posted
There is a limited number of governments that are known to us. There is a Monarchy. This was destroyed because people came to realize that heredity is an idiotic way to choose a leader. There is despotism, but despotism promotes internal strife and jockying for power. These powerplays often manifest themselves militarily. The examples of France and Greece show that nothing destroys a nation like civil war. The other inhibitor of despotism (as has been mentioned in this forum) is the inability of one person to give up power once it is attained. Therefore the solution is to give power to a group of people.
The Democracy is born. The people choose, electing temporary officials to oversee day to day activity. Power was held by the tongue, not the sword. However populations grow faster than communication technology. It became imposible for an entire population to gather in one place and vote. The natural succesor was the Republic. The people elected officials to govern for them. These people would naturally represent the people. Do what was best, and therefore please them. However it is in this trade of pleasing the people in order to remain in power that a problem is reached. What happens when a leader must do what is right when it isn't popular? Let's look at the invasion of Iraq, a nation that is weary of war does not seek to find another fight. However our President a man of principle and character chose to do what was right. He used the power granted to him by God and the people to remove a man of supreme evil. A man dangerous not only to the United States but to the people of Iraq, the Middle East and the world. Our president was not being a despot, he was acting within the bounds of the Constitution to protect the people. If anyone offends the Constitution it is the Supreme Court. This body of unelected officials has begun to legislate! The most recent of these decisions is the morally abhorrent decision to allow gays and lesbians the right to marriage. Not only is this decision wrong but it treds upon the power of the state legislative bodies to choose what is wrong and right according to the general opinion of the population. But I only quote another. This post is about who is to be Locke. Who is one who is wise enough to wake a nation from moral and political lethargy. The answer is the creator of Locke himself. Orson Scott Card through the writing of novels and columns has shown himself to be wise enough to lead a nation. He has proven to have the morals that he could make a morally correct action, even if it costs him aproval points. Politicaly he has the guts to suggest something unprecedented. A bill of Congress limiting the power of the Supreme Court? There is no man on earth i would rather have as my leader than Orson Scott Card.
(comments, questions, disagrements. IM me at Strider1359 or email at Strider1359@hotmail.com)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its the job of the Supreme Court to interpret laws and deem them constitutional or unconstitutional. If I could be so brash as to ask what other stuff has the Supreme Court done "wrong." I disagree about the gay and lesbian marriage stuff. It is not for the people of this nation to decide that. The only question is whether a law to ban that marriage is unconstitutional. IT IS> thats all that the Supreme Court decided. Its discrimination. The Supreme Court is one of the three parts of the checks and balances. If Congress were allowed to pass a law limiting the power of the SC then the entire US political system would crumble. The checks and balances system is one of the most pivotal systems (and most ingenious) attributes of our country's political system. Nice suggestion though!
(Yeah that last part was sarcasm...Just in case!)
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is a Monarchy. This was destroyed because people came to realize that heredity is an idiotic way to choose a leader." Umm.. No. definite oversimplification
"There is despotism, but despotism promotes internal strife and jockying for power." Umm... No. Not neccessarily.
"The Democracy is born... Power was held by the tongue, not the sword." Umm... No.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The natural succesor was the Republic." Umm... Well... Ok, whatever.
"our President a man of principle and character chose to do what was right." Umm... No, and... No, and... No!
"If anyone offends the Constitution it is the Supreme Court." Umm... No. John Ashcroft on the other hand... wouldn't be so surprised if he offends this country's rocks!
"This body of unelected officials has begun to legislate!" Umm... Actually, No. Not begun to legislate... Not unless John Marshall is still the Supreme Court chief justice and just established the power of judicial review and it's around the begining of the 1800's.
"Who is one who is wise enough to wake a nation from moral and political lethargy." If you mean somebody who can excite the masses so they follow him like they followed Grego on the Piggies(and like they've been doing a pretty fair job of following Bush), then I'd have to say no. Apologies if that's not what you mean, for literally, it's true enough.
"Orson Scott Card through the writing of novels and columns has shown himself to be wise enough to lead a nation." Umm... I'm gonna say no on this one too.
