NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Everything else, such as the wish that Generalites would use the British spellings of words, and the statement that you must use the phrase ''Jolly good show,'' are just requests of the NBIP. Failure to do so will not result in any punishment.


Proposes an enforcement of good English in NS General.

An effort to use correct spelling and grammar must be made by all who post in General. Occasional typos will be tolerated, and we shall be lenient with those johnny foreigners (and bloody Welshmen) who are not fortunate enough to have English as a first language. However, those who continuously fail to use capital letters at the start of their sentences shall be mocked unceasingly until they do so. People will be expected to use the correct spelling of words such as we in Britain use, not these damn colonial spellings. 1337 5P34K will henceforth be outlawed and will now be referred to as the devil's language. Anyone who insists on typing in this vile devil's language must be shunned. An official moratorium is to be put in place upon the phrases "Well done" and "Congratulations". Instead, the phrase "Jolly good show!" must be used.
I, Lady Lord Sir Vacuumhead, am to act as the speaker for this debate.
If you have any questions about this bill, then feel free to ask.

Each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
NBIP - Philosopy

Even though I don't support your stereotype party, I like this bill. Why, just the other day I was molested by a poster using such intolerable abbreviations as "ur" "r" and "cuz", horrible.

Even though I don't support your stereotype party, I like this bill. Why, just the other day I was molested by a poster using such intolerable abbreviations as "ur" "r" and "cuz", horrible.

That sounds rather frightful, wot!

I must say, it is jolly good of you to support this bill despite not agreeing with the NBIP. Too many people hold grudges, it is such a shame...:(

As per our agreement, I yieaux this proposal.

Erm, wot!

When do I get promoted to Admiral? :p

Nay.

Freedom of speech means freedom to sound intollerably stupid if you wish to.I It is also not the place of parliament to legislate such biggoted language as "Bloody Welshmen".

As per our agreement, I yieaux this proposal.

Erm, wot!

When do I get promoted to Admiral? :p

That's a good chap, wot! Truly you are an honourable gentleman.

You know how it works. Next time we need you to cast your vote for us. ;)

Yea. Incidentally, you didn't capitalise "vote" in the poll, and I'm sure that sentence should have some form of punctuation at the end. A colon might be nice.

Pip pip, cheerio, and wot hey wot?

*head explodes*

Yea. Incidentally, you didn't capitalise "vote" in the poll, and I'm sure that sentence should have some form of punctuation at the end. A colon might be nice.

I just copied and pasted it from the procedural rules post, except that I missed the word ''I'' at the start and also the full stop at the end. It was a genuine mistake which can happen on occasion, even to the very best of us. I suppose I was asking for too much to hope that nobody would notice. Oh well, my apologies old chap.

I just copied and pasted it from the procedural rules post, except that I missed the word ''I'' at the start and also the full stop at the end. It was a genuine mistake which can happen on occasion, even to the very best of us. I suppose I was asking for too much to hope that nobody would notice. Oh well, my apologies old chap.

And shouldn't it say "one" in the poll, as all number under 100 need to be spelled out;)

Besides 1337 5P34K iz t34 r0xor!!1!!oneoneeleventy!!

What exactly defines "proper english"?

Should one be mocked if one uses the American "color" instead of the British "Colour"?

Besides 1337 5P34K iz t34 r0xor!!1!!oneoneeleventy!!

Tea?

Tea?

Do I have to lift my pinky finger?

i'm not voting yes for a bill promoting the proper use of the english language that has the 'word' wot in the title :p. although leet is the most retarded and annoying thing to enter language ever and users of this ought to be shunned as a matter of course.


edit: :fluffle:

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.



Isn't the first point already in effect? :confused: Oh, and doth the second make me 73h n3cr0m4nc3r?

Besides 1337 5P34K iz t34 r0xor!!1!!oneoneeleventy!!
i do not understand you.

*SNIP*

You do realize you guys have neither the right nor the power to enforce this bit of legistlation, correct?

CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N.

Do I have to lift my pinky finger?

"t34" is tea, not "teh".

"t34" is tea, not "teh".

"teh" or "73H" means "the".

"tea" is "734".

"teh" or "73H" means "the".

"tea" is "734".

That's what I said.

That's what I said.

The second part was my own. Just helpin' you out there.

Yay, let's make a futile attempt to freeze the language, for no good reason what so ever!

It's absolutely assured to fail, it's contrary to the traditions of the English language (or any other major tongue), and it's utterly pointless, but, erm, that shouldn't keep you from trying, I suppose.

I don't even know quite what the NS Parliament is, but if this passes you can be sure I'll bomb it! Even if only by posting the word, "BOOM!" or, more likely, "BZoOm!" or such.

I wonder if, in this thread, I could get away with... ah, heck, Cymru am byth!

You do realize you guys have neither the right nor the power to enforce this bit of legistlation, correct?

CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N.

Erm, and you realise that nothing we legislate will be enforced?

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

Erm, and you realise that nothing we legislate will be enforced?

I'm surprised you are in favor of "British" being legislated. But I'm happy to see you online!

:fluffle:

Whut thuh HAILZ an "MP?":p

I'd like to no so I kin vote.

You do realize you guys have neither the right nor the power to enforce this bit of legistlation, correct?

CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N.

Will you PLEASE translate "CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N" into legible English please?

As per our agreement, I yieaux this proposal.


Sorry to keep posting, but I keep finding things I cannot help but ask for help with.

What does "yieaux" mean?:confused:

Will you PLEASE translate "CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N" into legible English please?

Because you have no right to tell me I can't post in 1337er speak or use common internet abbreviation.

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Everything else, such as the wish that Generalites would use the British spellings of words, and the statement that you must use the phrase ''Jolly good show,'' are just requests of the NBIP. Failure to do so will not result in any punishment.


I, Lady Lord Sir Vacuumhead, am to act as the speaker for this debate.
If you have any questions about this bill, then feel free to ask.

Each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
NBIP - Philosopy

As we discussed I WILL vote for this as long as American spellings can be used and I thank you for endorsing my proposal. {I'd fluffle you if you weren't so against them}

Freedom of speech means freedom to sound intollerably stupid if you wish to.

Agreed, as called for by point Punks of the PUNKS AND PIRATES party manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11705853&postcount=36):

Pursuant to this, we propose that any restrictions on thought, ideas, or expression be repealed immediately. Furthermore, we propose that no further legislation restricting thought, ideas, or expression be permitted.

It is also not the place of parliament to legislate such biggoted language as "Bloody Welshmen".

Arrrrgreed.

i'm not voting yes for a bill promoting the proper use of the english language that has the 'word' wot in the title :p. although leet is the most retarded and annoying thing to enter language ever and users of this ought to be shunned as a matter of course.

Yarrr?

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

:D (BTW was that an unattributed Prachett quote?)

Whut thuh HAILZ an "MP?":p

I'd like to no so I kin vote.

Arrr... here ye be laddy: MP (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mp) - hopefully you can sort out for your self which of the 19 varieties we're on about.

I say, let us smite the defilers of the Queen's English! This bloody "pwnzr" stuff is worse than french!

Agreed, as called for by point Punks of the PUNKS AND PIRATES party manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11705853&postcount=36):


:D (BTW was that an unattributed Prachett quote?)



Arrr... here ye be laddy: MP (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mp) - hopefully you can sort out for your self which of the 19 varieties we're on about.

To my understanding, it's attributed to James D. Nicoll.

Someone mentioned about having to use British spelling for words like "Colour" and "Armour". I feel that would be appropriate. For those of you who disagree, I would like to point out that you are speaking (Writing) English, invented by the (Gasp) English. AKA the British, Hence I feel that you should use their spelling, especially as the only country that uses the alternative spelling is USA.


I vote for this act, Except of course having to say "Jolly good show".

Although not one amongst you has managed a clear rebuke of this bill, I shall respond to the charge that it limits 'free speech', because it seems to be the only clear, legible and reasoned argument yet posted.

Free speech has been abridged in the Damned Ex-colonies of the United States several times, most notably in the form of 'fighting words' and 'obscene speech'. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Justice Murphy wrote that a particular form of speech (in this case, the phrase 'God-damned Racketeer') was

"[...] no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order [...]."

I should submit that so called '1337 5P34K' (hereafter referred to as leet speak) equally forms no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and is further of slight social value as a step towards truth. Indeed, leet speak requires a relatively lengthy amount of time to decipher by comparison to plain text, and serves to hinder the exposition of ideas. Therefore, leet speak is of similar value to fighting words, and is not protected under the US First Amendment.

Obviously, neither the General Forum nor the NBIP follows the US First Amendment, but many parties in Parliament have free-speech clauses similar to the First Amendment with regards to the exposition of ideas.

Lady Bumboat: While I do not presume to speak for Lady Lord Vacuumhead, I rather believe that American 'English' as at best a dialect, at worst a perversion. If we are to standardise the language, would it not make sense to standardise it with the mother tongue, rather than the dialect that seems to have become popular in recent years?

The Bill has my support, although I know that my english is not that good.

I find 1337 speak most annoying, anyway. It is even harder to understand for those - like me - who don't speak english as first language. Also I have problems with abbreviations (is that correct?) ("stfu" and the like).

Oh, en passant, why call 1337 the "devil's" speak? I'm sure Mr.Satan, Mr.Astaroth, Mr.Mephistopheles and their friends know better than writing like that.

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Everything else, such as the wish that Generalites would use the British spellings of words, and the statement that you must use the phrase ''Jolly good show,'' are just requests of the NBIP. Failure to do so will not result in any punishment.


I, Lady Lord Sir Vacuumhead, am to act as the speaker for this debate.
If you have any questions about this bill, then feel free to ask.

Each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
NBIP - Philosopy



TEH N00BLAH PHAILS!!!

You do realize you guys have neither the right nor the power to enforce this bit of legistlation, correct?

CU2 U H4V3 N0 R19H7 70 7311 M3 1 C4N'7 P057 1N 13373R 5P33K 0R U53 C0MM0N 'N37 488R3V14710N.

Enforce it? I don't think it really needs enforcement, if you go around posting in leet or Terrible Ennglish(a language distinct from English) you're almost definately going to get mocked.

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Everything else, such as the wish that Generalites would use the British spellings of words, and the statement that you must use the phrase ''Jolly good show,'' are just requests of the NBIP. Failure to do so will not result in any punishment.


