtered search: When looking up a word, you can now specify the part(s) of speech you're interested in. Very convenient.

With this update, the Översteir is now feature-complete, and aside from some cool ideas with no set deadline (Speech synthesis?), no new features are planned.
I would like to again thank Lüc da Schir wholeheartedly for his hard work. This wonderful website is all thanks to him.

If you find any bugs or errors, feel free to contact us (by which I mean me and Lüc)! You can do that either directly via Witt or Discord, or anonymously through the suggestion box that's linked at the bottom of the Översteir page.

That's it from me.
¡Enxhoietz-voi el noveu Översteir!

This is something that has always bothered me: in the Ben-era documentation as well as during the post-Ben CÚG era, éu was always considered two seperate syllables. But, why is that? And why did the CÚG go out of its way to define éu and eu as two different things entirely, going so far as to define eú as a stress-marked version of eu and respelling words accordingly, which is the least intuitive spelling ever -- if anything wouldn't a spelling like peúmâ suggest a pronunciation of [pe.'umə] instead of ['pɪw.mə]? Where did the idea of spelling stressed [ɪw] (which as far as I can tell does not exist anywhere) as eú come from, anyway?

My own interpretation of éu and eu, that I've also added to the Recomendăs, is that they are the same diphthong. Instead of éu being two separate syllables, [ɪw] would just be the unstressed (or alternatively post-tonic) allophone of [ew], and monosyllablic words would retain the éu spelling simply for historical reasons.

I'd love to hear the CÚG's opinion on this, as this would be a major departure from pre-established practice.

Dear Members of SIGN,

Iac Marscheir has just proposed the following change to the pluralisation rule:
Add /ð/ to the list of phonemes that trigger <en> pluralization.

For context, right now the sounds that trigger an -en plural are [s z ʃ ʒ ʃt ʧ ʤ ʎ ɲ θ]

Please discuss and vote on this proposal in this thread. The people entitled to vote on this proposal are:
@Cresti da Ion Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC - PER
@Françal I. Lux
@Iac Marscheir - PER
@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial - CONTRA
@Miestră Schivă, UrN  - PER
@xpb

According to Rule 4 of SIGN, at least 4 out of 6 current members will have to accept this rule change before it can go into effect.

Have you ever had a question about the Talossan language but were too afraid to ask it? Would you just like to know how a certain word or name is spelled or pronounced? If so, please ask all your questions here, and I'll make a video where I'll (try to) answer them all!

The current case of del Val v. Tzaracomprada et al. doesn't really interest me that much and I originally planned to just sit and watch it unfold, however there is something about the Complaint, specifically point 32, that I found peculiar:

Quote32. This action relies principally, although not exclusively, on the understanding of torts in the common law of Talossa, which is derived necessarily from the common law of the state of Wisconsin.

As far as I, admittedly as a layman, could tell, this is not true. If the laws and precedents of Talossa make no mention of civil trials, let alone what a "tort" is, then... what would that mean? That civil trials cannot exist in Talossa? The idea of simply taking the Wisconsite version for the purposes of Talossan law also seems pretty weird to me. I suppose its based on the fact that, until recently, some portions of the Wisconsin Statutes were imported into el Lexhatx, del Val acknowledges this in fact in the very next sentence,

QuoteAlthough the Ziu has enacted statutes which dis-incorporate Wisconsin crimes from Talossan law, [...]

which might make it sound like (1) the entirety of the Wisconsin Statutes were incorporated into el Lexhatx and (2) only the parts dealing with criminal law were edited out recently, but if you actually look at el Lexhatx before this change was made, the results might surprise you. For reference, here's the relevant section:

Quote1. The Ziu hereby adopts the following portions of the civil and criminal codes of the American state of Wisconsin as law within the territory of the Kingdom of Talossa: (35RZ21)
    1.1. Chapters 240-243 Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts
    1.2. Chapters 401-411 Uniform Commercial Code
    1.3. Chapters 421-429 Wisconsin Consumer Act
    1.4. Chapters 700-710 Property
    1.5. Chapters 939-951 Criminal Code
    1.6. Chapter 961 Controlled Substances, subject to A.1.6.1

Do any of the sections named above define what a tort is, or what a plaintiff would be entitled in return for suffering a tort? There is a section for Civil Procedures in the Wisconsin Statutes, Chapters 799 to 847, which as you can see was never part of Talossan law, but maybe I'm missing it. If not, where does it leave us? If it's defined in US federal law somewhere, or through some precedent set in some case within or outside of Wisconsin, would that actually matter for our purposes?