"There is no man on earth i would rather have as my leader than Orson Scott Card." Before I read his essays, I might well have agreed with you.
posted
Adeimantus- The supreme court was created to interpret the constitution. However now i believe that they have stepped over the line, and begin to legislate. It should be for the states to decide if they will allow sodomy or even gay and lesbian marriage. That is why the drafters of the Constitution left unlisted powers to the states.
As for Congress passing a law limiting the Supreme Court, forgive me their is precedent. Congress has passed a law limiting the powers of the Executive branch. Such a law would not destroy our political system more than it has already become deranged. When the Supreme Court oversteps it's bounds and forcefeeds sodomy and homosexuality to resistant communities then the Court needs to be limited. If the people of Texas don't want to allow sodomy they shouldn't be forced to. There are places where it is legal, and if you wish to practice it bad enought than move there. That is the advantage of having 50 states, each with different laws.
Sun- Your right many of those statements were oversimplifications. Additionally, the Republic was not necessarily the succesor chronologicaly, however it was idealogically. And I wasn't referring to Bush with the lethargy statements. You admit that the Supreme Court has overstepped their bounds. As for OSC I am not necessarily reffering to the author himself, but someone like him. He is an ordinary citizen with morals and the guts to go out and change the world.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted, but the Powers of the Executive Branch are broad. The powers of the Supreme Court are not. They vote yes or no. THATS IT! The executive branch controls many of the powers of the country and that does have to be limited. But how do you limit the SUPREME COURT?
Also, the Supreme Court DOES NOT legislate. They merely deem constitutional or unconstitutional. The law was not forcefed. The SC did not make the law that allowed sodomy or homosexual marriage. The SC merely said that it is unconstitutional to repress the right of marriage to homosexual just because of their sexual orientation. Now, pray tell, how is that legislation? The SC does not make laws.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Edit: Sun, you challenged almost every key point in my argument, however you failed to give even the most basic reason as to why. (Save the John Marshall point, which is irrelevant)I challenge you to come up with a reason to support your accusations.
As for John Marshall, it is not the power of judicial review I question, but the radical way that the Supreme Court manipulates this power. The Court exists, not to make new law and policy, but to convey the legislative intent of the drafters of the Constitution.
[ August 11, 2003, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* Ryan, I can't tell whether you really think your opinions are facts, or whether you're just so forceful about them that we can't tell the difference.
This one actually made me laugh aloud; it's been a long time since Hatrack's done that:
quote:However our President a man of principle and character chose to do what was right. He used the power granted to him by God and the people to remove a man of supreme evil.
posted
Ryan: You simply stated your opinions- you gave no proof to back them up either . That's fine. I simply, without proof, stated that I disagreed with you. I recognize this, but that should also be fine. There are plenty of other places I could go if I really wanted to argue senselessly about Iraq war II, gay unions, or whether the current supreme court is abusing its powers over the Texas sodomy laws. If I was in a position of power to do something about these things, it might be different. As it is, though, what's the point?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the theme of Card's essay, it's ridiculous. The concept of a democracy of "majority rule" without "minority right" is most certainly unjust. It is, in fact, equatable to "mob rule"- not democracy IMHO. If we'd always gone with "majority rule" and "state's rights" A number of us might still be slaves. To me, at least, that seems obvious. I don't understand why Card's essays are so illogical. I am confident that I could come up with a better argument as to why the supreme court should not strike down the anti-sodomy law.
For example: -Supporters of removing the Texas sodomy law say that people's right to privacy should be respected. They believe that people should be free to do as they wish in their own homes. I agree, a man should be able to abuse or rape or murder his wife or children whenever he feels like it, so long as I don't have to see it, he's free to do whatever he wants with them. After all, they are his . Should our children be forced to grow up where such disgusting an immoral behavior is not only permited, but is elevated as a freedom that the founding fathers of this country sought to protect? It seems outrageous that the families and the ethics of the people of Texas have been so trampled on, and that the supposed greatest court in the land could call somehow unconstitutional (btw, sodomy is literally not mentioned once in our constitution) a law that has helped made Texas one of the few states left in the union where people trust their government with their virtue and their charachter.-
You see? From a democratic standpoint, no real logical errors save one. And that is the one that all pro anti-sodomy law arguments have in common. The same error makes anti-drug laws, anti-suicide laws, and I'd prob'ly have to say many/most insurance laws undemocratic: A crime without a victim is, in logical fact, not a crime. A person has the democratic right to do what ever he/she wishes to him/her self. From a socialistic standpoint: people should have drug therapy more-than-readily availble to them; I, or a policeman, should feel justifed in stoping somebody if they're actually trying to commit suicide; people should be able to somehow pay (possibly through government subsidy in some cases) for damages they actually caused(or failed to act responsibly over) ; People have a right to try and stop sodomy through persuasion, I personally think its horribly disgusting & unsanitary, so perhaps more power to them. They just don't have the right to take legal action against it.