I, Lady Lord Sir Vacuumhead, am to act as the speaker for this debate.
If you have any questions about this bill, then feel free to ask.

Each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
NBIP - Philosopy
Nyet to the spelling Nazis. :eek:

Of course though, there is nothing wrong with spelling labour, neighbour, etc. the proper way. :)

I say, let us smite the defilers of the Queen's English! This bloody "pwnzr" stuff is worse than french!

French is not really bad. now spanish, thats a terrible language.

Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


that has been a law here since the dawn of time.

Nay.
Although not one amongst you has managed a clear rebuke of this bill, I shall respond to the charge that it limits 'free speech', because it seems to be the only clear, legible and reasoned argument yet posted.
Fine.

Free speech has been abridged in the Damned Ex-colonies of the United States several times, most notably in the form of 'fighting words' and 'obscene speech'. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Justice Murphy wrote that a particular form of speech (in this case, the phrase 'God-damned Racketeer') was

"[...] no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order [...]."
However, the Nationstates General Parliament is not the United States congress, and is not in any way bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

I should submit that so called '1337 5P34K' (hereafter referred to as leet speak) equally forms no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and is further of slight social value as a step towards truth. Indeed, leet speak requires a relatively lengthy amount of time to decipher by comparison to plain text, and serves to hinder the exposition of ideas. Therefore, leet speak is of similar value to fighting words, and is not protected under the US First Amendment.
Well, if you define the so-called 'value' of words by the time it takes to read it, perhaps we ought to ban the Het vijfde Nederlandse Topic! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392194&highlight=neder) since it would undoubtedly take a long time for a native English speaker to translate it.

Obviously, neither the General Forum nor the NBIP follows the US First Amendment, but many parties in Parliament have free-speech clauses similar to the First Amendment with regards to the exposition of ideas.
And I repeat, are not bound by the United States Supreme Court, and does not set any kind of precident.

Lady Bumboat: While I do not presume to speak for Lady Lord Vacuumhead, I rather believe that American 'English' as at best a dialect, at worst a perversion. If we are to standardise the language, would it not make sense to standardise it with the mother tongue, rather than the dialect that seems to have become popular in recent years?
You do realise that the so-called British English we speak today is nothing like the 'mother tounge' at all? It has diverted and changed too since the emergence of United States English.

I'm surprised you are in favor of "British" being legislated. But I'm happy to see you online!

:fluffle:

Well, Australian English and British English are to all intents and purposes the same. :)

Good to see you too! :D :fluffle:

Yarrr?


although there is no official language in the land of infinite revolution, 'pirate' is a recognised and endorsed sub-dialect, due to it's comic potential and general awesomeness, while speakers of 'toff' get (unofficially) poked with (unofficial) sticks. ;)

Nay.

Freedom of speech means freedom to sound intollerably stupid if you wish to.I It is also not the place of parliament to legislate such biggoted language as "Bloody Welshmen".

You're missing the point. Being the one who first suggested any move towards any sort of legislation along these lines (though I intended it only for the party and not the forum, wot?) I feel that I must clarify it.
It does not intend to prevent stupidity. It does not intend to legislate or even make illegal such language as 'bloody Welshmen'. Many people think the Welsh are lovely, many people hate them. Personally, I quite like the Welsh. They have lovely singing voices.
The point is to make it easier to understand one another in the forums, and also possibly to distinguish the new administration from previous ones which did very little (I am told).
On a side note, 'intolerably' and 'bigoted' are spelt thusly. Parliament takes a capital 'P', as well.
(I am now Minister for Spreading Proper English (which reminds me; I really must do something about the 'Proper' which should, really, be 'Correct') and take my position very seriously, especially since I feel slight guilt about gaining it.)
This new legislation, if it is passed (as I hope it will be), will in fact facilitate understanding between forum members. So called 'leet speak', an abomination upon the Earth, shall be widely mocked (if the system is obeyed). So too shall such bastardizations of the English language such as 'text speak' and any other patently incorrect and, often, difficult to read language as you can think of.
American English shall not be banned, no. It is, unfortunately, a legally recognised language and thus its right to exist shall be held sacred. The same goes for various other dialects of English, such as Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African English.
However, it would be nice if the people of the forum who did, after all, elect the NBIP and other parties, would respect the wishes of Parliament and possibly at least attempt to use British English; this includes the 'u's in words such as 'labour' and the 'z's in words such as 'civilization'.
This is, however, a completely optional facet of the Bill. American English would, as I have said, be permitted, simply because it would be time-consuming to enforce and many Americans and, indeed, other members of the English-speaking world (including some Englishmen themselves) do not know the difference between the two dialects.
Also, to New Burmesia for his last comment:
British English is the 'mother tongue', as you put it, although you spelt 'tongue' rather hideously incorrectly. It is, however, true that the lamguage has evolved somewhat over the years. English is a very complex and dynamic (and in some cases thieving) language; it was born from French, German, various other Nordic tongues, Latin and even a small amount of Spanish; it has borrowed thousands of words from other, more foreign languages (including the nickname for Britain, 'Blighty' (from the Hindustani 'bilayati' meaning, I do believe, 'foreign' in that tongue)) and many other languages, dialects and isolated pockets around the world.
'Elevator' is American English. 'Lift' is British English. Though 'elevator' is a recognised word in the English language, it is known to be American and thus 'lift' is more often used. The British English language has even resorted to borrowing words from its own offshoots, but that doesn't affect the fact that it is still a separate, unique and the original dialect of the English language.
In any case, if you will reject a language on the grounds that it is not the same as it originally was, then you have ruled out every single language on the planet except for Basque (a fairly obscure and extremely difficult language spoken in south-westerly France and north-eastern Spain), Latin and a few other dead languages.
Languages change over time. All languages change over time. Dead languages don't count. Basque doesn't count, if only because it is so bloody complex and rare that it virtually is dead; it is thought to be the remnants of a Neanderthal dialect, so don't tell me that even that hasn't changed at least a bit.
In defence of the Lady Vacuumhead, I do believe that the USA is the dominant nation on the planet at the moment, yes? And that its dialect of the English language is dominant, yes? And that THERE ARE OTHER DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS CONSISTENT WITH THE AMERICAN CONGRESS, YES? The Lady Vacuumhead was merely using the most ubiquitous and generic example; the British unwritten constitution is nearly one and a half centuries older, though it has become steadily more democratic as time goes by. The British state was always more democratic than the American; the only reason that the American was touted as the first 'true' democracy was due to the fact that it was the only state in the world to start out intending to be democratic, something which is not particularly impressive. It is all very well to be the first to actively pursue a policy, but it is nothing to be proud of if another group is already doing it better despite having not started out with such intentions.
And the Lady was not saying that the value of a word decreases as it grows longer; she was merely pointing out that 'leet speak' is ridiculously hard to decipher unless you are in on the secret, does nothing new aside from replace traditional letters with numbers for crying out loud and is, in fact, quite unnecessary. The point of language is to convey information. 'Leet speak' is a ridiculously complex and annoying way of doing so and, as such, is virtually worthless.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Hey, this is my first post that ISN'T on the NBIP thread. Cool.

I have of course given this Bill my full blessing, wot!

I'm pleased to see that, after looking at the non MPs votes, NBIP, CypsW and all the other Members voting in favour are truly representing the will of the people, wotwot!

I support this bill fully.

Your use of the word "smeghead" brought me over even before the main body of the argument started.

I am for this. All deviants may suffer.

I support any attempt to intriduce the proper use of English here. I'm very interested to see how it will be enforced. Also, I think bonuses should be offered to those who adhere to the American spellings (the ones without that extraneous "u" in words like "honor") because that extra letter consumes storage and we all know how Jolt feels about threads taking up more than their deserved space. Why, that very letter, used enough, might constitute a kind of spam.

I support any attempt to intriduce the proper use of English here. I'm very interested to see how it will be enforced.

Gunboats, good sah!

And shouldn't it say "one" in the poll, as all number under 100 need to be spelled out;)

Below 10 is the rule I believe. Atleast that's the way I was always taught. It's how I write anyway, with few exceptions.

I support any attempt to intriduce the proper use of English here. I'm very interested to see how it will be enforced. Also, I think bonuses should be offered to those who adhere to the American spellings (the ones without that extraneous "u" in words like "honor") because that extra letter consumes storage and we all know how Jolt feels about threads taking up more than their deserved space. Why, that very letter, used enough, might constitute a kind of spam.
The 'u' in honour, armour, valour, etc. is not in the slightest bit extraneous. It shows the correct pronunciation of the words.

"Honn-er" as opposed to "Honn-or".

ABCDEFJHI$JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

my tailor is rich.
my tailor was rich.
my tailor is poor
my tailor was poor.
i'm drinking a perfect co lonial thee ,
ghandi is dead
51.
fifhty one!
my queen is an ad
51,
Blair is an half

Snipped in the name of Her Majesty
*Sends in gunboat*

British English is the 'mother tongue', as you put it, although you spelt 'tongue' rather hideously incorrectly.
I really don't pay too much attention to my spelling on these forums. If it can be recognised, then it's fine.

It is, however, true that the lamguage has evolved somewhat over the years. English is a very complex and dynamic (and in some cases thieving) language; it was born from French, German, various other Nordic tongues, Latin and even a small amount of Spanish; it has borrowed thousands of words from other, more foreign languages (including the nickname for Britain, 'Blighty' (from the Hindustani 'bilayati' meaning, I do believe, 'foreign' in that tongue)) and many other languages, dialects and isolated pockets around the world.
Indeed, as a language it is one of the most diverse.

'Elevator' is American English. 'Lift' is British English. Though 'elevator' is a recognised word in the English language, it is known to be American and thus 'lift' is more often used. The British English language has even resorted to borrowing words from its own offshoots, but that doesn't affect the fact that it is still a separate, unique and the original dialect of the English language.
No it isn't. To take your example, at the time British and American English diverged the concept of lifts and elevators simply did not exist. Therefore, how can it be possible to describe one as the more authentic? Neither is older than the other.

In any case, if you will reject a language on the grounds that it is not the same as it originally was, then you have ruled out every single language on the planet except for Basque (a fairly obscure and extremely difficult language spoken in south-westerly France and north-eastern Spain), Latin and a few other dead languages.
I think you missed my point. What I was saying was that the current British English is completely different to British English when British and American English first appeared. Therefore, it is completely false to describe American English as some false dialect that is a bastard offspring of the original since the original has changed too.

