Two articles, related subjects
Lets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990
The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
Written by a journalist.
But that would make all those hours spent learning it at school obsolete. Plus we wouldn’t get to feel smug and superior to people that don’t use ‘em c’rrectly.
You can get rid of as many apostrophes as you like, but grocer’s and butcher’s will ignore you.
Bubblecar said:
You can get rid of as many apostrophes as you like, but grocer’s and butcher’s will ignore you.
Hehe
what to girl when the get drunk
Wah…. who wah…. when.. am I dreaming?. pinches self nup…. looks left looks right Is this real? slaps own face OUCH ….. yep. appears to be real……………………….. Fuck.
Woodie said:
Wah…. who wah…. when.. am I dreaming?. pinches self nup…. looks left looks right Is this real? slaps own face OUCH ….. yep. appears to be real……………………….. Fuck.
Settle down, dude, it’s just punctuation.
dv said:
Woodie said:
Wah…. who wah…. when.. am I dreaming?. pinches self nup…. looks left looks right Is this real? slaps own face OUCH ….. yep. appears to be real……………………….. Fuck.
Settle down, dude, it’s just punctuation.
Look what you’ve done to me Stumps. Got me all conflusterbusted.
hell no try something written by cormac mccarthy
Or perhaps Feersum Endjinn, by Iain Banks.
It’s and its give me the ‘its. If we could just change that one.
party_pants said:
It’s and its give me the ‘its. If we could just change that one.
No, tehy are completely different words.
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
It’s and its give me the ‘its. If we could just change that one.
No, tehy are completely different words.
Perhaps we could spell one of them as “tehy”.
party_pants said:
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
It’s and its give me the ‘its. If we could just change that one.
No, tehy are completely different words.
Perhaps we could spell one of them as “tehy”.
I’d go for that. I normally get my fingers befuddled and regularly spell ‘the’ as ‘teh’ using a keyboard.
Spiny Norman said:
hell no try something written by cormac mccarthyOr perhaps Feersum Endjinn, by Iain Banks.
Or Russell Hoban’s Riddley Walker.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
The ‘rules’ of civil and criminal law are made up, so why bother following them?
we should probably get rid of all punctuations and speeling to
Arts said:
we should probably get rid of all punctuations and speeling to
bnut we still need to have a system of wroteen language that is understndble by all usrrs. We may change the rules but it wont work unless everyone fpllows the same rules.
btm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
The ‘rules’ of civil and criminal law are made up, so why bother following them?
Suppose we did declare the end of the apostrophe, or should I say the apostrophes end, what would be the consequences?
For who would life be better, and for who worse, and for who would it make bugger all difference?
party_pants said:
Arts said:
we should probably get rid of all punctuations and speeling to
bnut we still need to have a system of wroteen language that is understndble by all usrrs. We may change the rules but it wont work unless everyone fpllows the same rules.
if wee r getting ride of stuf it shud just be fonetic
(that was quite difficult to type)
The Rev Dodgson said:
btm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
The ‘rules’ of civil and criminal law are made up, so why bother following them?
Suppose we did declare the end of the apostrophe, or should I say the apostrophes end, what would be the consequences?
For who would life be better, and for who worse, and for who would it make bugger all difference?
whom
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
btm said:The ‘rules’ of civil and criminal law are made up, so why bother following them?
Suppose we did declare the end of the apostrophe, or should I say the apostrophes end, what would be the consequences?
For who would life be better, and for who worse, and for who would it make bugger all difference?
whom
whom indeed.
i don’t know, english has grown over the centuries into the lovely language it is today and now people want to change it!
The Rev Dodgson said:
For who would life be better, and for who worse, and for who would it make bugger all difference?
People who learn English as a second, third… ninety-seventh language for the purpose of doing business.
Nobody would be worse for it.
I can’t see much point in mucking about with basic grammatical rules.
Making errors of that sort in English doesn’t make much difference in regard to comprehension. You can speak and write English very badly and still be understood.
So retaining the rules for the literate isn’t exactly a cruel and unusual punishment for the not-so-literate.
party_pants said:
The Rev Dodgson said:For who would life be better, and for who worse, and for who would it make bugger all difference?
People who learn English as a second, third… ninety-seventh language for the purpose of doing business.
Nobody would be worse for it.