posted
I wish that there was a Locke, I really do.
I have a question... if the war in Iraq should not have happened, what is it that you think we should have done instead? I remember the way we all felt after 9/11 and sometimes I feel like we've forgotten. I am curious to know excactly what it is President Bush should have done in your opinnion.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The power of the atomic bomb is so incredible; too incredible, and it's potential for pain and destruction unmatched. I've sat and watched the films from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Cold War.
The atom bomb, simply put, is a power that we CAN NOT responsibly allow to fall into the wrong hands, or even the "kinda-sorta okay" hands. If we have to be paranoid, and inflict ourselves on innocent nations to do so, so be it. That power and it's potential for human destruction is too great to chance. Any suspicion of nuclear activity must be investigated. Any confirmation of nuclear activity must be followed by action, military if neccesary. Any militay action must be quick and decisive.
If the first step, investigation, fails or leaves dubious the facts, military action must be taken. The suspicion regarding the Iraqi nuclear program is/was enough. Even though we have found no real bombs, we have found (had found, even before action) definite proof of the attempt to get them.
The war was and still is justified. The power of the atom bomb is simply too great to be pansy about it.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The atom bomb, simply put, is a power that we CAN NOT responsibly allow to fall into the wrong hands, or even the "kinda-sorta okay" hands." Agreed, except: To late! "If the first step, investigation, fails or leaves dubious the facts, military action must be taken." I think that depends on what you mean by military action... A strategical strike on the leadership maybe, or sabotage on their productions(if they had any), or what have you, but whatever we did, it would have to be done by stealth, because if the country in question did have nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them, then there is no conceivable way we could be at all assured in our ability to stop them if they knew they were going down anyway. And so we would provoke what we sought to prevent. Even if you assume that no nukes could possibly slip through our utterly perfect security network, then there is certainly no reason for open warfare, as they are no threat anyway.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to ask anyone who thinks that the meaning of Hegemon is: "a leader elected or having usurped for the reason of defending the earth against a specie of which it has xenophobia" to go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of hegemony, hegemon, or hegemonic. Yes, hegemon is a real term. It pertains to someone rules over a country and/or other countries. Not simply the ruler of the earth in its entirety.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really have a problem with President Bush going to war. the problem I have is that the militray is underbidgeted, that they are going to cut military wages and monetary rewards. That the president used those 16 words in his state of the union and then did one hell of a crappy job at trying to recover from it and that the reason we finally went to war was because the current administration does not know how to be diplomatic and because they provided the public with untrue and unaccurate information. So we went to war. OK. We took over Iraq and yet we don't know how to stop the terrorism over there, so we lose more soldiers to acts of terrorism than to the actual fighting itself. This Bush administration still continues to amaze me.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to ask anyone who thinks that the meaning of Hegemon is: "a leader elected or having usurped for the reason of defending the earth against a specie of which it has xenophobia" to go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of hegemony, hegemon, or hegemonic. Yes, hegemon is a real term. It pertains to someone rules over a country and/or other countries. Not simply the ruler of the earth in its entirety.
Cool. However, the term "Hegemon" has been hijacked at least twice. First, by OSC to describe the 'Executive Branch' of the Hegemony, and second by Abyss to decribe essentailly the same thing, minus the alien threat. I don't think there's anyone here who didn't know the pre-OSC meaning of the word.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steel, I wonder why, then, so many people are using "hegemon" to refer to someone who rules the planet in literal terms. I understand if you're speaking about OSC's books, but if you're speaking in literal terms of a hegemon, we already have one.
heg·e·mon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hj-mn) n. One that exercises hegemony.