And if civil trials are indeed not a thing in Talossa, what does it mean that the Talossan courts' powers "extend to all matters, in law and equity", if the latter is ill-defined?

Just some 2 AM ramblings food for thought.

Given the current situation, I thought it was appropriate to update the Cyrillic romanisation scheme for the Talossan language. Check the attached PDF.

Despite my best efforts, I cannot guarantee that this draft is accurate since I don't speak Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian myself. Feel free to post corrections and other suggestions.

Dear colleagues, please come to order.

I hereby open this month's session of the Cosă. This month's topics are the following:

[table style="width:70%" border=1]
[tr][td]Date Däts[/td] [td]Topic Topic[/td] [td]Speakers Parleirs[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1 - 30[/td] [td]Recess
Spaßetxadă[/td] [td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]

No bills were clarked for this month. As such, no debates are expected to occur. However, Members may use this thread to raise points of order and similar affairs.

Members are still expected to vote on the Vote of Confidence. Please do so in the SoS's Voting Thread as usual.

Dear colleagues, please come to order.

I hereby open this month's session of the Cosă. This month's topics are the following:

[table style="width:70%" border=1]
[tr][td]Date Däts[/td] [td]Topic Topic[/td] [td]Author(s) Auþor(s)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]01 - 05[/td] [td]56RZ3: The Talossan Criminal Law Reform Bill #2
56RZ3: El Proxhet dal Reformaziun del Drept Penal Talossan n:reu 2[/td] [td]Miestră Schivă, FREEDEMS[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]06 - 11[/td] [td]56RZ4: The Legislative Process Improvement Bill #1
56RZ4: El Proxhet dal Miglhoriçaziun dal Proceßă Lexhislatïu n:reu 1[/td] [td]Miestră Schivă, FREEDEMS
Glüc da Dhi, KLüP[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12 - 16[/td] [td]56RZ5: The 56th Cosa Budget
56RZ5: El Báxhet dal 56:téă Cosă[/td] [td]Sen. Ian Plätschisch[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17 - 21[/td] [td]56RZ6: The Big Fat Chocolate-Covered Waste of Time Bill
56RZ6: El Proxhet dal Grült Fäts Perdaziun da Temp Alsetour Cün Schocolat[/td] [td]Miestră Schivă, FREEDEMS[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]22 - 31[/td] [td]Recess
Spaßetxadă[/td] [td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]

The first subject on the agenda is RZ3. Due to lack of engagement during the August Clark, there will be no fixed speaking order in future sessions. Members of the Cosă will be free to comment on the bills in any order they like.

Note that this is not a voting thread. The actual voting will take place as usual in the SoS's Voting Thread.

Dear colleagues, please come to order.

This is a Month of Recess. As such, the timetable for this month is as follows:

[table style="width:70%" border=1]
[tr][td]Date Däts[/td] [td]Topic Topic[/td] [td]Speakers Parleirs[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1 - 30[/td] [td]Recess
Spaßetxadă[/td] [td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]

No debates are expected to occur this month. However, Members may use this thread to raise points of order and similar affairs.

The Cosă will properly reconvene on the First of October.

Dear colleagues, please come to order.

I hereby open this month's session of the Cosă. The timetable is as follows:

[table style="width:70%" border=1]
[tr][td]Date Däts[/td] [td]Topic Topic[/td] [td]Speakers Parleirs[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]01 - 11[/td] [td]56RZ1: The Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment
56RZ1: L'Amendamaintsch "Talossa Çoiçarha Ça Regeu"[/td] [td]Miestră Schivă, FREEDEMS
HRM John I[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12 - 21[/td] [td]56RZ2: The Talossan Criminal Law Reform Bill #1
56RZ2: El Proxhet dal Reformaziun del Drept Penal Talossan n:reu 1[/td] [td]Miestră Schivă, FREEDEMS[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]22 - 31[/td] [td]Recess
Spaßetxadă[/td] [td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]

The first subject on the agenda is RZ1. Once everyone on the Speakers list had had their turn, the remaining MCs will be able to speak about RZ1 in any order they like. You still have the chance to register your speech in this thread, mind you, and I encourage everyone who wishes to speak this month to do so.