But then you wouldn’t know what belonged to what. Not so good for business.
Arts said:
party_pants said:
Arts said:
we should probably get rid of all punctuations and speeling to
bnut we still need to have a system of wroteen language that is understndble by all usrrs. We may change the rules but it wont work unless everyone fpllows the same rules.
if wee r getting ride of stuf it shud just be fonetic
(that was quite difficult to type)
Then it just becomes Pitmanscript shorthand.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
There are no rules of grammar. Just ask Noam Chomsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Linguistic_theory
Grammar, like other sciences, is based only on the direct observation of what people use. It is rooted in biology.
“The principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. All humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences.”
I’ve forgotten one rule: in the article it talks about “Bridget Jones’s Diary”.
Shouldn’t that be Bridget Jones’ Diary?
Both are acceptable.
Divine Angel said:
Both are acceptable.
Really? I didn’t know that. For some reason, the additional ‘s’, to me, looks weird.
Obviousman said:
Divine Angel said:
Both are acceptable.
Really? I didn’t know that. For some reason, the additional ‘s’, to me, looks weird.
Yes it does. A bit like pink hair and a ring through the nose.
Ooh I like this explanation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe
Divine Angel said:
Ooh I like this explanation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe
That’s a complete, clear and straightforward explanation.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
There are no rules of grammar. Just ask Noam Chomsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Linguistic_theory
Grammar, like other sciences, is based only on the direct observation of what people use. It is rooted in biology.
“The principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. All humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences.”
Chomsky is a bit of an either/orist it seems.
There are very obviously some aspects of language that are culturally determined and transmitted. For instance, different cultures have different words to describe the same thing. There is no clear dividing line between aspects of language that are culturally determined and those that are genetically determined, or both.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Two articles, related subjectsLets get rid of the apostrophe
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/lets-get-rid-of-the-apostrophe/10433990The ‘rules’ of grammar are made up, so why bother following them?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-29/why-your-wrong-to-care-about-grammar/8561860
There are no rules of grammar. Just ask Noam Chomsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Linguistic_theory
Grammar, like other sciences, is based only on the direct observation of what people use. It is rooted in biology.
“The principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. All humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences.”
Chomsky is a bit of an either/orist it seems.
There are very obviously some aspects of language that are culturally determined and transmitted. For instance, different cultures have different words to describe the same thing. There is no clear dividing line between aspects of language that are culturally determined and those that are genetically determined, or both.
Being a little orist aren’t you?
Michael V said:
Divine Angel said:
Ooh I like this explanation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe
That’s a complete, clear and straightforward explanation.
Agree.
poikilotherm said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:There are no rules of grammar. Just ask Noam Chomsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Linguistic_theory
Grammar, like other sciences, is based only on the direct observation of what people use. It is rooted in biology.
“The principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted. All humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences.”
Chomsky is a bit of an either/orist it seems.
There are very obviously some aspects of language that are culturally determined and transmitted. For instance, different cultures have different words to describe the same thing. There is no clear dividing line between aspects of language that are culturally determined and those that are genetically determined, or both.
Being a little orist aren’t you?
I’m happy to be considered an extreme orist.
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?
It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
“With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens’s novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas’s brother was injured in the accident.”
I might say Thomas’s brother, but I wouldn’t add an s for the first two.
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
It would depend what the legislation actually said.
It might just recognise the status quo.
Michael V said:
Divine Angel said:
Ooh I like this explanation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe
That’s a complete, clear and straightforward explanation.
Indeed it is.
Just because certain people dozed off in class one day, and missed the bit about apostrophes, they begin a campaign to eliminate something they don’t understand. Often after they begin a career in ‘journalism’, it seems.
I bet a lot of the same people don’t know which indicator to use when they approach a roundabout, either.
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
merde du taureau
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Heh. The Academy Francais pales into insignificance compared to what CN seems to believe is necessary for what language use by government involves.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
It would depend what the legislation actually said.
It might just recognise the status quo.
It would standardize a lot of of emergency services police ambulance, fire brigade documents and forms.
Medical forms, centrelink forms, centrelink letters, warrants issued by sheriffs.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
It would depend what the legislation actually said.
It might just recognise the status quo.
It would standardize a lot of of emergency services police ambulance, fire brigade documents and forms.