-----
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
If someone wants a Locke, I don't think there's one out there. It's unfortunate, yes. But Bush is who we have to put up with until the next election. It's kind of pathetic that he's already on a re-election campaign when he should be working on being a better hegemon/president. I think his chances of being re-elected are better if he acts like a president who knows what he's doing right now, not a president who is so pathetic as to need a campaign when his country needs help.
Who knows, though? Maybe Locke's out there hiding amongst a bunch of college students??? I have to admit that it would be pretty cool if somebody like Locke emerged from the wood work right about now...
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading the excess of 700 replies towards this issue, I was quite surprised to see that no one had considered the language gap. Sure its nice to discuss this among English speaking people, but I think to get a real idea of what the world-wide commmunity thinks about a world government there needs to be some sort of common language. And I don't care what language you wish to push. Truly any language will do. It is my belief that no real progress can be made unless there is some sort of universal language. And I'm not talking about mathematics.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Just joking about that, but I saw the opportunity and I had to grab it...
That would truly be amusing and effective to create an international means of communication like I.F. Common, but in order for it to be "I.F.", we'd have to have one world government, but I think I'm correct in saying we all understand what I am trying to say. I think that is infact a great idea, Locke. But how do we go about doing it?? Hmmm...website?? But then we'd have to post it in all languages and the translations from every known language into Common...puzzling, isn't it?? Hail the Almighty OSC !!
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual implication of a universal language may sound extremly complicated,and perhaps impossible if groups are unwilling to cooperate. However, it isn't something that will take off over night. To begin with, of course, a language has to be chosen or created. Then every country who can be brought into the project would train teachers to learn and teach the language. They wouldn't be teaching to highschools, adults, middleschools, or even college students. They would be teaching to pre-schoolers and kindergardeners. And they would keep teaching the students all the way up the ladder. You see if the were a 1st grader when this was implemented you probably wouldn't learn the universal language, because it isn't supposed to be universal for at least a whole generation. So eventually all people who would willingly participate in the program would speak the same language, as well as their native language if the people decide to keep it around. The hardest part remains in choosing a language, because everyone thinks it should be derived from their native tongue, when it really doesn't matter so long as everyone can communicate.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although this may sound biased, the wisest choice, as far as I can see, would be to base Common on the English language. Seeing as this was how it was done in the Ender series, why not try it out? The question that remains is, who creates it? All of us hatrackers??
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno -- basing it on the English language doesn't sound practical to me because English is based on SO MANY OTHER languages -- quite a comglomerate, in fact. Think of how many French, Latin, Spanish and German words have been accepted and used daily in the English language.
I think a Common language would have to be an entirely NEW language.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I donna' think the language bird is gonna fly, forks. Better it is, I think, just to try and encourage everybody to learn each other's language. You'll end up with a smarter populace that way anyhow.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woa - learn hundreds of languages? There's a pretty decent handful of languages out there - and even then some just vary (In Venezuela, people pronounce their "r" like "l". For example, Puerto Rico would be Puerto Rico, but pronounced Puelto Lico.) Hmmm...either one would be a challenge. I think more people would be apt to choose one common language over a jumbalaya, but then again, I don't think many people would like to change their language at all. Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Wiekzorek, that trying to learn every language spoken in the world would be near impossible, even if you just tried to learn the most spoken languages. And yes trying to get a country to adopt a second language, not neccesarily getting rid of the first, would be a difficult task, but don't you think agreeing to learn a common language would be a much easier starting point than, say a World Government. I'm a child of the Lego age. That means I think everything should built up to the next point. As it has been said, "Rome wasn't built in a day."
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good grief! You don't have to learn every language. Just, say, english, spanish, and chinese to a reasonable degree. The vast majority already know at least one.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if veryone is going to learn three languages, why doesn't everyone just learn one common one instead. It seems to me that the fewer a person has to learn the more fluent, and more understandable you'll be to each other.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats the difference between learning a language for leisure and learning it for necessity. Unfortunetly, the word "American" has taken place of the word "unilingual" It is interesting to hear how many languages many Europeans know and are fluent in today. In America, we don't have that necessity because our country is so large and (for the most part) an English(or Bad English)speaking nation. If we had to learn a common language I think it would detract from the education we would need from our own language and would definetly inhibit our wanting to gain more knowledge in other languages.
