[proposal] Constitutional change: Insertion of comma (,) act 2013

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
NOTING: the preamble of the Constitution currently reads thusly:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance, we the nations of The North Pacific establish this constitution.

Which is grammatically incorrect.

FURTHER NOTING: The presence of an unneeded comma after the word "Governance", and the absence of a needed comma following the words "we" and Pacific (second instance).

LAMENTING the grammatical error that has, for too long, been allowed to mar our revered document.

FURTHER FURTHER NOTING that a comma is defined in the Oxford dictionary thus:

noun

1a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence or separating items in a list.


2 Music a minute interval or difference of pitch.


3 (also comma butterfly) a widespread butterfly that has orange and brown wings with ragged edges, and a white comma-shaped mark on the underside of the hindwing. •Polygonia c-album, subfamily Nymphalinae, family Nymphalidae



Origin:

late 16th century (originally as a term in rhetoric denoting a group of words shorter than a colon; see colon1): via Latin from Greek komma 'piece cut off, short clause', from koptein 'cut'



Grammar

This punctuation mark has the following uses:

to separate the items in a list:...tens of thousands of them: Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs.

to place a section of a sentence in parenthesis (as brackets do):Bill the dog, happy as ever to be out and about, was sniffing everything in sight.

to mark the divisions between the clauses in a complex sentence: These weed killers may, if used on new lawns, damage young seedling grasses before they are well established.

to separate sections of a sentence to make it easier to read: To make a hot compress, pour hot water into a bowl and then add the essential oil.

to introduce and/or end a piece of direct speech: ‘No, sir,’ said Stephen, ‘and that is what is so curious.’ You do not need to use a comma between nouns that are in apposition: my wife Dorothy Alison and her friend Beth were attracted to the same man at a party. Commas should be used to surround a noun that is in parenthesis: Pete, his son, cleaned the garden aviary. Use a comma when writing a number that is made up of four or more figures:23,500 1,500 miles but not in dates:1 May 2004 the 1970s
Click to expand...

GEEKILY NOTING: that a comma is represented in standard western English by Unicode U+002C, and mandating this use in the Constitution

THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTH PACIFIC RESOLVES to revise the preamble of the Constitution to read:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance we, the nations of The North Pacific, establish this constitution.
Click to expand...
 
While I would agree as to the importance of the insertion of two commae there, I would strenuously disagree with the removal of the original. It falls under both "complex sentence" and "section division" in your Further Further Noting section, and is entirely appropriate.
 
GBM's filibuster, I bless thee in the name of the God Flemingovia. May your loins be filled with sticky seed and may the fruit thereof grow and multiply in the land that I will give you.
 
SillyString:
While I would agree as to the importance of the insertion of two commae there, I would strenuously disagree with the removal of the original. It falls under both "complex sentence" and "section division" in your Further Further Noting section, and is entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...
I am willing to accept Silly String's amendment and retain the original comma. You can never have too many commas.
 
Commas are important:

8f3e3c616d91a831ec66aed0a5288dd7_L.jpg
 
flemingovia:
GBM's filibuster, I bless thee in the name of the God Flemingovia. May your loins be filled with sticky seed and may the fruit thereof grow and multiply in the land that I will give you.
Click to expand...
The seed is strong.
 
This has had plenty of time in our chambers and it pains me, yes my friends, it pains me to see our glorious constitution which we follow lovingly even though it often makes us look like twats, I say it PAINS me to see it sullied by poor grammar.

Do we not care? Have we no heart?

Will someone second this motion so that we can lustily thrust a comma right up the preamble of our wet and waiting constitution?

It is the least we can do.

Please second this. Or, if someone else wishes to join in, we can make this a threesome.
 
OK, first off, you can't mandate what unicode character must be used in the constitution, because you can't control the content of future amendments - that's outside the scope of the RA's power.

Also, I will not bring this to a vote unless I am forced to.
 
Um, I think the only change made by the bill is this:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance we, the nations of The North Pacific, establish this constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where there is an issue with this being outside the bounds of the RA's authority, especially given that we passed a minor error bill for the Legal Code some months back.
 
punk d:
I'm not sure where there is an issue with this being outside the bounds of the RA's authority, especially given that we passed a minor error bill for the Legal Code some months back.
Click to expand...
Which was then found unconstitutional :P

But that was on different grounds, to be fair.
 
flemingovia:
GEEKILY NOTING: that a comma is represented in standard western English by Unicode U+002C, and mandating this use in the Constitution
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. That's the part that's outside the scope of the RA's power.
 
is there another Unicode character for a comma that could be used in future amendments? :unsure:

However, in order to spare the Speaker's blood pressure I will happily remove the Unicode mandate from the proposal.

Would others care to Fifth, sixth etc, in order to remove this blemish from our otherwise beautiful constitution?
 
Sanctaria:
punk d:
I'm not sure where there is an issue with this being outside the bounds of the RA's authority, especially given that we passed a minor error bill for the Legal Code some months back.
Click to expand...
Which was then found unconstitutional :P

But that was on different grounds, to be fair.
Click to expand...
It was? It's still in the legal code version that the 'laws' link goes to:

If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days.
Click to expand...


CoE - even though Flem made all that bluster and melodrama - the only thing that is changing is the part I quote. I had assumed the rest would not be included in any vote.
 
punk d:
Sanctaria:
punk d:
I'm not sure where there is an issue with this being outside the bounds of the RA's authority, especially given that we passed a minor error bill for the Legal Code some months back.
Click to expand...
Which was then found unconstitutional :P

But that was on different grounds, to be fair.
Click to expand...
It was? It's still in the legal code version that the 'laws' link goes to:

If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes it was.