However, the reverse happened in Quebec, where Quebec French is much more similar to 1600s-1700 French than French today, or so I am told. Would you therefore relocate the Academie Francaise to Quebec City and declare Quebec French to be the Authentic French?

Languages change over time. All languages change over time. Dead languages don't count. Basque doesn't count, if only because it is so bloody complex and rare that it virtually is dead; it is thought to be the remnants of a Neanderthal dialect, so don't tell me that even that hasn't changed at least a bit.
Basque is an amazing language. I went to Biarritz in the French Basque Country this year. The gobbledegook is all over the place. They weren't last in the que when the X's were handed out. And of course it has changed over the years. If the Basques and not the British had colonised America, and both versions of Basque had changed as much as British and American English, then the Basque of Basque country couldn't be describes as a superior version either.

*Sends in gunboat*
The Various Provinces of Yootopia (We have lovely cakes) will send in its finest battlecruisers to aid your quest for better English around these fora.

The Various Provinces of Yootopia (We have lovely cakes) will send in its finest battlecruisers to aid your quest for better English around these fora.

Hurrah for noble allies!

And cake? Lovely, old sport! I'll put the kettle on, wot!

Basque is an amazing language. I went to Biarritz in the French Basque Country this year. The gobbledegook is all over the place. They weren't last in the que when the X's were handed out. And of course it has changed over the years. If the Basques and not the British had colonised America, and both versions of Basque had changed as much as British and American English, then the Basque of Basque country couldn't be describes as a superior version either.
Ah, Gallego.

It's one language that finding the roots of is bloody impossible, although most just say "urmm yeah... it's the original language of the Iberian Peninsular, perhaps".

*Sends in gunboat*
*tosses a match at the gunboat*

Ah, Gallego.

It's one language that finding the roots of is bloody impossible, although most just say "urmm yeah... it's the original language of the Iberian Peninsular, perhaps".
well that is wat is fun with history, you have those english claiming land,the viking and s

never forgot it...
long live the majesty
in pound we trust

I thought baskis was a bit like celtic,but much more magyar

*tosses a match at the gunboat*

*Blows out match*

Your threats are meaningless! The people of the Emparh have invented a new match-blowing-out-device-thingy that will neutralise all of your threats, wot!

*Blows out match*

Your threats are meaningless! The people of the Emparh have invented a new match-blowing-out-device-thingy that will neutralise all of your threats, wot!
i don't want to board the boat

*tosses a match at the gunboat*
*fires an ungodly amount of proper, English, packeted tapioca onto your land*

Have at you!

Our culinary horrors will win yet!

No. I'll talk however I want, thanks. J00 4R3 N07 1337 3N0UF 70 84N 1337!!! ololollollollolooloolollolololololol!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!

No. I'll talk however I want, thanks. J00 4R3 N07 1337 3N0UF 70 84N 1337!!! ololollollollolooloolollolololololol!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!
Your head here -> :headbang: (just off-shot : my hand)

Such are my views on the issue of 'leet.'

I really don't pay too much attention to my spelling on these forums. If it can be recognised, then it's fine.


Indeed, as a language it is one of the most diverse.


No it isn't. To take your example, at the time British and American English diverged the concept of lifts and elevators simply did not exist. Therefore, how can it be possible to describe one as the more authentic? Neither is older than the other.


I think you missed my point. What I was saying was that the current British English is completely different to British English when British and American English first appeared. Therefore, it is completely false to describe American English as some false dialect that is a bastard offspring of the original since the original has changed too.

However, the reverse happened in Quebec, where Quebec French is much more similar to 1600s-1700 French than French today, or so I am told. Would you therefore relocate the Academie Francaise to Quebec City and declare Quebec French to be the Authentic French?


Basque is an amazing language. I went to Biarritz in the French Basque Country this year. The gobbledegook is all over the place. They weren't last in the que when the X's were handed out. And of course it has changed over the years. If the Basques and not the British had colonised America, and both versions of Basque had changed as much as British and American English, then the Basque of Basque country couldn't be describes as a superior version either.

Oh, bugger. I did it once, saw that I did it and COULD HAVE SWORN that I'd corrected it. Apologies for spelling 'language' incorrectly, good chaps. I accidentally said 'lamguage' near the beginning of the post, something which does rather let the side down. I have chosen not to change it because I want the world to see that I am not perfect; merely almost. :)
I do admit that you have me on one or more points there, but I refuse to give in so easily. Perhaps the easiest way for me to counter that Quebec French comment, apart from doing the rather childish and dishonourable thing that is saying "I fail to see the relevance of this" (a statement which would both be stupid and a lie, for I do indeed see the relevance of it), is to label the 'true' language as the form that is closest to the original that is spoken in the country of origin.
With your point on the theory that it is a mistake to say that American English is a bastardization of the original, I believe that you have inadvertently supported my view, mainly due to careless wording.
I think you missed my point. What I was saying was that the current British English is completely different to British English when British and American English first appeared. Therefore, it is completely false to describe American English as some false dialect that is a bastard offspring of the original since the original has changed too.
I may well have missed your point. I often do in such debates; I recall my historical debate with the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit on the NBIP thread. I believe that I missed his intended point on several occasions there.
However, going by your own words, you have basically said that American English is an offshoot of the original but not of the modern day. The first part of that is what I have basically said; American English is a bastardized version of the original. British English is spoken in the country of origin for English as a whole, it is much closer to the original than American English and thus I counter your argument. Perhaps what I am trying to get at is your last sentence: the original has changed. Consider that sentence. The original of anything cannot change. It may fall out of common use, or another version may spring up to take its place but the original never changes. The original of everything, whether or not it still exists, is immutable. Not indestructible, but certainly unchangeable.
For your counter to my 'lift'/'elevator' argument, very well. Perhaps there is a contemporary example that would better suit my purposes; if so, then I cannot think of one. I am extremely tired and, indeed, can't be bothered to think of one. Take that as laziness if you will; take it as a sign that I am a coward if you will. I will make one thing clear though: neither of those is the reason.
I do feel that perhaps you have missed my point here, though. I am not claiming that either is more authentic; I am merely saying that, in Britain, it is rare to hear someone say 'elevator' because it is an American word, but it is common to hear the word 'lift' because it is the British way of describing the same object. I merely feel, as British English is the direct descendant of the original, and is not merely a form that evolved in the colonies, that it is the correct form. And might I add that that was not the point I was trying to make, otherwise I would be contradicting my own words. Come to think of it, I can't even remember my point.
I share your view on Basque, by the way. It is an amazing language, if somewhat strange and complex. I was impressed by the fact that you even knew of it, to be honest; very few people do. And congratulations to Yootopia on knowing of it as well. :)

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Oh, bugger. I did it once, saw that I did it and COULD HAVE SWORN that I'd corrected it. Apologies for spelling 'language' incorrectly, good chaps. I accidentally said 'lamguage' near the beginning of the post, something which does rather let the side down. I have chosen not to change it because I want the world to see that I am not perfect; merely almost. :)
I do admit that you have me on one or more points there, but I refuse to give in so easily. Perhaps the easiest way for me to counter that Quebec French comment, apart from doing the rather childish and dishonourable thing that is saying "I fail to see the relevance of this" (a statement which would both be stupid and a lie, for I do indeed see the relevance of it), is to label the 'true' language as the form that is closest to the original that is spoken in the country of origin.
With your point on the theory that it is a mistake to say that American English is a bastardization of the original, I believe that you have inadvertently supported my view, mainly due to careless wording.

I may well have missed your point. I often do in such debates; I recall my historical debate with the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit on the NBIP thread. I believe that I missed his intended point on several occasions there.
However, going by your own words, you have basically said that American English is an offshoot of the original but not of the modern day. The first part of that is what I have basically said; American English is a bastardized version of the original. British English is spoken in the country of origin for English as a whole, it is much closer to the original than American English and thus I counter your argument. Perhaps what I am trying to get at is your last sentence: the original has changed. Consider that sentence. The original of anything cannot change. It may fall out of common use, or another version may spring up to take its place but the original never changes. The original of everything, whether or not it still exists, is immutable. Not indestructible, but certainly unchangeable.
For your counter to my 'lift'/'elevator' argument, very well. Perhaps there is a contemporary example that would better suit my purposes; if so, then I cannot think of one. I am extremely tired and, indeed, can't be bothered to think of one. Take that as laziness if you will; take it as a sign that I am a coward if you will. I will make one thing clear though: neither of those is the reason.
I do feel that perhaps you have missed my point here, though. I am not claiming that either is more authentic; I am merely saying that, in Britain, it is rare to hear someone say 'elevator' because it is an American word, but it is common to hear the word 'lift' because it is the British way of describing the same object. I merely feel, as British English is the direct descendant of the original, and is not merely a form that evolved in the colonies, that it is the correct form. And might I add that that was not the point I was trying to make, otherwise I would be contradicting my own words. Come to think of it, I can't even remember my point.
I share your view on Basque, by the way. It is an amazing language, if somewhat strange and complex. I was impressed by the fact that you even knew of it, to be honest; very few people do. And congratulations to Yootopia on knowing of it as well. :)



The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)
yes my lord

And might I add that that was not the point I was trying to make, otherwise I would be contradicting my own words. Come to think of it, I can't even remember my point.
ah! languages!!?
do you know the technocrate joke'?

Oh, bugger. I did it once, saw that I did it and COULD HAVE SWORN that I'd corrected it. Apologies for spelling 'language' incorrectly, good chaps. I accidentally said 'lamguage' near the beginning of the post, something which does rather let the side down. I have chosen not to change it because I want the world to see that I am not perfect; merely almost. :)
Don't worry, the Spelling Nazis are quiet today.

I do admit that you have me on one or more points there, but I refuse to give in so easily. Perhaps the easiest way for me to counter that Quebec French comment, apart from doing the rather childish and dishonourable thing that is saying "I fail to see the relevance of this" (a statement which would both be stupid and a lie, for I do indeed see the relevance of it), is to label the 'true' language as the form that is closest to the original that is spoken in the country of origin.
Even though, by your own admission, English has origins in Latin, French and German? And even though, the closest to the original is not necessarily spoken in the origin country?

With your point on the theory that it is a mistake to say that American English is a bastardization of the original, I believe that you have inadvertently supported my view, mainly due to careless wording.
How so?