Medical forms, centrelink forms, centrelink letters, warrants issued by sheriffs.
I didn’t know that any of those contained a significant amount of language that was not English (other than translated forms, which presumably you would still allow).
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Heh. The Academy Francais pales into insignificance compared to what CN seems to believe is necessary for what language use by government involves.
charges presented in courts use English which has not been authorized by the federal government for use in courts
Charges presented in Courts used in English have no meaning.
Money is authorized for use, English isn’t.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Heh. The Academy Francais pales into insignificance compared to what CN seems to believe is necessary for what language use by government involves.
little boxes…
captain_spalding said:
Just because certain people dozed off in class one day, and missed the bit about apostrophes, they begin a campaign to eliminate something they don’t understand. Often after they begin a career in ‘journalism’, it seems.
Most people who drop out of journalism degrees do so in the first unit, and mostly for two reasons: they’ve realised they’re not as good at writing as they thought they were, and academic writing is just too damn hard and not like journalism at all.
My writers group members are mostly aged 60+. Most of them admit they do not know how to punctuate properly, and one member spells phonetically. He’s a great storyteller, however I find it extremely difficult to actually read his works. For example, one of his pieces is called Lov Fine’s Us. I was under the impression that people of that generation had correct grammar caned into them whilst they were at school, and I’m genuinely surprised that so many people of that age don’t know correct punctuation.
Anyhoo, I have a novel to edit.
Boris said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Heh. The Academy Francais pales into insignificance compared to what CN seems to believe is necessary for what language use by government involves.
little boxes…
Boxes are used in documents.
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Does the law take things for granted ?
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Does the law take things for granted ?
It does assume that 99.9% of people will be unaware of it, until it bites them.
Divine Angel said:
captain_spalding said:Just because certain people dozed off in class one day, and missed the bit about apostrophes, they begin a campaign to eliminate something they don’t understand. Often after they begin a career in ‘journalism’, it seems.
Most people who drop out of journalism degrees do so in the first unit, and mostly for two reasons: they’ve realised they’re not as good at writing as they thought they were, and academic writing is just too damn hard and not like journalism at all.
My writers group members are mostly aged 60+. Most of them admit they do not know how to punctuate properly, and one member spells phonetically. He’s a great storyteller, however I find it extremely difficult to actually read his works. For example, one of his pieces is called Lov Fine’s Us. I was under the impression that people of that generation had correct grammar caned into them whilst they were at school, and I’m genuinely surprised that so many people of that age don’t know correct punctuation.
Fair few of ‘em can’t read IME.
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
The law would allow for existing and new words
There is a legal dictionary.
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
captain_spalding said:
Boris said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
What would change if English was recognized and authorized as Australia’s official language ?It would mostly apply to documents used by Federal, State and Councils government and documents used by the courts.
The Australian style manual would become Law
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
Grammar would become law.
go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Does the law take things for granted ?
It does assume that 99.9% of people will be unaware of it, until it bites them.
The law uses English which has not been authorized for use, it has no foundation.
Looks like the Federal Government is unaware that English has not been authorized for use in courts.
People could go into court and say that the charges written in English have no meaning.
Divine Angel said:
captain_spalding said:Just because certain people dozed off in class one day, and missed the bit about apostrophes, they begin a campaign to eliminate something they don’t understand. Often after they begin a career in ‘journalism’, it seems.
Most people who drop out of journalism degrees do so in the first unit, and mostly for two reasons: they’ve realised they’re not as good at writing as they thought they were, and academic writing is just too damn hard and not like journalism at all.
My writers group members are mostly aged 60+. Most of them admit they do not know how to punctuate properly, and one member spells phonetically. He’s a great storyteller, however I find it extremely difficult to actually read his works. For example, one of his pieces is called Lov Fine’s Us. I was under the impression that people of that generation had correct grammar caned into them whilst they were at school, and I’m genuinely surprised that so many people of that age don’t know correct punctuation.
He might be from a rural background. Educational standards in little one-teacher country towns were often very low.
In South Mole Creek I knew a middle-aged man who’d lived there all his life who was completely illiterate. Went to Mole Creek Primary School but failed to learn how to read as he spent most of his time misbehaving and playing truant and there was nothing much the teacher could do.
Didn’t affect him much as he spent his life on the family farm, and his wife could read.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
The law would allow for existing and new words
There is a legal dictionary.