Dunno why it hasn't been removed.
 
It wasn't removed because the court neither defined what the minor clause was, nor actually told me to remove it. But that is irrelevant to this bill.
 
Sounds to me more like this:

tumblr_ma1jo37MIN1rc3hgqo1_250.gif


Folks, please support this motion if only to inform the Speaker that he serves this chamber, and does not dictate to it.
 
I do serve this chamber, and the watchwords of my office are to turn the will of the RA into reality. But when I see a legislative proposal that proposes to add only one character to the legal code, I don't feel that one person should be allowed to take up the rest of the RA's time with that, and that if they feel strongly about it, they could propose it as a rider to a more significant piece of legislation, to conserve time.

That's why I require a small demonstration that the rest of the RA feels this ought to be voted upon. 10% isn't much.
 
I'm sorry, but Flem is half-right and half-wrong about the commas.

While the Oxford Dictionary may be the arbiter of British grammar and punctuation, other English-speaking nations differ with the British and often with each other and internally.

The way I see it, the comma following "governance" marks the end of an introductory phrase in the sentence, and is a correct use of the comma. The missing commas belong after "we" and "Pacific," and set off the phrase "the nations of The North Pacific" which defines the "we" in that sentence.

I would support an Constitutional amendment that solely added the commas to set off the phrase "the nations of The North Pacific" and does nothing else.

(You see all my years of editing legal writing, amounting to decades now, do have a value.)
 
*Bump* Come on, folks, just one or two more supporters and this glorious chance to improve our constitution is ours.
 
Didn't we have something that let the guys running the show make minor grammar/spelling/punctuation corrections? If so, why did we get rid of it? This proposal illustrates the folly of that decision, doesn't it?

I am in support of it.
 
Seeing a motion by 1/10 of the RA to hold a vote on this bill, a vote will be opened promptly. Stand by.

Correction: the bill is still illegal, as the unicode mandate is still in the bill.
 
As amended:

NOTING: the preamble of the Constitution currently reads thusly:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance, we the nations of The North Pacific establish this constitution.

Which is grammatically incorrect.

FURTHER NOTING: The presence of an unneeded comma after the word "Governance", and the absence of a needed comma following the words "we" and Pacific (second instance).

LAMENTING the grammatical error that has, for too long, been allowed to mar our revered document.

FURTHER FURTHER NOTING that a comma is defined in the Oxford dictionary thus:

noun

1a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence or separating items in a list.


2 Music a minute interval or difference of pitch.


3 (also comma butterfly) a widespread butterfly that has orange and brown wings with ragged edges, and a white comma-shaped mark on the underside of the hindwing. •Polygonia c-album, subfamily Nymphalinae, family Nymphalidae



Origin:

late 16th century (originally as a term in rhetoric denoting a group of words shorter than a colon; see colon1): via Latin from Greek komma 'piece cut off, short clause', from koptein 'cut'



Grammar

This punctuation mark has the following uses:

to separate the items in a list:...tens of thousands of them: Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs.

to place a section of a sentence in parenthesis (as brackets do):Bill the dog, happy as ever to be out and about, was sniffing everything in sight.

to mark the divisions between the clauses in a complex sentence: These weed killers may, if used on new lawns, damage young seedling grasses before they are well established.

to separate sections of a sentence to make it easier to read: To make a hot compress, pour hot water into a bowl and then add the essential oil.

to introduce and/or end a piece of direct speech: ‘No, sir,’ said Stephen, ‘and that is what is so curious.’ You do not need to use a comma between nouns that are in apposition: my wife Dorothy Alison and her friend Beth were attracted to the same man at a party. Commas should be used to surround a noun that is in parenthesis: Pete, his son, cleaned the garden aviary. Use a comma when writing a number that is made up of four or more figures:23,500 1,500 miles but not in dates:1 May 2004 the 1970s
Click to expand...

GEEKILY NOTING: that a comma is represented in standard western English by Unicode U+002C, and recommending this use in the constitution.

THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTH PACIFIC RESOLVES to revise the preamble of the Constitution to read:

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance we, the nations of The North Pacific, establish this constitution.
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with the sponsor view that the comma after goverance is unnecessary, indeed, it is very necessary in order to permit the sentence to be properly understood. For the want of a comma in its proper place, worlds will fall.
 
I would also like to add "do ordain and" between the words "Pacific" and "establish". Also, "democratic" has different meanings. For example, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea the word means something quite different from the established definition in the Western democracies. Perhaps we should keep our busy TNP law clerks working overtime to properly define the word democratic. I propose a commission to study this, which would then report its findings to the RA. There should be no established timetable for the commission to report its findings, however, since the work it does will be of paramount importance.
 
Rather than voting against a perfectly good bill because you feel it is one comma short of perfection, why not introduce your own comma insertion bill to the house? our constitution is not far short of perfection - a few more bills, no more than ten or twelve, and we will have a document of such literary beauty that it would cause Alfred Lord Tennyson to turn away from a russet-hued sunset to weep at its eloquence.

We owe it to our forefathers. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this Region a new government, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. But not women, of course.

Now we are engaged in a great endeavour to correct the grammar, testing whether that constitution, or any constitution so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure without sufficient commas. the voting floor of the RA is the great battlefield of that war. We have come to vote on a portion of that field, as a consummation of the editing process begun by those who here gave their lives that that Region might live.

It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this Constitution. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we vote here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this Region, under the God Flemingovia, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that a Constitution with the commas, by the commas, for the commas, shall not perish from the earth.

Thank you. Please Support the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top