Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 03, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
To be fair, this is semantic.

The "call it what it is" rhetoric is an attempt to make it semantic. In truth, the title never actually mattered. I suggested the idea in passing back in November/December because I figured it would be 1) easy to set up since it wouldnt require renaming everything — and God knows we are horrible at keeping Wiki articles up to date, and 2) something that most non-extemists could at least live with. I was more interested in a compromise that people overall would be at least okay with rather than in the highly specific and contradictory prefences of individuals. The HC is nobodys first choice.

But turning this into a matter of semantics is a waste of time for everyone involved. If you want an unaccountable despot appointed for life with a personality cult as King, I will be against that, but not because such a position should be called "Supreme Leader" instead!

I also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?

Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons

Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King

Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom

Your lack of familiarity with concepts such as bittersweetness, deafening silence and elective monarchies does not make them any less real.

For the record, I do not believe that monarchies as a form of government are unique for micronations. If you check MicroWiki or a similar source, youll see that monarchies are everywhere, its like the default setting. Republics arent unique either of course, same reasoning.

Elective monarchies like what the Historic Compromise is about are significantly rarer though. Of the top of my head I can only think of Seborga that does something similar. So, if uniqueness was the deciding factor, wouldnt that be an argument for the Historic Compromise instead of against?

Correct me if im wrong, but this is the first time since at least 2005 that there are eight parties running for the Cosă -- all of which are guaranteed to get seats.

Complete and utter pandemonium, and I love it.

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on May 01, 2021, 07:21:59 PM
The King Lüc Party has PAID IN FULL.

E-excuse me?

EDIT:

QuoteKing Lüc Party, (KLüP), party leader Glüc da Dhi

Of course.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2021, 08:19:17 PM
The language is hard! I've been working at it for years, but it just hasn't come naturally to me. It's all the more embarrassing now, since I am helping the king as a sort of secretary to translate things often, and my options end up as: either I get help from someone, do a bad job, or spend literally an hour on it. So you shouldn't feel bad!

In case youre wondering, I also need an hour to translate stuff into Talossan, partially because I have to look up every word on Översteir, and partially because I have to do research on how to translate English idioms that are missing from Översteir, so theres no need to feel bad.

I don't know how controversial this take is going to be, but this "culture war" will not cease until everyone who has witnessed the Schism or Reunision stops being a citizen.
This is not a demand for these people to renounce by any means, rather I cant help but feel like post-Reunision citizens just... dont care as much? Or at least I dont. And that might be for the best long-term.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
Thanks for this, this is precisely what SIGN is supposed to do. In defence of Ián Lupúl el Regeu Fäts-Niþil, at least he's trying.

Speaking of which, *farniént. I discovered that word 20 minutes ago or so.

EDIT: also, Lúpul, otherwise the stress is wrong.

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.

Oh my, this is going to be an interesting election.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 14, 2021, 08:32:03 PM
Or we could just set a time to all turn up on the #glheþ channel and practice typing at one another?

Bump.
What's everyone's schedule like?

Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on April 15, 2021, 05:14:41 AM

Quote from: GV on April 13, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
...
5. If the Talossan language is not worked on, Talossa dies.  Period.
...

No, not "Period" but "Question Mark".  In England eleven hundred years ago there was no English language. There were, instead, a number of imported, and local, languages used in particular areas. Then "William The Bastard" (... that's what he was called in France: we now call him William the Conquerer) came over and imposed French as the courtly language, and language of administration.

That did not work, as "the people" were not going to drop the way they had been speaking for centuries. BUT French words and terms were added to the local languages, and because of more safe movement around the island the local languages and dialects influenced each other more and more... and English evolved (slowly) towards what it is now. All the time England, as a concept, continued to exist. England existed before English.

Now in England we have I don't know how many languages spoken: in most but not all places English is the main form of communication - for example, in parts of London you have to use Chinese, in West London you use Bengali or or Punjabi, in north London it may well be Yiddish or Turkish. In many places we use dialects of English which I, personally, find unintelligible - and I've lived here for well over seventy years.

But England is still England.  England is bigger than English.

And Talossa is bigger than the Talossan language.

I understand the sentiment, but:
1) England predates the Norman Conquest by 139 years (the first King of the English was Æthelstan, not William), and the oldest manuscripts in what is generally considered Old English predate the formation of England by another two and a half centuries
2) Considering how marginalised the Talossan lanuage has become, the statement "Talossa is bigger than the Talossan language" sounds like punching down. Where's the harm in revitalising one of the few tangible aspects of native Talossan culture?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 14, 2021, 03:38:02 PM
Paging @Marcial and the other members of SIGN as to where we can go with conversation practice. Maybe on a Discord channel?

We usually use #glheþ for that, though that's also where Lüc and I discuss changes to the Översteir. I could make another channel for chatting in Talossan only if people want that.
There's also the #Glheþ voice channel which no one's ever used. I suppose you could practice speaking Talossan there if you can find a conversation partner.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 10, 2021, 03:24:17 PM
HAHAHAHA it's not as easy as that

Did you introduce a two-vote threshold while I was looking away or something? If not then yes, it is as easy as that!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 10, 2021, 03:24:17 PM
You also have to pay $10!

Don't worry, I have more than just $10 to spare, but also I have more than enough time to pay the fee after the first results are published, as far as I know. Speaking of which: if a party were to get zero seats for whatever reason (not the case here, one vote is enough), do they still have to pay the fee?


This is gonna be interesting!

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.