This implies the existence of an ‘illegal dictionary’ – which could be very interesting.
Tau.Neutrino said:
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Does the law take things for granted ?
It does assume that 99.9% of people will be unaware of it, until it bites them.
The law uses English which has not been authorized for use, it has no foundation.
Looks like the Federal Government is unaware that English has not been authorized for use in courts.
People could go into court and say that the charges written in English have no meaning.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
yes, i was talking about english and you just can’t control it.
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:
Boris said:go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
And, it must be admitted, those accents can drive you ‘round the bend.
Bubblecar said:
Divine Angel said:
captain_spalding said:Just because certain people dozed off in class one day, and missed the bit about apostrophes, they begin a campaign to eliminate something they don’t understand. Often after they begin a career in ‘journalism’, it seems.
Most people who drop out of journalism degrees do so in the first unit, and mostly for two reasons: they’ve realised they’re not as good at writing as they thought they were, and academic writing is just too damn hard and not like journalism at all.
My writers group members are mostly aged 60+. Most of them admit they do not know how to punctuate properly, and one member spells phonetically. He’s a great storyteller, however I find it extremely difficult to actually read his works. For example, one of his pieces is called Lov Fine’s Us. I was under the impression that people of that generation had correct grammar caned into them whilst they were at school, and I’m genuinely surprised that so many people of that age don’t know correct punctuation.
He might be from a rural background. Educational standards in little one-teacher country towns were often very low.
In South Mole Creek I knew a middle-aged man who’d lived there all his life who was completely illiterate. Went to Mole Creek Primary School but failed to learn how to read as he spent most of his time misbehaving and playing truant and there was nothing much the teacher could do.
Didn’t affect him much as he spent his life on the family farm, and his wife could read.
Could be dyslexia.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
Well I think its stupid that there is a giant legal hole in our legal system
Our legal system uses English. To have no legal National Language seems stupid.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
Perhaps it could be stated that he’s being quixotic :)
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:
Boris said:go live in france if you want that bullshit.
Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
the = they
poikilotherm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
captain_spalding said:It does assume that 99.9% of people will be unaware of it, until it bites them.
The law uses English which has not been authorized for use, it has no foundation.
Looks like the Federal Government is unaware that English has not been authorized for use in courts.
People could go into court and say that the charges written in English have no meaning.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
Divine Angel said:Most people who drop out of journalism degrees do so in the first unit, and mostly for two reasons: they’ve realised they’re not as good at writing as they thought they were, and academic writing is just too damn hard and not like journalism at all.
My writers group members are mostly aged 60+. Most of them admit they do not know how to punctuate properly, and one member spells phonetically. He’s a great storyteller, however I find it extremely difficult to actually read his works. For example, one of his pieces is called Lov Fine’s Us. I was under the impression that people of that generation had correct grammar caned into them whilst they were at school, and I’m genuinely surprised that so many people of that age don’t know correct punctuation.
He might be from a rural background. Educational standards in little one-teacher country towns were often very low.
In South Mole Creek I knew a middle-aged man who’d lived there all his life who was completely illiterate. Went to Mole Creek Primary School but failed to learn how to read as he spent most of his time misbehaving and playing truant and there was nothing much the teacher could do.
Didn’t affect him much as he spent his life on the family farm, and his wife could read.
Could be dyslexia.
Could be but he himself attributed it to idleness and misbehaviour.
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
Perhaps it could be stated that he’s being quixotic :)
no, i don’t think so.
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
And, it must be admitted, those accents can drive you ‘round the bend.
And the circumflex would be over the top.
Boris said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
yes, i was talking about english and you just can’t control it.
I disagree, it can be easily controlled
Make English Australia’s legal language and authorized for use in courts.
That then gets rid of the giant legal hole.
It also will allow for standardization across all emergency services.
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
And, it must be admitted, those accents can drive you ‘round the bend.
And the circumflex would be over the top.
Dear oh dear…
Tamb said:
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:Funny thing is, French doesn’t use apostrophes for as many things as does English. It’s really only used for elision, similar to English’s contractions e.g. ‘can’t’ and ‘shouldn’t’.
But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
the = they
Tau.Neutrino said:
Boris said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
yes, i was talking about english and you just can’t control it.
