Quote from: Üc R. Tärfă on April 13, 2023, 01:50:42 AMMay I suggest [...]
- to flip figures in 2 suits left facing? This would give them a more realistic flavour to other cards designs.

I changed the suits of lanterns and bents to have left-facing figures. Let me know what you think.

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.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 18, 2023, 09:25:02 AMWHEREAS one way to celebrate this day might be for the word to be translated into Talossan.

That's simple: eucatastrof. Counterintuitively a masculine noun. I blame Ben.

The last merger attempt I remember was the Florenciă-Fiovă thing. Very much a "provinces figuring out mergers among themselves" situation that predictably went nowhere. What I want is to have all 4 mergers figured out in advance and entering into effect at the same time to minimise constitutional weirdness, and the best way to do that is with a Convention.

I'm in favour of mergers, but not of individual provinces trying to figure out mergers among themselves, and the double Senator thing is a good example of why. If anything there should be a national Merger Convention, and once that's done and there are only 4 provinces left the same Convention can then decide to give provinces two Senators instead of one.

Here is a quick map I did of all the international assignments instead of sleeping (it's 4 AM help).



Some comments:
- Several countries appear misassigned, e.g. Uganda, CAR, Uruguay and Malta.
- The Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands are unassigned.
- Based on this assignment we can expect all future citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic to be from the US. I don't know what to think of that.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 10, 2023, 05:37:35 PMEl crisi dels serveirs del 2023/XLIV

*dallas 2023/XLIV

Speaking of Wiki namespaces: the SIGN namespace appears to be affected. The Recomendăs page appears to be gone.

I can't upload my profile picture. It gives me an error stating the avatars directory is not writable.

Acknowledged. Welcome to SIGN!

I vote for Lüc as Túischac'h.

In case the PT's party fees have gone through, our seat assignment is as follows:

M. E. P. Tafial - 5
Lüc da Schir - 4

"Fellow Fiovans" is "Fuliensen Fiovaes".

"Hello, Fiovan community!" is "¡Azul, comunità Fiovan!" You can also say "coinonïă" instead of "comunità".

Demonyms and adjectives are the same for all countries and regions, except Turkey: Turkish is "Türchesch", but a Turkish person is "Türc".

Hope this helps!

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 28, 2023, 02:23:23 PMi kinda liked the weird ortho of old talossan, so i would propose -ař for verb/infinitive ending ;D in upper sorbian the Ř letter is pronounced [ʃ] 8)

No offence, but ew.

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?