I believe that we are OK right now with our current language setup. "Don't fix it if it aint broken" though that statement is very wrong in some cases, I believe it works in this instance.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But if veryone is going to learn three languages, why doesn't everyone just learn one common one instead."
Well, basically, because it'd be a heck of a lot more work. If you want to try, go ahead, I estimate it shouldn't take you and your offspring more than about 50 years(poss. exag.). That is, to invent a working language. To get everbody to stop laughing at it might take a generation, then to actually get everybody to try and learn it, another couple generations, and for it to actually be really efective, another generation or so.
Hey, that's an exageration for sure, and I'm not knocking the idea, save on one point: unilingual people will probably end up stupider than trilingual people.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
for those of you who think that making one common language would be more work than learning three (or whatever you wish), you're not looking ahead of you. yes - three languages already constructed take no time to make -they're already in existence. yes - making a new language based on other languages would take longer than one night. but in the future, after Common is built, do you disagree that it take less time after Common comes around to learn Common than to learn three languages? If so, I can prove you incorrect with simple algebra.
x=time to make language (years)
y=time to learn language (years) let's say that the average person takes three years to learn the basics of vocabulary.
t=total work
The expression for total work in this case is: x+y=t ... if you don't understand I recommend that you seek help (I apologize for being blunt ) Let's say that in each case, we're talking about a ten generations of people.
For Common, the equation is: (assuming that Common takes twenty years to be built if a group is hired to bend languages into a generalized one) 20+(10*3)=t 20+30=t 50=t there, that's for ten generations (I'm talking about learning time, not time in between having children and growing up)
Three languages combined: Take into consideration that learning three languages will probably take more like 7 years, being able to define the differences between all three languages. 0+(10*7)=t 0+70=t 70=t
See what I mean? While that equation is not exactly accurate, we have constants, and they are rational. My point, I hope, is clear. Please tell me if you do not understand and I will try to further explain my belief that over time, it would become easier and more rational to learn one Common, not in excess of three languages. Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see where you're coming from now Suntranafs. You were under the pretense that I would suggest the creation of a whole new language. I was not suggesting that. Yes, there is a possibility that if no one will agree to learn someone else's languange, then perhaps the formation of a new language would have to be done. However, in a perfect world the world population would agree to adopt a suitable language for the common language. The language would probably be one of those primary languages you mentioned in a previous post. So we were in agreement except my plan was simplified down a little furthur.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
also, for those of you who think that unilingual people will end up "stupid" when compared to trilingual people, who says that everyone can't learn their own language, and at the age of 5 (at which point you should have a large majority of your native language down pat) Common is introduced to you.
Also, most people wouldn't laugh at this idea. It seems to me that everyone on Hatrack is intelligent, but the majority of people in the world would accept anything that was given to them. Most people are too ignorant to tell a bad from good, let alone what they like and don't like. Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people would say the Hegemon was a dictator for the most part. I can only imagine what people would do to us Hatrackers if they thought we were supporting a dictatorship. Of course, being the coward that I am, I'll hide behind my screen name which I foolish thinks protects my identidy. Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before any outbursts of angry posts come heading my way, that last post was meant more as a joke than anything. My real point is comes into the territory of are the people willing and/or able to join any type of World Government. Before I got here you guys did a fairly thourgh outline of how such a government would or could function, but I haven't seen any conclusive pointing to where the world population stands. Would your average Joe from Kansas agree with the joining of the U.S. with everyother country? Would people of different nationalities be able to set aside past rivalries with bordering nations? Can our World Government swallow such powerful and emmense emotions? I'm not presenting an opinion. I'm presenting a question? So Wieczorek please keep the bricks in OSC's windows. Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off... Hussein NEVER EVER EVER attacked the US. The only thing you could possibly construe as an attack was that he attempted to have Bush Sr. assassinated. Not suprising really, but not an attack on the US per se.