I disagree, it can be easily controlled
Make English Australia’s legal language and authorized for use in courts.
That then gets rid of the giant legal hole.
It also will allow for standardization across all emergency services.
Even if what you are proposing made any sense what is so particular about the emergency services in this instance?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Even if what you are proposing made any sense what is so particular about the emergency services in this instance?
Just ask Mr Buffy about how frustrating all those radio calls in Czech were.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Boris said:yes, i was talking about english and you just can’t control it.
I disagree, it can be easily controlled
Make English Australia’s legal language and authorized for use in courts.
That then gets rid of the giant legal hole.
It also will allow for standardization across all emergency services.
Even if what you are proposing made any sense what is so particular about the emergency services in this instance?
Documents and online forms
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Boris said:yes, i was talking about english and you just can’t control it.
I disagree, it can be easily controlled
Make English Australia’s legal language and authorized for use in courts.
That then gets rid of the giant legal hole.
It also will allow for standardization across all emergency services.
Even if what you are proposing made any sense what is so particular about the emergency services in this instance?
or even that there doesn’t actually seem to be a problem that needs fixing.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Boris said:
i love the language because it changes with usage. can’t legislate language. stupid idea and usually put forward by people who don’t understand the dynamics.
Some languages aren’t as flexible as English is when it comes to taking on foreign words and structures so they could conceivably be codified in the manner of the French language authorities but as you say sometimes you are tilting at windmills. What CN proposes though is a whole other type of stupid…
Well I think its stupid that there is a giant legal hole in our legal system
Our legal system uses English. To have no legal National Language seems stupid.
The law recognises many things that are not written down in legislation.
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:
Tamb said:But the do use Diacritical Marks which we have in English but never use.
the = they
I hope not because I corrected my own typo.
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.
Yeah because everyone else is wrong including all those highly educated lawyers who make a living out of interpreting and practicing the law.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.Yeah because everyone else is wrong including all those highly educated lawyers who make a living out of interpreting and practicing the law.
you would think this “loophole” would be exploited a lot more if it made such a difference.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.
English and its use in Law has been taken for granted.
Since when does the law take things for granted ?
It will remain a giant legal hole until its fixed.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.Yeah because everyone else is wrong including all those highly educated lawyers who make a living out of interpreting and practicing the law.
Because they took it for granted and probably didn’t even bother to think about it.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.English and its use in Law has been taken for granted.
Since when does the law take things for granted ?
It will remain a giant legal hole until its fixed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You;re an idiot!
Boris said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.Yeah because everyone else is wrong including all those highly educated lawyers who make a living out of interpreting and practicing the law.
you would think this “loophole” would be exploited a lot more if it made such a difference.
No one has thought to exploit it.
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.English and its use in Law has been taken for granted.
Since when does the law take things for granted ?
It will remain a giant legal hole until its fixed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You;re an idiot!
a dead-set one as well.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.English and its use in Law has been taken for granted.
Since when does the law take things for granted ?
It will remain a giant legal hole until its fixed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You;re an idiot!
No I’m not an idiot.
I’m a creative thinker.
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
but i don’t understand it therefore it’s wrong!
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
Boris said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
but i don’t understand it therefore it’s wrong!
WOOSH
Giant legal hole goes woosh over Boris’s place.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Its a giant legal hole, that could be exploited by those that know about it.English and its use in Law has been taken for granted.
Since when does the law take things for granted ?
It will remain a giant legal hole until its fixed.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You;re an idiot!
No he’s not.
I’m an idiot, and i never see him at the meetings.
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
God?????????
I knew he/she was special but i never realised they were english.
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
Million Dollar Minute or Hard Quiz?
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
also, it’s not different, it just uses words that is specific but not used everyday. If you want to use actus reus in your everyday speech, there is nothing stopping you and it’s perfectly cromulent
Arts said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
also, it’s not different, it just uses words that is specific but not used everyday. If you want to use actus reus in your everyday speech, there is nothing stopping you and it’s perfectly cromulent
coitus probiscus what that means though.
Boris said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
God?????????
I knew he/she was special but i never realised they were english.
that’s actually where it all started.. all crimes used to be against god..
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
we have been over this.. the legal language is some of the most specific to avoid ambiguity deliberately designed that way
Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
Boris said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
God?????????
I knew he/she was special but i never realised they were english.