I may well have missed your point. I often do in such debates; I recall my historical debate with the Lord Sah Gurguvungunit on the NBIP thread. I believe that I missed his intended point on several occasions there.
That just makes you human.:D

However, going by your own words, you have basically said that American English is an offshoot of the original but not of the modern day. The first part of that is what I have basically said; American English is a bastardized version of the original.
As is British English. It is no more or less so. As American English has evolved from the common 'source' British English has too.

British English is spoken in the country of origin for English as a whole, it is much closer to the original than American English and thus I counter your argument.
That's just changing the definition of origional to define British English as original.

Perhaps what I am trying to get at is your last sentence: the original has changed. Consider that sentence. The original of anything cannot change. It may fall out of common use, or another version may spring up to take its place but the original never changes. The original of everything, whether or not it still exists, is immutable. Not indestructible, but certainly unchangeable.
But you have said it yourself: it has been replaced. The original English has been replaced by the British English we speak today in Britain and the American English spoken in the United States.

For your counter to my 'lift'/'elevator' argument, very well. Perhaps there is a contemporary example that would better suit my purposes; if so, then I cannot think of one. I am extremely tired and, indeed, can't be bothered to think of one. Take that as laziness if you will; take it as a sign that I am a coward if you will. I will make one thing clear though: neither of those is the reason.
Of course.

I do feel that perhaps you have missed my point here, though. I am not claiming that either is more authentic; I am merely saying that, in Britain, it is rare to hear someone say 'elevator' because it is an American word, but it is common to hear the word 'lift' because it is the British way of describing the same object. I merely feel, as British English is the direct descendant of the original, and is not merely a form that evolved in the colonies, that it is the correct form. And might I add that that was not the point I was trying to make, otherwise I would be contradicting my own words. Come to think of it, I can't even remember my point.
What difference does ''evolving on the colonies'' make? To us in the UK it is the more correct form. But to someone in the United States Elevator would be the correct form. Neither is more correct or less a direct descendent. The only reason they are different is by chance: in one country the verb 'vo lift' was used and the other 'to elevate'.

I share your view on Basque, by the way. It is an amazing language, if somewhat strange and complex. I was impressed by the fact that you even knew of it, to be honest; very few people do. And congratulations to Yootopia on knowing of it as well. :)
It really was a strange experience. I knew it would be different to the rest of France, but I never expected it to be so different. I was even surprised to find as many Basque speakers as I did. Made shopping far more interesting...

Firefox's spell checker says "Honour" and "Colour" are spelled wrong, thusly they are.:fluffle:

a few posts i agree with:
Nay.

Freedom of speech means freedom to sound intollerably stupid if you wish to.I It is also not the place of parliament to legislate such biggoted language as "Bloody Welshmen".
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

and, i be standin' by meh cap't and the pARRRRty line here, as well as meh own beliefs.


it is clearly stated in the goals of the P&P party that we shall encourage freedom, including, the freedom of language. if one feels like being an idiot and speaking 1337, one has every right to.

PUNKS AND PIRATES party manifesto if you wish to view it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11705853&postcount=36)

also, someone posting in 1337 ; fractured/grammatically-incorrect/punctuationally-challenged english ; and/or a completely different language probably does not care if the sort of person who votes for this proposal can read their post. language is about communication, and communication with the like-minded, at that.

and capital letters are overrated, unless you are angry.

I don't even know quite what the NS Parliament is, but if this passes you can be sure I'll bomb it! Even if only by posting the word, "BOOM!" or, more likely, "BZoOm!" or such.

For some reason I found this unbelivably ammusing.

601n6 70 h4v3 70 60 w17h n4y.

I say, baked beans on toast if you don't mind old boy, there's a good lad.

I would much prefer a Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

*Snipped for clarity and brevity*

Lady Bumboat: While I do not presume to speak for Lady Lord Vacuumhead, I rather believe that American 'English' as at best a dialect, at worst a perversion. If we are to standardise the language, would it not make sense to standardise it with the mother tongue, rather than the dialect that seems to have become popular in recent years?

*Sigh* I had typed a long speech about this but Jolt ate it so I will now do my best but it won't be as good unfortunately.

English has always changed quickly. For most European languages a word of two or three centuries ago would pose little problems for a modern reader but to read 16th or 17th century English requires learning of new grammar rules and vocabulary as well as different spelling. This is a strength of the language. It allows it to adapt to new ideas and cultures and incorporate useful parts of other languages. If you attempt to restrict it you will end up with a dead language. One that will not be as widely spread and may end up going the way of Latin. I would not want that to happen to such a great language.

We should have umlauted letters part of standard English. :)

We should have umlauted letters part of standard English. :)

I agree.

Fünky münkey!

Fünky münkey!

have you been to my old work place? we had a club night called that every tuesday. o_O

we should have cedillas and those things going through 'o's aswell. and hats over letters. and what's that wavy accent that's over the middle 'n' in mañana called. they're the best accents imho.

I dont know what an MP is so I guess Im not one

I dont know what an MP is so I guess Im not one

Minister of Parliament
:)

For some reason I found this unbelivably ammusing.
It's better if you know him. I wouldn't put it past the man, either.

My thanks to Lord Sir Ilaer for holding up the side whilst I slept.

However, the Nationstates General Parliament is not the United States congress, and is not in any way bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
The use of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire was in direct response to the Pirate Manifesto, one which specifically cited free speech. As the both of us note, the United States Supreme Court holds no jurisdiction or weight in the NSG Parliament, nor in Lord Sir Philosophy's government. However, in the absence of legal precedent I substituted a well-known judicial case to make a point, not end the debate. Perhaps I was not clear in this. Perhaps you misunderstood.

also, someone posting in 1337 ; fractured/grammatically-incorrect/punctuationally-challenged english ; and/or a completely different language probably does not care if the sort of person who votes for this proposal can read their post. language is about communication [...]
Just so. Leet speak is difficult to understand, and therefore of little value. All discussions of a non-binding legal system aside, leet is clearly an inferior form of communication to plain text, assuming that one intends to communicate rather than attempt not-particularly-creative ASCII art. If the latter is your goal, all well and good. But as far as setting a standard for communication (as is the purpose of this bill), leet speak need not be protected, because it is not an efficient or vital form of communication.

Ought we set a standard for communications, though? Doesn't it somehow restrict a right or something?

I think not. With a little care and a basic knowledge of grammar and spelling, one is fully capable of adhering to all the tenets of this bill, as well as appearing more intelligent in a text-based communication format. Proper capitalization, punctuation and, to a lesser extent, sentance construction serve to improve both the readability of the post and the appearance of the author. It is a mark of class, of breeding and of taste, all things that the NBIP stand for.

The truth is, this law has no truly binding clauses. There will be no punishment for not adhering to this law because no punishment or system for the establishment of punishment exists, and none ever will be. Therefore, it is a reccomendation, one which serves to make us all appear both more intelligent and more concientious, neither of which are particularly odious things.

Milady Bumboat, while I still feel that British English is a more reasonable standard, those more qualified and more highly placed in the NBIP have spoken. Fear not, we will not force our 'u' upon unwilling spellers.

bloody colonials...

Damn jit! Das yeas aus winningzor!

Ladies, gentlemen and common people. I would like to get the bill below passed in NS parliament. Naturally only the votes of MPs will count, but the commoners of the general public are also allowed to voice their opinions if they so choose. Since the commoners are not known for their skills at reading, let me sum up this bill. The two most important points are:

All Generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those bloody smegheads who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Everything else, such as the wish that Generalites would use the British spellings of words, and the statement that you must use the phrase ''Jolly good show,'' are just requests of the NBIP. Failure to do so will not result in any punishment.


I, Lady Lord Sir Vacuumhead, am to act as the speaker for this debate.
If you have any questions about this bill, then feel free to ask.

Each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
NBIP - Philosopy
Nay, I say, Nay, and if the HRP MPs have yet to vote, I say they should vote Nay as well. I like the idea of enforcing proper English around here, but the various dialects of England aren't the only English dialects, for the bloody world's sake. You don't see me going around saying jolly good show, eh wot, do you? No. And I am hardly going to agree with a proposal that would enforce me to say such things against my will. This restriction of free speech must be opposed!

...crap, I'm late to the party.

I support this Bill in all its points and anyone who doesn't is probably a colonial. Or the young. Can't stand em!!

Jolly good show, pip pip, and off to Mummsy's for tea and cake.

Minister of Parliament
:)

Actually MP stands for Member of Parliment. Any of us calling ourselves Ministers(me for example) are ministers within their own party.


Actually, that gives me an idea.....

Isn't the first point already in effect? :confused: Oh, and doth the second make me 73h n3cr0m4nc3r?[off-topic]Did you get my telegram? You don't have to answer it if you don't want, but I want to make sure you got it.

The point of language is to convey information. 'Leet speak' is a ridiculously complex and annoying way of doing so and, as such, is virtually worthless.I disagree. To say "1 |_0\/3 1337!" Is much simpler than saying "I love 1337! Oh, and I'm a teenager." Therefore, the original statement is simpler, better communication and communicates the typer's words much more efficiently.

:p Nay.

Freedom of speech means freedom to sound intollerably stupid if you wish to.I It is also not the place of parliament to legislate such biggoted language as "Bloody Welshmen".

agreed, on both issues you have mentioned.
freedom of speach very important. if we had to stick to normal grammar spelling, we wouldnt have chaucer or billy shakespere.
also we whats wrong with wales? i according to a film i saw, three welsh men can take on an army on aliens, and thats just cool.:p

[off-topic]
I disagree. To say "1 |_0\/3 1337!" Is much simpler than saying "I love 1337! Oh, and I'm a teenager." Therefore, the original statement is simpler, better communication and communicates the typer's words much more efficiently.

Not to be a pain, but I think it would be "1 10V3 1337! 4ND 1'M 4 733N493R"

Not to be a pain, but I think it would be "1 10V3 1337! 4ND 1'M 4 733N493R"I'm saying that the 'and I'm a teenager' is implied by the "1 10V3 1337!" and therefore conveys the same amount of information as "I love 1337! Oh, and I'm a teenager."

Not to be a pain, but I think it would be "1 10V3 1337! 4ND 1'M 4 733N493R"
Actually... it would be -

1 10\/3 1337!!11! 4|\||) 1'|\/| 4 733|\|493|¬

I think you'll find.

Actually... it would be -

1 10\/3 1337!!11! 4|\||) 1'|\/| 4 733|\|493|¬

I think you'll find.