Second, most of you seem to act as though developing a language would be difficult. I assure you it would not be. Simple. Noun, verb, adverb, preposition, adjective. Mix thouroughly create worlds from house hold objects. Done.
The REAL question is WHAT kind of language would you make? Language determines mindset to a VERY LARGE EXTENT. For example, in english indepedence is generally assured do to the lack of relationships between nouns and verbs. A noun does verb. Or a noun does noun to verb. (Generally speaking) The only exception that comes to mind is Plurals. Thus framing the language in collective versus individual. They run. He runs. Of course this is because its corruption and lost of the familar tense, but ANYWAY.
However in many Romantic languages, verbs are directly related to noun. Many nouns does many verb. NOT Many nouns do verb. Ella canta. Ellas cantan. (forgive my rusty spanish) basically She sings(singular) they sing (plural).
Also is the notion of masculine and feminine. With this you can create gender bias by mere use of the language.
Furthermore, you can define characteristics of your society. In japanese for example: Ohayoo Ryu-Kun. Monin' diminutive Ryu. Ohayoo gozaimasu Ryu. Good morning ryu (familiar). Ohayoo gozaimasu Machida-san. Good morning, Mr. Machida (non-honorific/informal) Ohayoo gozaimasu Machida-san. Good morning Mr. Machida sir.
That was, of course not a literal translation but more a translation of concept. But I think you see what I mean.
Define the language and you define the mindset. Define the mindest and you define the mind. Define the mind and you rule the body.
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
"...most of you seem to act as though developing a language would be difficult. I assure you it would not be"
Just curious, but how many of these languages have you made? I admire your confidence, but the problems you posed in making an entirely new language wouldn't be the only ones.
Fact#1 There are many languages Fact#2 Not all words in them can truly be translated. Fact#3 If you were to have a language that would satisfy all the peoples of the world, it would need to have way more words than your ordinary language. Fact#4 There's over (rough guess) 60,000 words in the english language alone. Fact#5 For an entirely new language, you're gonna have to make up entirely new words. Better get crackin'. Fact#6 actually, I'm begining to rather like that idea Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that I'm glad everyone is warming up to the idea. However I still don't know if I would propose the creation of a whole new language. The only argument that I can propose against such a creation that I couldn't do the with a simple adoption process is a larger time of overall implementation. The way I see it an adoption process would follow a process something like this. First, a general agreement of nations that a coomon language should be put into action. Second, the choosing of a lanuage. Third, spreading teachers around all nations who wish to learn this universal language. Fourth, the continuation of said teaching. Sure the process wouldn't be short, but once those two were finished the third step would be rather simple and fast in comparsion. However, if we take the path of a whole new language built from scratch then this is the process that I forsee happening. First, the agreement of nations to put into use a common language, like the other process. Second, putting a team of people together to create a language. The creation of said langauage. The bringing of said language before committee for approval. Assuming the last step went through, the teaching of people who at some point will become the teachers of the newly created language. Those teachers begin to teach others who, at least some, will go on to teach to others. And so on, and so forth. In this plan the obvious time delay before general literacy of such a language is a good reason why such a method would be much slower and possibly ineffective. A good way to think about this is concerned with the amount of resources that are available. Right now we have many people who could teach an already existing language to people across the world. All that would have to be done is the opening of postions for our language programs, and almost immediatly those postions would be filled. But with a whole new language there are no already fluent teachers. The only people who can speak that new language are the people who were on the creation committee. Therefore, they would have to teach teachers, who would then teach more teachers, and the cycle would continue. By the time there were enough teachers to even begin to teach enough people to make it somewhat common 20 years would have passed. Or 30. Or 40. Who really knows? It certainly wouldn't compare favorly with the adoption process. And for the people who might go back to the old idea of "Rome wasn't built in a day" I would reply that they built it has fast as feasibly possible. AND I remember some one brought forth and idea of how translation problems could lose cultural significance or something on that line of thought. To this I would just propose that overtime the base language would evolve as all languages due to fit the users. If a new word is needed it will be created. No big deal. Happens all the time. Just like slang, but I imagine quite a bit faster, the adoption of new words, grammer, etc. would take place to appease the users. So, although I'm happy to see everyone starting to come together, I just think it would be much more efficient to just adopt a language that would eventually evolve to become more suitable for its purposes. ~Treaty~ sign below x__ LockeTreaty __
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unja-oi Reme-bun-uimuk. Think(pres.) I Idea Down you
Each word is spoken in a noun cluster. Verbs are NEVER independent of nounclusters. The verb is at the for front of the sentence except in times of adjectives or adverbs which are actually formed by prepositional phrases.