Dennis Conner said God was an American.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Yes, legal language is different to standard English.
Has legal language (which uses Engish) been authorized for use ?
yes… from the highest authority
Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:yes… from the highest authority
Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
It’s the vibe.
sibeen said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
It’s the vibe.
you just worry about fixing the photocopier
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:yes… from the highest authority
Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
How about a well worded email pointing out the loophole and asking what the implications are in a legal setting?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Ok where does it mention it in the Australian constitution ?
I have a copy.
we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
That won’t work since his car licence is written in English. We’re through the looking-glass people!
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
That won’t work since his car licence is written in English. We’re through the looking-glass people!
Surely that just reinforces his case.
If you accept the basic argument that is.
The Rev Dodgson said:
If you accept the basic argument that is.
If you can understand the basic argument…
The Rev Dodgson said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
That won’t work since his car licence is written in English. We’re through the looking-glass people!
Surely that just reinforces his case.
If you accept the basic argument that is.
My thinking was that he can’t protest that the stop-sign is invalid when he doesn’t even have the right to drive in the first place.
One of the arguments against using the electric chair for execution in the US is that it can offend the Eighth Amendment, making it unconstitutional due to the ambiguity of the term “cruel and unusual punishment”. Who decides if something is a cruel and unusual punishment? It was this that formed the basis of the capital punishment moratorium in the 1970s.
Just sayin’.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:we all have a copy… dude, seriously, if you think there is a legal loophole that only you and a few of your friends can see, then either put it to the test, bring it to someones attention, speak to a real practicing lawyer or get off the bandwagon. we are going in circles.
What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
It doesn’t not matter what crime it is, the omission covers all crimes.
The charges and arrest warrants would be in English .
Well paid barristers could argue that anything written or spoken in English, in courts have no meaning until the government recognizes the problem and then authorizes its use.
Just like money has been.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:What the best way to get lawyers attention ?
A story about it on the ABC ?
or something a bit less public ?
Here’s what you do.
Find a stop sign at a location which is frequently observed by the police.
Drive through it without stopping until you get prosecuted for failing to stop.
In your defence argue that since the stop sign is in English, it has no authority.
Let us know how you go.
It doesn’t not matter what crime it is, the omission covers all crimes.
The charges and arrest warrants would be in English .
Well paid barristers could argue that anything written or spoken in English, in courts have no meaning until the government recognizes the problem and then authorizes its use.
Just like money has been.
Sure.
I just suggested a reasonably low level crime, so that on the off chance your defence was not accepted, the sentence would not be too long.
For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Tau.Neutrino said:
For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
No -one is suggesting that you’re planning anything.
I wasn’t planning for all those diamonds to go missing, or to take all those hostages (all released alive), but hey, stuff happens.
Tau.Neutrino said:
For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Tau.Neutrino said:
For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
It’s shift change over at the police station.
Lets go to the tape.
Desk Sargent 2-: What have we got?
Desk Sargent 1-: Nothing much, a couple of drunks and Tau Neutrino’s here again, he wants to fill in his complaint form in a neutral language today, oh and he’s carrying a stop sign.
Desk Sargent 2-: Jolly good, have a good sleep?
Desk Sargent 1-: Ta, see you tomorrow.
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
It’s the continuation of a discussion from a while back. CN contends that because there is no reference to English in the constitution that it is not legally valid when used in the legal system.
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
It’s the continuation of a discussion from a while back. CN contends that because there is no reference to English in the constitution that it is not legally valid when used in the legal system.
Ok, thanks
Surely laws are written in the officially recognised language of the nation, not sure if you get translated versions and anyway ignorance isn’t an accepted excuse anyway. Court use interpreters all them time.
Tau.Neutrino said:
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
But is anyone crack-pot enough for the challenge?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
Good point.
This would in fact seem to invalidate all constitutions, other than those that have a higher document validating the use of the “national language”.
And the higher document would need a still higher document.
… and so on.
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
Good point.
This would in fact seem to invalidate all constitutions, other than those that have a higher document validating the use of the “national language”.
And the higher document would need a still higher document.
… and so on.
Yes.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tamb said:Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
Good point.
This would in fact seem to invalidate all constitutions, other than those that have a higher document validating the use of the “national language”.
And the higher document would need a still higher document.
… and so on.Yes.