I see that already the official thread for a Bill to pass a law requiring 'leet speak' to be banned, as well as for people to at least attempt to use correct spelling and grammar of their home nation, has acquired an amazingly large number of posts utilizing the devil's tongue. Will the people responsible please stop this? Absolute defiance of constitued authority will NOT be respected in this thread; whether or not the Bill is passed, may I at least request that 'leet speak' or 'text speak' are both shunned, just for this thread if nothing else? You may use whatever variant of English you wish to; just stop the damned numbers for the purposes of this thread!
And it is quite alright, Lord Sah Gurguvungunit. I will gladly hold the Emparh's views up in plain sight until reinforcements arrive!

And no, Allers, I haven't heard the technocrate joke. Do I have to?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

I see that already the official thread for a Bill to pass a law requiring 'leet speak' to be banned, as well as for people to at least attempt to use correct spelling and grammar of their home nation, has acquired an amazingly large number of posts utilizing the devil's tongue. Will the people responsible please stop this? Absolute defiance of constitued authority will NOT be respected in this thread; whether or not the Bill is passed, may I at least request that 'leet speak' or 'text speak' are both shunned, just for this thread if nothing else? You may use whatever variant of English you wish to; just stop the damned numbers for the purposes of this thread!
And it is quite alright, Lord Sah Gurguvungunit. I will gladly hold the Emparh's views up in plain sight until reinforcements arrive!

And no, Allers, I haven't heard the technocrate joke. Do I have to?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

you listen't and can argue,but you don't know about what anymore.
at this time you realise the technocrate knows more about yourself than he ever can dream of...
Well that is when you realised, language is a communication tool.

you listen't and can argue,but you don't know about what anymore.
at this time you realise the technocrate knows more about yourself than he ever can dream of...
Well that is when you realised, language is a communication tool.

Can anyone make sense of this?

Can anyone make sense of this?

When Allers communicates,
Sense the goal is not.
Just follow the puppy to the car park,
and the chocolate will be Hitlers.

Can anyone make sense of this?
yes,me.

Nay, I say, Nay, and if the HRP MPs have yet to vote, I say they should vote Nay as well. I like the idea of enforcing proper English around here, but the various dialects of England aren't the only English dialects, for the bloody world's sake. You don't see me going around saying jolly good show, eh wot, do you? No. And I am hardly going to agree with a proposal that would enforce me to say such things against my will. This restriction of free speech must be opposed!

...crap, I'm late to the party.

How many times must I say this? *sighs*
The purpose of this bill is not to restrict free speech. We aren't bloody well stopping you from posting that all Scots are (insert unspeakable noun here) or even that the NBIP is a (insert even more unspeakable noun here). We're not even limiting you to British English.
We request that you use British English, but it is not compulsory. We do not mind if you use American English, South African English, New Zealand English, Australian English, Canadian English, Jamaican English or any other type of English; merely make an attempt, however small, to use the correct spelling and grammar of your chosen dialect. And above all do NOT use 'leet speak' or 'text speak'!
So that I do not have to say this again: will all who wish to post on this thread please learn what 'free speech' actually is before complaining that the Bill is attempting to restrict it!

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Can anyone make sense of this?

Allers' atrocious grasp of the English language aside, I can, just about, yes. I have no idea how to translate it into something understandable but yes, I do just about understand.
Jolly good show, Philosophy dear! Marvellous reply! :) But the word of the great tyrant scumbag must have an apostrophe before the 's' in such a context!

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

When Allers communicates,
Sense the goal is not.
Just follow the puppy to the car park,
and the chocolate will be Hitlers.
grrrrrr!!!!!!!!
let me do that part i'll help you,try to look a bit thurder than your leech is.
tell me if the goal of it is to put people out of english,the same way the dutch are doing.
And if it is no, why are we building concentration camp as well as guantanamo ,an other gulags?...because they don't know about us
People must be educated.
apparently you are overeducated,you have reach the "no way back" zone...
Welcome to the club.
you are human

When Allers communicates,
Sense the goal is not.
Just follow the puppy to the car park,
and the chocolate will be Hitlers.

Ah yes,. now I understand. :)

Thank you good sah.

grrrrrr!!!!!!!!
let me do that part i'll help you,try to look a bit thurder than your leech is.
tell me if the goal of it is to put people out of english,the same way the dutch are doing.
And if it is no, why are we building concentration camp as well as guantanamo ,an other gulags?...because they don't know about us
People must be educated.
apparently you are overeducated,you have reach the "no way back" zone...
Welcome to the club.
you are human

Wrong; we are British. We are higher than human and, as such, you will grovel when you speak to us.
It is the Americans who built the Guantanamo Bay detainment centre and, if we had a less pro-American government than the one whcih we currently do, then perhaps we would have spoken out against it and would not bear the shame that goes along with silence.
A gulag is technically a Russian military prison, especially during the Communist era. Though it has entered general usage as a word for any military prison it is not technically correct in such contexts.
Over-educated? Perhaps. We are intelligent.
And I fail to see what you are talking about when you speak of the lord Sah Philosophy's 'leech'. What, indeed, do you mean?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

How many times must I say this? *sighs*
The purpose of this bill is not to restrict free speech. But it does nonetheless.

We aren't bloody well stopping you from posting that all Scots are (insert unspeakable noun here) or even that the NBIP is a (insert even more unspeakable noun here). We're not even limiting you to British English.
We request that you use British English, but it is not compulsory. We do not mind if you use American English, South African English, New Zealand English, Australian English, Canadian English, Jamaican English or any other type of English; merely make an attempt, however small, to use the correct spelling and grammar of your chosen dialect. And above all do NOT use 'leet speak' or 'text speak'!So then the purpose of shunning/mocking those who use leet speak isn't to get them to stop using it?

Wrong; we are British. We are higher than human and, as such, you will grovel when you speak to us.
It is the Americans who built the Guantanamo Bay detainment centre and, if we had a less pro-American government than the one whcih we currently do, then perhaps we would have spoken out against it and would not bear the shame that goes along with silence.
A gulag is technically a Russian military prison, especially during the Communist era. Though it has entered general usage as a word for any military prison it is not technically correct in such contexts.
Over-educated? Perhaps. We are intelligent.
And I fail to see what you are talking about when you speak of the lord Sah Philosophy's 'leech'. What, indeed, do you mean?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Sorry i always thought The uk was 51st state and europa the52nd...

that is leeching

But it does nonetheless.

Welcome to NS General, where you only have free speech if all the mods are offline.

Welcome to NS General, where you only have free speech if all the mods are offline.So why propose a bill to restrict speech further?

So why propose a bill to restrict speech further?

Sahs, I suggest we amend the Bill to send Jello Biafra a dictionary, so he can look up the words "must make an effort", wot! He seems to be under the bizarre impression that this somehow means "compulsory!"

Damn foreigners!

But it does nonetheless.

So then the purpose of shunning/mocking those who use leet speak isn't to get them to stop using it?

I fail to see how it restricts free speech. Would you care to elaborate?

I never said such a thing. The purpose of shunning those who use 'leet speak' is indeed to prevent them using it; there are other, better ways of communicating.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

I fail to see how it restricts free speech. Would you care to elaborate?

I never said such a thing. The purpose of shunning those who use 'leet speak' is indeed to prevent them using it; there are other, better ways of communicating.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)
i agree.
nous commencons oú/quand?
waar ga wij beginen?
Total gut?

I fail to see how it restricts free speech. Would you care to elaborate?Because this:

I never said such a thing. The purpose of shunning those who use 'leet speak' is indeed to prevent them using it;Contradicts this:

The purpose of this bill is not to restrict free speech.

In other words, attempting to get people to stop using certain types of speech is to get them to limit their speech to a point that you find acceptable. You can see how limits on speech go against the concept of free speech, right?

Sorry i always thought The uk was 51st state and europa the52nd...

that is leeching

I still fail to understand. Leeching is the process of the USA claiming that the UK is the 51st state and Europe the 52nd?

I would agree, Sah Philosophy. Indeed, give a free dictionary to the entire forum (perhaps Wiktionary would do) so that they understand what the various, apprently comples terms the NBIP is using actually mean. All I know is that I understand perfectly.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

I still fail to understand. Leeching is the process of the USA claiming that the UK is the 51st state and Europe the 52nd?

I would agree, Sah Philosophy. Indeed, give a free dictionary to the entire forum (perhaps Wiktionary would do) so that they understand what the various, apprently comples terms the NBIP is using actually mean. All I know is that I understand perfectly.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

me too.
you want people to speak perfect english,and you want to understand it too.
Am i wrong?

Because this:

Contradicts this:



In other words, attempting to get people to stop using certain types of speech is to get them to limit their speech to a point that you find acceptable. You can see how limits on speech go against the concept of free speech, right?

Oh aye? I do believe that I now understand.
The only flaw in your debate is your assumption that disallowing a difficult-to-understand language in favour of a clearer, more common one is restricting free speech. I SUGGEST THAT YOU LEARN THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.
Free speech applies to the communication of ideas or points of view. It does not apply to the language used to do so.
The Bill is not preventing you from communicating your views on anything. It is not preventing you from saying that 'leet speak' is good or that the NBIP is 'a bunch of tyrants' or that 'the British Empire was ****' or anything. No ideas are disallowed by Parliament. Perhaps some are disallowed by Jolt's rules such as the discussion of paedophilia; this is done in the interest of all concerned. 'Trolling' and 'flaming' are prohibited by Jolt.
This Bill we are attempting to pass is merely attempting to make it easier to understand one another. When will you understand this?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Oh aye? I do believe that I now understand.
The only flaw in your debate is your assumption that disallowing a difficult-to-understand language in favour of a clearer, more common one is restricting free speech. Because it is restricting free speech.

I SUGGEST THAT YOU LEARN THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.I suggest you heed your own advice.

Free speech applies to the communication of ideas or points of view. It does not apply to the language used to do so.And since 1337 can, in some cases, be better used to communicate than other languages, it would make sense to use it in those cases.