Note that this is not a voting thread. The actual voting will take place as usual in the SoS's Voting Thread which is not yet available at the time that I write this, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Esteemed Members of the Cosă, dear colleagues,

I intend to open a thread on this board concurrent with the August 2021 Clark, in which Members will be able to debate bills on the Clark in question. As such, that thread will be open from the 1st until the 21st of August. As there is no real procedure for this (yet), I call all Party leaders and other Members of this House to help establish the Order of Business for the coming Clark.

Here are some of my thoughts:
- Bills will be discussed in the order they appear in in the Clark. Only one Bill shall be discussed at a time.
- Party leaders may request Free Time in this thread. During Free Time, the Cosă may debate things that are not part of the Clark.
- Members of the Cosă who wish to speak on a bill or during Free Time are invited to announce it in this thread. If the Member who Clarked a given bill or requested Free Time wishes to speak, they will be first to do so in the discussion thread, otherwise the first Member to speak shall be picked from the same party or, failing that, from the same side of the Cosă (Goverment or Opposition). They will then be followed by a member of the opposing side of the Cosă and so on, until the list of Members is exhausted. At that point, Members will be able to freely give speeches if they wish to do so, until the next point on the agenda is brought up by the Túischac'h.
- Party leaders may request Terpelaziuns or Question Time in this thread. These will be organised as per Lexh H.2, except that no separate threads shall be created for each question.
- Members will be able to raise Points of Order at any time during the debate.

I am aware that this procedure may be alien to Members of this House. My predecessor, the Honorable S:reu Rôibeardescù, tried to establish something similar to this during the last Cosă but was met with apathy at best. It is my true opinion that the Cosă should, nay -- must, not become a deserted forum board, but rather do what a Parliament is supposed to do: parlar!

So, feel free to announce your intention to speak in the upcoming Clark, request Free Time or Question Time, or let me know about how this process could be improved or streamlined in this thread. Your feedback is not just appreciated but of utmost importance!

EDIT: The August Clark has started.

Based on this thread, I made a quick provisional map of our province. The parishes are not official and subject to change, and the only canton with townships so far is Vilatx Freiric. Also everything is unnamed.

This is the link.

Please suggest parish and township borders, as well as names for them!

Ever since Lord Danivescu's was appointed Baron of Vilatx Freiric, I figured future Talossan language materials should teach the titles of peerage, which is why I started researching them a bit. My research left me more confused than before, so I'll ask some questions here hoping that someone else can explain all of this (and then hopefully update the TalossaWiki article afterwards).

1) It is said that Dukes get provinces, Counts get cantons (except in Florenciă where they get parishes), and Barons get townships. How then could Lord Davinescu become the Baron of a canton?
2) Is there even a list or map of parishes and townships for every province? As far as I can tell, the only province with fully delineated parishes and townships is Vuode, while Benito has only defined its parishes (called "sexteirs"), and Florenciă has one named but otherwise underdefined parish called Thord (Lord Hooligan's county).

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Please understand that I am not trying to undermine Lord Davinescu's peerage in any way. Who knows, maybe this could be rectified by making him a Count instead?

As someone who is not (yet) a Membreu del Ziu, I will post the following message on the El Glheþ Talossan board instead.

Quote from: King John on April 28, 2021, 11:42:49 AM

Sextéu Clark da Simca-Quintéu Cosa

Noi refuçént noastra sancziun à'cest RZ21 es RZ24 es perventüră exerciçént l'impidamaintsch rexhital.

Noi aprovént acest RZ22 es RZ23.  Lor recorda starp l'annuntzia dels legeux.

—  Ian Regeu

It is always great to see the national language used in official correspondence, which is why I wrote the "El Estat" document for the then-Regent-now-Baron back then in the first place, but I must demand that, if the language is to be used, that it should be used properly. This passage contains some errors which are so basic that they are beyond embarrassing, especially for someone who is said to not only have studied the language but have been a catalyst for the controversial 2007 Arestada, if I understand the TalossaWiki correctly. Here is a quick rundown.