Putting in the constitution would be enough, no need for other documents.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
“Little Harmonic Labyrinth”:hhttps://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-little-harmonic-labyrinth-annotated
Try again
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tamb said:Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tamb said:Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
“Little Harmonic Labyrinth”:hhttps://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-little-harmonic-labyrinth-annotated
>>>But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
A referendum to change the constitution, organized by the government and voted upon by the people.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
“Little Harmonic Labyrinth”:hhttps://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-little-harmonic-labyrinth-annotated
>>>But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
A referendum to change the constitution, organized by the government and voted upon by the people.
Remove the paragraph about the right to arm bears against an unjust government
A letter to legal Aid
A letter to the Federal attorney General
A letter to my Federal Member
A letter to the ABC
I think the flaw in your argument is that a language does not need to be authorised for use.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It does not matter what language the constitution is in.
What matters is recognizing and authorizing the language itself in the constitution.
But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
“Little Harmonic Labyrinth”:hhttps://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-little-harmonic-labyrinth-annotated
>>>But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
A referendum to change the constitution, organized by the government and voted upon by the people.
So long as there is a recognised document, written in a recognised language, giving authority to the results of a referendum, voted upon by the people.
Divine Angel said:
I think the flaw in your argument is that a language does not need to be authorised for use.
I think the flaw is the omission itself.
To take something for granted in law seems unwise, imo.
Have you heard the term “common law”? The use of English in Australia would fall under common law. The Constitution also has several implied freedoms, which are not explicitly outlined yet we accept those as if they were lawful.
Also…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/human-rights-act-queensland-parliament-brisbane/10448908
Divine Angel said:
I think the flaw in your argument is that a language does not need to be authorised for use.
I think the flaw is that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Here’s a suggestion for TN: study some law. You don’t have to go all the way to becoming a lawyer, just study enough of it to understand what you’re talking about.
Divine Angel said:
Have you heard the term “common law”? The use of English in Australia would fall under common law. The Constitution also has several implied freedoms, which are not explicitly outlined yet we accept those as if they were lawful.Also…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/human-rights-act-queensland-parliament-brisbane/10448908
Yes, common law can be traced back to England.
btm said:
Divine Angel said:
I think the flaw in your argument is that a language does not need to be authorised for use.
I think the flaw is that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Here’s a suggestion for TN: study some law. You don’t have to go all the way to becoming a lawyer, just study enough of it to understand what you’re talking about.
Taking something for granted is foolish.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
Good point.
This would in fact seem to invalidate all constitutions, other than those that have a higher document validating the use of the “national language”.
And the higher document would need a still higher document.
… and so on.
Ah! The “Little fleas” syndrome.
btm said:
Divine Angel said:
I think the flaw in your argument is that a language does not need to be authorised for use.
I think the flaw is that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Here’s a suggestion for TN: study some law. You don’t have to go all the way to becoming a lawyer, just study enough of it to understand what you’re talking about.
yep, as i said
but i don’t understand it therefore it’s wrong!
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:For anyone wondering.
I’m not planning any crime to exploit the loophole.
Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
The constitution was written in English, that’s your precedent, it’s it’s own authority.
But this has all been done before, you ain’t interested.
Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
Arts said:
Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
Let’s hope that settles the matter.
Arts said:
Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
shopped.
Bubblecar said:
Arts said:Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
Let’s hope that settles the matter.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I do like your optimism, bubbles.
Bubblecar said:
Arts said:Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
Let’s hope that settles the matter.
it is only proposed at this stage.
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:
Arts said:Section 127A Recognition of languages. (1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English
Let’s hope that settles the matter.
it is only proposed at this stage.
more to do with recognition of Aboriginals etc.. interesting…
another article states “The unofficial status of English has never been a problem in Australia.”
which suggests that anyone trying to claim that because it is not in the Constitution it does’t count would be howled down. Still, I’d like to see CN try and report back here…
Boris said:
poikilotherm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The law uses English which has not been authorized for use, it has no foundation.
Looks like the Federal Government is unaware that English has not been authorized for use in courts.
People could go into court and say that the charges written in English have no meaning.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaha!
Arts said:
The original section 127 was the one about not counting aboriginal Australians in the census that was repealed in 1967. The proposal for a new section 127A are about the recognition of aboriginal languages as first languages while also establishing English as the new official language.