Oh aye? I do believe that I now understand.
The only flaw in your debate is your assumption that disallowing a difficult-to-understand language in favour of a clearer, more common one is restricting free speech. I SUGGEST THAT YOU LEARN THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.
Free speech applies to the communication of ideas or points of view. It does not apply to the language used to do so.
The Bill is not preventing you from communicating your views on anything. It is not preventing you from saying that 'leet speak' is good or that the NBIP is 'a bunch of tyrants' or that 'the British Empire was ****' or anything. No ideas are disallowed by Parliament. Perhaps some are disallowed by Jolt's rules such as the discussion of paedophilia; this is done in the interest of all concerned. 'Trolling' and 'flaming' are prohibited by Jolt.
This Bill we are attempting to pass is merely attempting to make it easier to understand one another. When will you understand this?

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)
Why do you need to spread english...

me too.
you want people to speak perfect english,and you want to understand it too.
Am i wrong?

'Perfect' English does not exist; indeed, a perfect example of anything whatsoever does not exist. We are not requesting that people be perfect, which is virtually impossible. We merely request that 'leet speak' and 'text speak' be banned and that people do their best to improve their writing.
Doing so brings benefits for everyone involved: other people will understand easier and the writer will appear more intelligent.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

'Perfect' English does not exist; indeed, a perfect example of anything whatsoever does not exist. We are not requesting that people be perfect, which is virtually impossible. We merely request that 'leet speak' and 'text speak' be banned and that people do their best to improve their writing.
Doing so brings benefits for everyone involved: other people will understand easier and the writer will appear more intelligent.]

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)
Apearing
is like illusion to me.
Explain

Because it is restricting free speech.

I suggest you heed your own advice.

And since 1337 can, in some cases, be better used to communicate than other languages, it would make sense to use it in those cases.

PERHAPS if you would actually EXPLAIN your point of view then I might agree with you! However, thus far, all you have done is muddle the issue further!
I do heed my own advice; I already KNOW the meaning of free speech, as you would understand if you knew the concept.
'Leet speak' can be used to better communicate some ideas? How, precisely? Give me an example.
And rather than merely claiming that it is restricting free speech 'because it is restricting free speech', actually give me a reason!

Allers, it is not our intention to spread English. It IS our intention to make it easier to understand one another.


A Person Who Is Very Annoyed
The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Apearing
is like illusion to me.
Explain

leet is favoured by 12 year old "AOLers". Thus, not using leet makes one appear not to be a 12 year old "AOLer".

PERHAPS if you would actually EXPLAIN your point of view then I might agree with you! However, thus far, all you have done is muddle the issue further!
I do heed my own advice; I already KNOW the meaning of free speech, as you would understand if you knew the concept.
'Leet speak' can be used to better communicate some ideas? How, precisely? Give me an example.
And rather than merely claiming that it is restricting free speech 'because it is restricting free speech', actually give me a reason!

Allers, it is not our intention to spread English. It IS our intention to make it easier to understand one another.


A Person Who Is Very Annoyed
The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)
ok what must i do?

If I am correct, then all but one of the currently named MPs have voted, and therefore the Bill has passed!

Pip pip, huzzah!

leet is favoured by 12 year old "AOLers". Thus, not using leet makes one appear not to be a 12 year old "AOLer".
cool you put me in the corner then?

Apearing
is like illusion to me.
Explain

Please make yourself clear. What must I explain?
Please explain to me the concept of leeching also.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

ok what must i do?
Only your best.
If I am correct, then all but one of the currently named MPs have voted, and therefore the Bill has passed!

Pip pip, huzzah!

Indeed it appears so. I think the Lady Vacuumhead, as speaker for this bill, should have the honour of announcing this in the parliament thread.

fora.

YEEES! Someone used the correct latin plural of "forum"! I'd give you four thumbs up if I were a monkey... anyway, two thumbs up!:D

imagine,j'introduis quelquechose,../;.
Je declare,....
je parle francais,en de rest fuck off

no comprendes?
i mean,you don't have proper english?
man why did you went to india?.
Silly,i understand you.

Only your best.


Indeed it appears so. I think the Lady Vacuumhead, as speaker for this bill, should have the honour of announcing this in the parliament thread.

If the Bill has truly been passed then might we cease this debate, Jello Biafra? I enjoy arguing as much as the next person but it grows tiring after a while.
Jolly good show, chaps, by the way. The Bill is truly worthy of such a pass.

A Slightly Less Annoyed Person

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

I love that kind of racist bill.

We do agree for any such stupid acts.
Vote for it, empale the aliens and do good for a stupid language spoken by more aliens than mother-tong speakers.

Jesuites prefer Aramean in the text, bit we feel English sometimes useful with foreigners.

I love that kind of racist bill.

We do agree for any such stupid acts.
Vote for it, empale the aliens and do good for a stupid language spoken by more aliens than mother-tong speakers.

Jesuites prefer Aramean in the text, bit we feel English sometimes useful with foreigners.

A racist Bill.....
I shall not even bother to argue. It appears to have been passed and it's a Bill that I approve of, indeed, unintentionally instigated. It is a Bill to improve communication. I am happy.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, OBE, MBE, Lord Chancellor and Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Indeed it appears so. I think the Lady Vacuumhead, as speaker for this bill, should have the honour of announcing this in the parliament thread.

I shall do so, old chap. Although I have been slightly neglectful of this thread so I am not sure that I truly deserve the honour. I have been too busy in RL lately to do more than pop into NS for a quick cuppa with my fellow NBIP members. I must say, my thanks go to Lord Ilaer the Minister for Spreading Proper English. He has done an excellent job, wot!

As to this bill getting passed, I am very pleased. Huzzah!

A racist Bill.....
It is a Bill to improve communication. I am happy.


well hi!!
how are you?

Eight MPs have not voted yet, so we should wait a while longer to see how this goes. The thread will close soon anyway, I gave it a week.

It has come to my attention that several people are guilty of impersonating MPs. Off with their heads, I say!

Danoda, Fair Progress, Necrowizards, Polymnia

AND

Monkeypimp, Random Country Name, Siph

will all be spanked for impersonating MP's. And not in a good way! :mad:

...I said too much, didn't I? Oh well.

The current tally, as of right now, is:

Yay: 8
Nay: 7
for a total of 15 votes by registered (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772720&postcount=1) MP's

Eight MPs have not voted yet, so we should wait a while longer to see how this goes. The thread will close soon anyway, I gave it a week.

It has come to my attention that several people are guilty of impersonating MPs. Off with their heads, I say!
who decide how long ,it will survive?

who decide how long ,it will survive?

The procedural rules state that it shall last for seven days. I am trying to follow these rules as closely as I can, but they confuse me.

:confused:

YEEES! Someone used the correct latin plural of "forum"! I'd give you four thumbs up if I were a monkey... anyway, two thumbs up!:D
No problem at all! :)

PERHAPS if you would actually EXPLAIN your point of view then I might agree with you! However, thus far, all you have done is muddle the issue further!
I do heed my own advice; I already KNOW the meaning of free speech, as you would understand if you knew the concept.
'Leet speak' can be used to better communicate some ideas? How, precisely? Give me an example.
And rather than merely claiming that it is restricting free speech 'because it is restricting free speech', actually give me a reason!This quote is an example of how 1337 might aid in communication:

I disagree. To say "1 |_0\/3 1337!" Is much simpler than saying "I love 1337! Oh, and I'm a teenager." Therefore, the original statement is simpler, better communication and communicates the typer's words much more efficiently.With further explanation here:

I'm saying that the 'and I'm a teenager' is implied by the "1 10V3 1337!" and therefore conveys the same amount of information as "I love 1337! Oh, and I'm a teenager."
In other words, if somebody wished to communicate both their love of 1337 and the fact that they're a teenager, then the simple act of using 1337 would do so, as 1337 implies the user is a teenager.


Furthermore, the bill sets a dangerous precedent. If we are to ban language to make it easier to understand each other, what's next? The banning of big words?
I'm sorry, but regardless of its intent I can't see this as anything other than the initial step of Newspeak. (From 1984)

Furthermore, the bill sets a dangerous precedent. If we are to ban language to make it easier to understand each other, what's next? The banning of big words?
I'm sorry, but regardless of its intent I can't see this as anything other than the initial step of Newspeak. (From 1984)
Quite the opposite!

It's reversing Newspeak!

Quite the opposite!

It's reversing Newspeak!Well, it is true that 1337 is new speak, it certainly isn't Newspeak.

Lets all have a nice cup of tea and some scones....

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0028-0408-1517-3337_SM.jpg

Dude, I'm an American, and proud to be one. I won't speak like a British person because somebody told me to (unless it's a play).

[cockney accent]
Ye know wot oi mean, eh wot, mate?
[/cockney accent]

Dude, I'm an American, and proud to be one. I won't speak like a British person because somebody told me to (unless it's a play).

[cockney accent]
Ye know wot oi mean, eh wot, mate?
[/cockney accent]

But you aren't an MP, and you shouldn't be voting as one.

- - - - - - - - - -

The current MP vote stands as 8 to 8

Because of the way Parliament worked out, that means that there are 7 MPs who have not voted.

Sorry, wasn't looking.

Just count one Nay-MP vote as a Nay - Not MP.

I am 100% for this. I can foresee no greater joy in life for meself than to be actively shunned and ignored and not responded to by the Engerlish due to a law composed by them. Oh the fun I shall have. Jolly good show

As a sixteen year old, and one who fastidiously attempts to use correct English, I find that your assertion that all who use leet speak are teenagers, and that all teenagers use leet speak both somewhat poorly thought out and somewhat patronizing. Further, I rather suspect that a few adults use leet speak from time to time; over-18s do not have a monopoly on intellectual capital or the ability to express themselves. To suggest that they do is robbing an entire age group (and a rather large one on NSG) of its voice far more than this bill is, sah.

If I recall correctly, Ilaer is not much older than myself. He has thus far demonstrated a superior knowledge of grammar and spelling than anyone in this thread. If you insist upon placing an entire age group in a specific category, please make said category fit said age group.

I acknowledge, some people use leet speak, and some of them are likely teenagers. Some are pre-teens, and some are most likely older. It is not the age of the person, but the patience and dilligence that determines whether or not he uses text-speak.

I, too would like to see some reasoning behind your opinion, Jello.

Allers;

Ehm, why did we go to India? Do you mean, why establish the British Raj?

Well, sah. It began in the sixteenth century as Dutch, French and English traders set up businesses in various port cities such as Madras, Goa and others. Subsequent wars with the Dutch and the French led to the capture of their Indian stations over a period of over a century, and the gradual expansion of British influence via trade posts and direct control.