---

Quote

Sextéu Clark da Simca-Quintéu Cosa

This literally means "Sixth Clark of Five-Fifth{wrong gender} Cosa".
The correct translation is Sextéu Clark dal Simeinçe-Quintéă Cosă.

QuoteNoi refuçént noastra sancziun à'cest RZ21 es RZ24 es perventüră exerciçént l'impidamaintsch rexhital.

Literally "We refuse{wrong stress} our* sanction to this RZ21 and RZ24 and herewith exercise{wrong stress} the royal veto."
Regular verbs in the first and third person plural (noi, os, as, ça *-ent) are never stressed on the final syllable. I also have an issue with the inconsistent use of Ă; it should be either noastra ... perventüra or noastră ... perventüră (or noastrâ ... perventürâ but that is neither here nor there).
Thus, the correct translation is Noi refuçent noastră sancziun àð RZ21 es RZ24 es perventüră exerciçent l'impidamaintsch rexhital.

QuoteNoi aprovént acest RZ22 es RZ23.  Lor recorda starp l'annuntzia dels legeux.

Literally "We approve{wrong stress} this RZ22 and RZ23. Record them* among the digest* of (the) laws."
I checked the Scúrzniâ Gramáticâ, talossan.com and the draft of the 2017 Gid Compläts, and I have come to realise that the use of "lor" there is ambiguous. All of these documents explain that "ça" is the neuter plural, i.e. "they" when talking about inanimate objects, and that the object form of "ça" is "en", but the logical consequence that therefore "them" when talking about inanimate objects is "en" in Talossan is never explicitly stated. I for one would say that using "lor" here is wrong, but I am not sure.
The Talossan word for annals is "adnalăs". "annuntziă" is digest, or at least the phrase "Annuntziă dels Legeux" is consistently translated as "Digest of Laws" on TalossaWiki despite "annuntziă" missing from the dictionary. I do not mind the reference to the Digest, but if you aim for an accurate translation, you ought to use "adnalăs" instead.
In any case, the way I would translate it is Noi aprovent RZ22 es RZ23.  Recordetz-en starp las adnalăs dels legeux.

---

Should any questions arise, please let me know.

CÉZEMBRE -- In yet another feat of ground-breaking investigative journalism by our team of highly trained monkeys here at the Temps da Jahnlähnle headquarters, it was revealed that the current minister-president of Cézembre, Sénéchal Xhorxh Pol Briga, has announced his intentions to potentially violate Article IX, section 10 of the Organic Law twofold, first by forcing the worthless title of "King of Cézembre" onto his Majesty the King of Talossa without his consent, and then second by maybe even seceding from Talossa entirely as the Sénéchal's likening of his province to the Republic of China, as well as his earlier mysterious plans of issuing Cézembrean passports, might suggest.

The following is a comment by an anonymous future Member of the Cosă with no connection to this venerable and trustworthy news outlet whatsoever:
"Lol. Lmao."

Tune in next time when the aforementioned team can finally be bothered to make a proper newspaper layout again.

I registered this party a while ago, but I figured it'd only be fair to announce its existence to the wider public as well.
My new party will stand for nothing and will refrain from political ads of any kind, since I'll win seats whether you vote for me or not. One vote is more than enough to get in.

On that note, see you in the Cosă.

The Government offered to pay me up to $225 dollars for making a cultural magazine in Talossan back in November — it was part of the draft budget of this Cosă — because they hoped money would be enough of a motivation. I rejected the offer because 1) I'm not a journalist and 2) I dont need the money, I can do it for free, I have done it for free in the past (see Zoneu Auþorisat). Ever since then though, not one person actually came up to me to request my services, even though the Government would literally pay them real United States currency to do so. I don't get it.

So I'll reiterate:
if you need some text or article translated into Talossan, just ask me.
I don't demand payment assuming you don't get paid either.

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on November 02, 2020, 08:38:58 AM
It is not the government's intention in this case to set up a competing magazine.  In fact, the honoraria money is intended to commission Talossan language articles (with translations) for La S'chinteia.  My assumption here in these honoraria is that "if you won't do it for love, will you do it for lucre?"

I would already be doing that for free if I knew how to write articles, but I dont, so I dont. Money wouldnt change that.