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:Let’s hope that settles the matter.
it is only proposed at this stage.
more to do with recognition of Aboriginals etc.. interesting…
another article states “The unofficial status of English has never been a problem in Australia.”
which suggests that anyone trying to claim that because it is not in the Constitution it does’t count would be howled down. Still, I’d like to see CN try and report back here…
Arts said:
party_pants said:
Bubblecar said:Let’s hope that settles the matter.
it is only proposed at this stage.
more to do with recognition of Aboriginals etc.. interesting…
another article states “The unofficial status of English has never been a problem in Australia.”
which suggests that anyone trying to claim that because it is not in the Constitution it does’t count would be howled down. Still, I’d like to see CN try and report back here…
He could turn up at federal parliament and plead his case
and now we are getting somewhere.. one of the reasons why English is not a part of the constitution in Australia is that it codifies English as the national language and that flies in the face of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people and their languages.
The codification of English as the national language of Australia is unrelated to constitutional recognition and runs counter to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their ‘languages … and their own names for places and people’, as set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
party_pants said:
Arts said:The original section 127 was the one about not counting aboriginal Australians in the census that was repealed in 1967. The proposal for a new section 127A are about the recognition of aboriginal languages as first languages while also establishing English as the new official language.
party_pants said:it is only proposed at this stage.
more to do with recognition of Aboriginals etc.. interesting…
another article states “The unofficial status of English has never been a problem in Australia.”
which suggests that anyone trying to claim that because it is not in the Constitution it does’t count would be howled down. Still, I’d like to see CN try and report back here…
yes… and the issues with that are as I have stated
Boris said:
Arts said:
Arts said:yes… from the highest authority
also, it’s not different, it just uses words that is specific but not used everyday. If you want to use actus reus in your everyday speech, there is nothing stopping you and it’s perfectly cromulent
coitus probiscus what that means though.
What’s probiscus mean?
Or was that meant to be proboscis?
Not sure how a universal or earthiversal language would work or be accepted.
English I suppose whilst not the dominant language of the planet does seem to be the most used secondary language and colonisation and cultural invasion kind of forced it on people
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:Summarise for me as I read back a number of posts and still can’t find the original argument
Australia does not have a legal national language.
Therefore standard English and legal English have not been recognized and authorized for use, like money has been.
The omission appears to open up a loophole, unless someone can point to something in the constitution that says otherwise.
One could in theory exploit the loophole.
Does it complicate matters that the constitution is written in English?
:)
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
“Little Harmonic Labyrinth”:hhttps://genius.com/Douglas-hofstadter-little-harmonic-labyrinth-annotated
>>>But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
A referendum to change the constitution, organized by the government and voted upon by the people.
Remove the paragraph about the right to arm bears against an unjust government
What? Where is that?
Michael V said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:>>>But how can this constitution thing have any authority, when there is nothing authorizing it?
A referendum to change the constitution, organized by the government and voted upon by the people.
Remove the paragraph about the right to arm bears against an unjust government
What? Where is that?
I’m being silly, but it could be one thing you could go back in time and change.
Could make for an interesting alternative history novel
Michael V said:
Cymek said:
aragraph about the right to arm bears against an unjust government
What? Where is that?
What if that bit in the US Constitution is a printer’s error, and it should be :
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep bare Arms, shall not be infringed.
Both in his writing and in his teaching, Hofstadter stresses the concrete..
No wonder Dougie digs it.
What’s wrong with Swahili as the as the new official language of Oz?
I feel stoned
Ian said:
Both in his writing and in his teaching, Hofstadter stresses the concrete..
No wonder Dougie digs it.What’s wrong with Swahili as the as the new official language of Oz?
I feel stoned
I’m the lyrical gangster.
Ian said:
Both in his writing and in his teaching, Hofstadter stresses the concrete..
No wonder Dougie digs it.What’s wrong with Swahili as the as the new official language of Oz?
I feel stoned
But is it reinforced concrete?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Ian said:
Both in his writing and in his teaching, Hofstadter stresses the concrete..
No wonder Dougie digs it.What’s wrong with Swahili as the as the new official language of Oz?
I feel stoned
But is it reinforced concrete?
Innovative refactory
dv said:
what to girl when the get drunk
HA!
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
dv said:
what to girl when the get drunk
HA!
Your new handle: HA!