I should note that the British rarely attacked a native nation without provocation. The series of wars that founded the Raj and established Subcontinent-wide control were begun by the Tippoo Sultan of Mysore, and continued to be prosecuted after his death by several Indian princes, most of which were attempting to capture territory not their own. True, Britain retained control of the areas that it took, but it did so in the absence of a native government capable of ruling large areas (having dismantled governments hostile to the crown after having been attacked by same, a perfectly legitimate activity).

Under the Raj, the Indian Subcontinent experienced massive growth. Under the Mughal princes, only 4-5% of the land was irrigated for farming. After the Raj, fully a quarter of the subcontinent was arable land. Average after-tax income rose by 43%, and India experienced a massive growth in trade and infrastructure (rail, seaports, eventual airports) as a direct result of the Raj. The Indian higher-education system was established by the British for Colonial and Indian children alike, and Indians were present in the Covenanted Civil Service, which wielded enormous power.

One frequently hears the claim that Britain 'drained India's wealth' for its own purposes. However, only 1% of India's GDP went to British coffers, low even for taxation purposes. The vast majority was re-circulated into the Indian local enconomy, both in the form of infrastructure development or in the form of trade. So why did we go to India? To trade and explore. I submit that we succeeded, with alacrity.

Snip.

So in essence you are saying that the crown did India a favour of inestimable worth with the Raj and that Indians are not thankful enough for this favour?

There may be differing views upon what exactly constitutes a favour.

Ah, no.

I, sah, am attempting to explain both the why and the how of British India to Allers, who expressed interest in the subject. I read a somewhat satirical tone to his question, and decided to give a differing opinion.

I do not claim that the Raj was an ideal form of government. There was plenty of nepotism, incompetence and brutality involved, but no moreso than any government (home or colonial) of the day. The fact that it is currently fashionable to deride all empires as 'tyrranical' does not make it so, something that we as human beings need to understand because we are in the (RL) age of another empire, that being the United States, and Americans should own up to it. Obviously, it does not do to go around calling yourself an empire, it bothers people. But you need to accept that an empire the United States is, and that it needs to behave in a manner that will advance all humanity rather than result in a series of blunders.

I make it 9 against counting only those who are really MPs.
I'm counting myself as UVR (our party head) says I'm legal. :D

No matter how you legislate English. People will speak, read, and write it in their own ways regardless of what is considered "proper."

Ehm, why did we go to India? Do you mean, why establish the British Raj?

Well, sah. It began in the sixteenth century as Dutch, French and English traders set up businesses in various port cities such as Madras, Goa and others. Subsequent wars with the Dutch and the French led to the capture of their Indian stations over a period of over a century, and the gradual expansion of British influence via trade posts and direct control.

I should note that the British rarely attacked a native nation without provocation. The series of wars that founded the Raj and established Subcontinent-wide control were begun by the Tippoo Sultan of Mysore, and continued to be prosecuted after his death by several Indian princes, most of which were attempting to capture territory not their own. True, Britain retained control of the areas that it took, but it did so in the absence of a native government capable of ruling large areas (having dismantled governments hostile to the crown after having been attacked by same, a perfectly legitimate activity).

Under the Raj, the Indian Subcontinent experienced massive growth. Under the Mughal princes, only 4-5% of the land was irrigated for farming. After the Raj, fully a quarter of the subcontinent was arable land. Average after-tax income rose by 43%, and India experienced a massive growth in trade and infrastructure (rail, seaports, eventual airports) as a direct result of the Raj. The Indian higher-education system was established by the British for Colonial and Indian children alike, and Indians were present in the Covenanted Civil Service, which wielded enormous power.

One frequently hears the claim that Britain 'drained India's wealth' for its own purposes. However, only 1% of India's GDP went to British coffers, low even for taxation purposes. The vast majority was re-circulated into the Indian local enconomy, both in the form of infrastructure development or in the form of trade. So why did we go to India? To trade and explore. I submit that we succeeded, with alacrity.

You went to India to enslave it's people. Don't attempt to sidestep the truth in the name of false "big brother" logic. The Imperial age mixed racism with faux-charity to enslave people worldwise.

People in India were forced to raise crops that they would not otherwise have to sell by British slavers. British police would arrest and imprison (often violently) those who dared to critiscise their tyrannical reign.

You taxed without representation, you denied people self determination, and you helped to create the modern instability in the Middle East and other areas.

You, sir, are reinterpretting history. Falsely.

Either way, this doesn't belong in this thread.

You went to India to enslave it's people.

No we didn't, we went to steal all its cash! Enslaving them just kinda happened.

Anyway, they didn't have a proper flag. No flag, no country.

Someone mentioned about having to use British spelling for words like "Colour" and "Armour". I feel that would be appropriate. For those of you who disagree, I would like to point out that you are speaking (Writing) English, invented by the (Gasp) English. AKA the British, Hence I feel that you should use their spelling, especially as the only country that uses the alternative spelling is USA.



Lady Bumboat: While I do not presume to speak for Lady Lord Vacuumhead, I rather believe that American 'English' as at best a dialect, at worst a perversion. If we are to standardise the language, would it not make sense to standardise it with the mother tongue, rather than the dialect that seems to have become popular in recent years?


British English is the 'mother tongue', as you put it, although you spelt 'tongue' rather hideously incorrectly. It is, however, true that the lamguage has evolved somewhat over the years. English is a very complex and dynamic (and in some cases thieving) language; it was born from French, German, various other Nordic tongues, Latin and even a small amount of Spanish; it has borrowed thousands of words from other, more foreign languages (including the nickname for Britain, 'Blighty' (from the Hindustani 'bilayati' meaning, I do believe, 'foreign' in that tongue)) and many other languages, dialects and isolated pockets around the world.
'Elevator' is American English. 'Lift' is British English. Though 'elevator' is a recognised word in the English language, it is known to be American and thus 'lift' is more often used. The British English language has even resorted to borrowing words from its own offshoots, but that doesn't affect the fact that it is still a separate, unique and the original dialect of the English language.

You silly Brits. You're not thinking logically, and, furthermore, you don't seem to know much about linguistics. ;) :p

Both American English and British English are derived from Elizabethan English. Neither sound exactly like Elizabethan English. Neither is "older," "better," or "more original" than the other. However, if you actually do your research, you'll find that overall, modern American English is slightly closer to the English spoken in the 1600s than modern British English is. If resemblance to the language as it was at the point of divergence is the standard you're setting for "correctness," then American English would, in fact, be slightly more correct.

Of course, I think that's a stupid standard for correctness. Neither dialect (or, rather, subset of dialects) is superior. Language evolves, and that's a good thing. :)

<snipped in the name of her majesty>

I demand satisfaction!

Obviously, not here. But perhaps here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504733)?

Danoda, Fair Progress, Necrowizards, Polymnia

AND

Monkeypimp, Random Country Name, Siph

will all be spanked for impersonating MP's. And not in a good way! :mad:

...I said too much, didn't I? Oh well.

The current tally, as of right now, is:

Yay: 8
Nay: 7
for a total of 15 votes by registered (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772720&postcount=1) MP's


It was my 'I don't care about the system' vote.

As a sixteen year old, and one who fastidiously attempts to use correct English, I find that your assertion that all who use leet speak are teenagers, and that all teenagers use leet speak both somewhat poorly thought out and somewhat patronizing. Further, I rather suspect that a few adults use leet speak from time to time; over-18s do not have a monopoly on intellectual capital or the ability to express themselves. To suggest that they do is robbing an entire age group (and a rather large one on NSG) of its voice far more than this bill is, sah.Fortunately, I suggested neither that everyone who uses leet is a teenager, nor that teenagers are incapable of expressing themselves.

If I recall correctly, Ilaer is not much older than myself. He has thus far demonstrated a superior knowledge of grammar and spelling than anyone in this thread. If you insist upon placing an entire age group in a specific category, please make said category fit said age group.I think you misinterpreted the category...or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

I acknowledge, some people use leet speak, and some of them are likely teenagers. Some are pre-teens, and some are most likely older. It is not the age of the person, but the patience and dilligence that determines whether or not he uses text-speak.I am aware of this. However, to the reader of the leet speak, the assumption will be that the person using the leet speak is a teenager, regardless of whether or not said person actually is. Therefore, if somebody was a teenager, the quickest way to communicate this is by using leet.
It might be true that some people might not make this assumption, but those people are in the minority.

Fortunately, I suggested neither that everyone who uses leet is a teenager, nor that teenagers are incapable of expressing themselves.
Yeah, you did. Here.

In other words, if somebody wished to communicate both their love of 1337 and the fact that they're a teenager, then the simple act of using 1337 would do so, [...]
Perhaps you didn't claim that teenagers are, as a demographic, unable to express themselves. What you claimed was that those who use leet speak are teenagers, because the use of leet speak implies that they are. Why does it imply that they are teenagers? Why does it not, in fact, imply that they are pears? Or Frenchmen?


I think you misinterpreted the category...or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.
I don't think that I did, thanks.

I am aware of this. However, to the reader of the leet speak, the assumption will be that the person using the leet speak is a teenager, regardless of whether or not said person actually is. Therefore, if somebody was a teenager, the quickest way to communicate this is by using leet.
It might be true that some people might not make this assumption, but those people are in the minority.
I don't think that the type of teenager that you refer to (the lazy, non-linguistically skilled type) would think about the quickest way to communicate anything, just the quickest way to type off something and hit 'submit'. Leet speak communicates that the user knows how to maneuver his way around the keyboard whilst pressing the shift button, not that he is a teenager. If the reader decides that he is going to make an assumption about demographics based on a string of text, that's his own funeral.

I, for one, don't assume that the user of leet is a teenager. I assume that he is an idiot.

Here is a guide to Leet Speak:

0-o
1- l,i,j
2-z
3-e
4-a,f
5-s
7-t
8-b
9-g

Other than that, use "uber" "teh" and "pwn(sor)" a lot.

Sample passage of Leet Speak:

20M9! 73H 1337 5P33K 15 73H P00N50R! N00N3 5H0U1D U53 3N9115H 4NYM0R3! 7H053 WH0 54Y 7H47 13373R 5P33K 5H0U1D 83 84NN3D 5H0U1D 83 84NN3D!



That is one version. There are many different versions, some utilising |<, +, etc.

