I have frequently wondered this myself

[andrewducker]

(via theferrett)

Comments

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

Why don't the British have a constitution?

[andrewducker]

Why would we?

[natural20.livejournal.com]

They're really, really handy on occasion. A pain in the ass on other occasions, of course, but I'm quite fond of ours.

[andrewducker]

A constitution seems to me to be a seta of meta-laws - laws about laws.

We have those - they're just called "laws" though, rather than all being in one place and bound together as a single document.

[natural20.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there is that. And the UK has a body of law, but the point of a constitution, as I see it, is that it's more difficult to change, it requires the people to agree, with their voice. They're fundamental rights and responsibilities that the parliament can't change without us saying so. So yeah, they're meta, but I like them.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

The downside of not having a constitution is that until around 1996 (when we signed up to the European decleration of human rights) all folks in Britain had was "negative rights". IE you could do anything that wasn't illegal until it became illegal.

I'd be all for having a constitution but it would have take a lot to draft one without ambiguities to take advantage of. Although the law as it stands has enough of these to perhaps suggest this isn't a pertinent objection.

[natural20.livejournal.com]

Definitely ( :) ). The English language is evolving. We need to keep up.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Fine, but there is no neutral position on accepting this evolution or not. OED needs to be abolished and have an entry for D20, or other notation...

[natural20.livejournal.com]

The OED is still wonderful, but it's just a reference. No book, no website, can capture a living language and there is no language more alive or evolving more than English, in my limited experience. I don't think we get to have a position on accepting evolution, I think we run with it, or we speak a language that is a version of the modern English tongue. It's a version that will be valid for a very long time, but it's just a version.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

I suspect it may be valid, but not for a long time: there are / will be various versions of English but with a shorter lifespan than before (e.g. Shakespeare is taught in schools whereas rap is not).

Or, can I speak / write in regexes?

[natural20.livejournal.com]

I think, although I may be wrong, that we're agreeing, largely, here. And while the Bard's English is still taught, I'm not sure it's valid or really understood any more.

And if you can be understood, you can speak in regexes if you want. :)

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Rip-off! XKCD some 70 strips ago

:)

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

The bird's (?) comment in the final panel -- the one not in allcaps -- is hysterical.

Also, I have pondered this many a time and have yet to find a truly satisfactory solution. My less-than-satisfactory default is (blah blah :) ), but I have been known to go (blah blah (-:).

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

I just say (blah blah;)