Tense will be derived by a verb marker ja which verbally will form the words "Jya". This is present tense unless followed by a time marker
In order to show possesive we will add the tense muk. (mook) Thus the idea belongs to you as the noun cluster anchor
The language it self will use a Japanese Syllobry which means other then A-I-U-E-O There will be no independent sounds. This forms a connectiveness in the language.
Further more the negative will be used by giving a prespositional UP. Thus respectful tones are used by the presposition down.Thus one of the highest complaments you can state is "You're down to earth." I want to make the language Terra-centric so this is a good way of doing it.
As for the vocabulary... simply run a seach of the worlds great literature. Words that occur more often will be assigned less lets. Thus I becomes oi because it is a common word, but nuclear reactor is less frequent so it would be assigned a larger cluster. Furthermore, if you keep track of the kinds of words (actions/nouns/pronouns/etc.) you could assign letters to them based on their verb type. Thus all words starting with O would be prepositions, or whatever. It's a matter of numbers and so I'm fairly certain you could just get a few supercomputers to run it.
I've developed the basis of a language right here in about 5 minutes. You could put together a lot better if it was not so late at night and you actually cared.
For the record... this language is Loki named after Locke... if you want to develope it feel free. It's got a simple frame work. Just start converting over words and it's good to go.
Oh, and as for the criticism that things will be lost in the translation. So what? Like adopting English as the world language wouldn't dampen the worlds linguistical flavor. Honestly people
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
err.. yer missin somthin.. if any body did recommend using only english then it definitely wasn't the same person who was worried about 'dampening linguistic flavor' (i.e. me)
couple thoughts occured to me, and they seem to contradict each other: first, this may not be wildly creative, but nobody's mentioned it so far directly- we could have like a combo language, stick, say, span-gli-nese together, and not lose any good linguistics. or, in contrast, one advantage to a new language is that it would be designed, as opposed to evolved, and hence not so inherently flawed, as all known languages are- save mathmatics, of course.
So option one gives you diversity with difficulty with order, and option two gives you order, possibly diversity, but(probably) a heck of a lot more work. Perhaps the two ideas could be combined to some degree. Or perhaps, in theory, I could conceivably just be running of at the mouth in a semi-educated manner Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really doesn't matter what the language is. Any language will allow communication between people world-wide. So creating a new language is completely unneccesary unless you think that all nations will not be able to agree on a pre-existing language. Why combine, create, or do a combination of the two when we have thousands of time tested languages at our dispersal? There is no reason to toss away a perfectly good language just because it is not deemed perfect. Everything is flawed, and to think otherwise is a fallacy. To reiterate, let me just say that the adoption of a language is the best way to go. ~Treaty~ sign below x__ LockeTreaty __
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So Wieczorek please keep the bricks in OSC's windows.
Locke treaty, no ill feelings intended - I apologize if I sometimes (and more often than not) come across as being ill-tempered and annoyed.
quote: Would your average Joe from Kansas agree with the joining of the U.S. with everyother country? Would people of different nationalities be able to set aside past rivalries with bordering nations? Can our World Government swallow such powerful and emmense emotions?
I still think it would be a wise choice to create a website that consists of this idea everyone is contributing to, not necessarily the language idea, but what Locke treaty brought to the table earlier. Simply post items on the website that mention the idea of joining countries, setting aside differences and not thinking of pride as a barrier. This could work in so far - just push our ideas forward and let other people chew on it for a while, see if they like it, and if they do, it just got alot easier. Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I have to admit that it would be pretty cool if somebody like Locke emerged from the wood work right about now...![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
!!![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
as all known languages are- save mathmatics, of course.![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
has anyone else noticed that these people are just hugging themselves?