I make it 9 against counting only those who are really MPs.
I'm counting myself as UVR (our party head) says I'm legal. :D
Current tally

Yay: 8 (Fleckenstein, Gravlen, Ifreann, Philosopy, The Beautiful Darkness, The Friesland colony, Vacuumhead, WC Imperial Court)
Nay: 8 (Anarchuslavia, Bumboat, Daistallia 2104, Jello Biafra, Kinda Sensible people, Neo Undelia, New Burmesia, Posi)

Lacking the votes of: Ultraviolent Radiation, Harlesburg, Demonic Gophers, Praetonia, Maineiacs, Londim and Wanderjar.

The bill will not be implemented unless there is a majority vote in favour.


It was my 'I don't care about the system' vote.

*Spanks*

Current tally

Yay: 8 (Fleckenstein, Gravlen, Ifreann, Philosopy, The Beautiful Darkness, The Friesland colony, Vacuumhead, WC Imperial Court)
Nay: 8 (Anarchuslavia, Bumboat, Daistallia 2104, Jello Biafra, Kinda Sensible people, Neo Undelia, New Burmesia, Posi)

Lacking the votes of: Ultraviolent Radiation, Harlesburg, Demonic Gophers, Praetonia, Maineiacs, Londim and Wanderjar.

The bill will not be implemented unless there is a majority vote in favour.




*Spanks*

I'll TG UVR to vote. Want me to ask the rest while I'm at it?

I'll TG UVR to vote. Want me to ask the rest while I'm at it?

Feel free to do so :)

Yeah, you did. Here.

Perhaps you didn't claim that teenagers are, as a demographic, unable to express themselves. What you claimed was that those who use leet speak are teenagers, because the use of leet speak implies that they are. I did say that the use of leet speak implies that the person using it is a teenager, but this doesn't mean that the person is actually a teenager. It would be a false implication; a misintepretation on the part of the reader.
Nonetheless, it would (typically) occur, as most of the people using it are. Most =!= all.

Why does it imply that they are teenagers? Why does it not, in fact, imply that they are pears? Or Frenchmen?Because it's rare that the person using leet speak isn't a teenager.

I don't think that the type of teenager that you refer to (the lazy, non-linguistically skilled type) would think about the quickest way to communicate anything, just the quickest way to type off something and hit 'submit'. Leet speak communicates that the user knows how to maneuver his way around the keyboard whilst pressing the shift button, not that he is a teenager. Leet speak is actually more difficult to type than standard text, so it's unlikely that the user would be typing it because it's the quickest way to type something.

If the reader decides that he is going to make an assumption about demographics based on a string of text, that's his own funeral.Certainly, and the reader could be wrong...but it's highly unlikely.

I, for one, don't assume that the user of leet is a teenager. I assume that he is an idiot.You're the first person that I've talked to to not assume that the user is a teenager. I'm skeptical that this is because I surround myself with such people. (People who make this assumption.)

And shouldn't it say "one" in the poll, as all number under 100 need to be spelled out;)
You silly fool, you should have said numbers.:D

It was my 'I don't care about the system' vote.
*Liiiiiiiicks*
---------------------------------------------------------------
I must confer with Posi and Demonic Gophers before i can make some sort of informed decision.

I did say that the use of leet speak implies that the person using it is a teenager, but this doesn't mean that the person is actually a teenager. It would be a false implication; a misintepretation on the part of the reader.
Nonetheless, it would (typically) occur, as most of the people using it are.
Is that, in fact, true?
Leet speak is actually more difficult to type than standard text, so it's unlikely that the user would be typing it because it's the quickest way to type something.
|\|0+ +|-|4+ |\/|V(c)|-| |-|4(r)|>3|-
Excuse me, chaps. But I was making a point. That took me about... fifty seconds to type, I think. I consider myself moderately skilled with a keyboard.

You're the first person that I've talked to to not assume that the user is a teenager. I'm skeptical that this is because I surround myself with such people. (People who make this assumption.)
I suppose that we've talked to different people. While I admit that I generally think of such people as less sophisticated, I don't make an assumption about age from that... does this make me bizzare? Or does it make 'most people' biased?

Is that, in fact, true?I believe that it is, and will try to substantiate it, if you wish.

|\|0+ +|-|4+ |\/|V(c)|-| |-|4(r)|>3|-
Excuse me, chaps. But I was making a point. That took me about... fifty seconds to type, I think. I consider myself moderately skilled with a keyboard. Exactly, if you'd been typing it properly it would've taken less time, showing that leet takes longer to type.

I suppose that we've talked to different people. While I admit that I generally think of such people as less sophisticated, I don't make an assumption about age from that... does this make me bizzare? Or does it make 'most people' biased?I don't know. I don't think that they are teenagers because leet makes them come off as less sophisticated; I just think it's more of a trendy thing for teenagers to do, as opposed to older or younger people.

American English may be more like Ye Olde English than Current English, but that isn't what it is about.
It is about Britishness.
Except it ain't.

None of this matters as soon you will all conform to the true tongue!

Blind
Unicorns
May
Prosper

freedom of speech is freedom of WHAT you say.
not HOW.
there's no such thing as a "freedom of grammar".

yeah, you may make some mistakes. But if they are not intentional. If you willingly use stupid teen-words or shortenings, you should not be able to grow up.

VOTE MOBRA (http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/2800/brain/subjugation.wav)
:rotfl:

freedom of speech is freedom of WHAT you say.
not HOW.There's no way to completely separate the two.

freedom of speech is freedom of WHAT you say.
not HOW.
there's no such thing as a "freedom of grammar".

yeah, you may make some mistakes. But if they are not intentional. If you willingly use stupid teen-words or shortenings, you should not be able to grow up.

Good show! This is PRECISELY the point that I have been trying to make when I told so many people to learn the concept of 'free speech'!
*diplomatically avoids pointing out grammatical errors in Nani Goblin's post*


And to Jello Biafra:

You said:
In other words, if somebody wished to communicate both their love of 1337 and the fact that they're a teenager, then the simple act of using 1337 would do so, as 1337 implies the user is a teenager.

Scenario time:
1. I am a thirty-five year old computer geek. I post something in so-called 'leet speak'. I have implied that I am a teenager, by your own words. I am not.
2. I am a twenty-seven year old with a desire to be 'trendy'. I post something in 'leet speak'. Once again I have implied that I am a teenager, going by your words. I am not.
3. I am a nine year old. I post something in 'leet speak'. ONCE AGAIN, going by your own words, I have implied that I am a teenager. Guess what? ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT.

I did say that the use of leet speak implies that the person using it is a teenager, but this doesn't mean that the person is actually a teenager. It would be a false implication; a misintepretation on the part of the reader.

So you are now admitting that you are wrong, at least on this particular aspect. A misinterpretation on the part of the reader? Then perhaps the writer should not type in 'leet speak'. Perhaps it is a misinterpretation on the reader's part merely because the writer misinterpreted the required mode of communication here. Has that occured to you?

Nonetheless, it would (typically) occur, as most of the people using it are. Most =!= all.

Arguing that it would typically occur is not helping your position. You say things at one moment and then contradict them the next. You have said that 'leet speak' implies that the writer is a teenager. You then proceeded to admit that this is only true in most cases. Perhaps English would not leave room for such mistakes, especially as it is used by all ages and cannot thus be stereotyped?

Because it's rare that the person using leet speak isn't a teenager.

Rare but not impossible.

Leet speak is actually more difficult to type than standard text, so it's unlikely that the user would be typing it because it's the quickest way to type something.

Your point being? In any case, to those who are most likely to use it, those who are used to it, 'leet speak' is probably easier to type, thus rendering your argument that they're unlikely to use it based on speed quite irrelevant.


Johnny B Goode: We are not insisting that you speak British English, and especially not in a stereotypically British manner. We request that you speak and form of English (including American English), not 'leet speak', and we furthermore would be pleased if you used British English which is nothing at all like the stereotype
[cockney accent]
Ye know wot oi mean, eh wot, mate?
[/cockney accent]
that you mentioned. Indeed, if you go to London, then you will realise that very few people actually speak like that, apart from the accent. And if you will judge on the accent alone then I will judge the Irish by their accents, or the Americans by theirs (including you).

Not bad: You will not be shunned and ignored unless you use 'leet speak'. Indeed, knowing the bloody-mindedness of most of the forum, you will probably be applauded for daring to stand againt 'those tyrant British' even if you DO use 'leet speak'. *sighs*

:rotfl:

Vote MOBRA!

Vote MOBRA!

And postpone the coming if the nuclear winter...

And postpone the coming if the nuclear winter...
;)
Or hasten it.

Scenario time:
1. I am a thirty-five year old computer geek. I post something in so-called 'leet speak'. I have implied that I am a teenager, by your own words. I am not.
2. I am a twenty-seven year old with a desire to be 'trendy'. I post something in 'leet speak'. Once again I have implied that I am a teenager, going by your words. I am not.
3. I am a nine year old. I post something in 'leet speak'. ONCE AGAIN, going by your own words, I have implied that I am a teenager. Guess what? ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT.Certainly. These scenarios are also quite unlikely.

So you are now admitting that you are wrong, at least on this particular aspect. No, I'm not, since at no point did I say that all users of leet speak were teenagers.

A misinterpretation on the part of the reader? Then perhaps the writer should not type in 'leet speak'. Perhaps, perhaps not. It would certainly depend upon the situation.

Perhaps it is a misinterpretation on the reader's part merely because the writer misinterpreted the required mode of communication here. Has that occured to you?Where is 'here'? NationStates doesn't have a required mode of communication.

Arguing that it would typically occur is not helping your position. You say things at one moment and then contradict them the next. You have said that 'leet speak' implies that the writer is a teenager. You then proceeded to admit that this is only true in most cases. No. Do you know what the word 'implies' means?

From dictionary.com: "To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval."

In other words, the implication of the typer being a teenager will be there, as it is indirectly indicate by the usage of leet speak. However, the typer of leet will not always be a teenager, but this doesn't change that the implication is that the typer is a teenager.

Perhaps English would not leave room for such mistakes, especially as it is used by all ages and cannot thus be stereotyped?Of course it can. If I see the word "bollocks", I assume that the writer is British. This is a stereotype.

Rare but not impossible.It doesn't need to be impossible.

Your point being? In any case, to those who are most likely to use it, those who are used to it, 'leet speak' is probably easier to type, thus rendering your argument that they're unlikely to use it based on speed quite irrelevant.Probably easier for them that it was for you, but I doubt that it would be easier overall as it involves more keystrokes.