<a href="http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Intersem:_470_years_of_experimentation">http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Intersem:_470_years_of_experimentation</a><br>I have copied an IUCG document some may find of interest as it puts IDNA in the middle of some perspective.<br>
Best.<br>Marie-France Berny<br><font size="4"><br></font><h1></h1><h1><font size="4"><b>French: 470 years of experience for the Intersem</b></font></h1><font size="2">It was 470 years ago today that King <b>Francois the First</b> signed the ordnance of Villers-Cotterets. This ordnance removed the French judiciary system from any Church jurisdiction and ended the use of Latin in legal public decisions. This was the birth of the French modern language, through its assignment as <b>the language of French law</b> in a lingually diversified Kingdom. <br>
<br></font>
<h2><font size="2"><b>The difference </b></font></h2><font size="2">This is the basic difference between French and every other language. In every language there is a common referent in the background that is never stated, but is constantly present. In French, as a legal language, this referent comes with an impressive "built-in" metalanguage in some kind of intelligent (as in inter-legere, inter-linked) overlay that is shaped by the influence of the <b>Law</b>, methodically structuring the <b>grammar</b> as well as rules, usages, social agreements, common thinking, knowledge, culture and cultural values that every other human community usually builds from a rough consensus. <br>
<a name="A_progressive_exploration"></a><br></font>
<h2><font size="2"><b>A progressive exploration </b></font></h2><font size="2">Various authors (Du Bellay, Descartes, and Pascal actually tested whether it was possible to use the language of the Law for poetry, science, philosophy, etc.). This also clearly explains the raison d'etre of the <b>French Academy</b>, which is not actually to protect the language, but rather to protect the citizens by protecting the clarity of the law as described by a language, which must be kept equal, logical, and reasonably exciting for everyone, from generation to generation. This is the job of academicians who, for that reason, have been dubbed as "Immortals" (719 to this date), because the Law has to be immortal, as the rules of Justice are carved in the stone, and in this way are also carved in the national language. Revolution gave to the Law the care of the language of the Law, but Napoleon returned it to the expertise of the academicians and made them stabilize and document it. This was more efficient, but less democratic: <b>the first SSDO</b> [specialised standard documentation organisation]. <br>
<br></font>
<h2><font size="2"><b>Intrinsic equality </b></font></h2><font size="2">This protection of the people by the defense of the languages of the Law of the people is the very basis of a "<b>people centric</b>" society, such as the one found in the <b>unanimous declaration</b> at the World Summit on the Information Society, which described the want for the Internet to support such. This is the motivation for the france@large team that is participating in the IETF linguistic WGs; <b>an equal for all linguistic support of equal languages</b>. <br>
<a name="Technical_contribution"></a><br></font>
<h2><font size="2"><b>Technical contribution </b></font></h2><font size="2">Technically, the interest in this experiment results from the fact that <b>it worked</b>. This meant that one can introduce an active referent system as a part of the more passive grammatical system. If one considers that the common referent of a relational space makes the semantics of its language, and that its various contexts make its pragmatics diversity, this would mean that Francois the First was able to port a large and key pragmatic referent into the language semantic references (grammar, syntax, and vocabulary). <br>
<br>
We know his way rather well: the new references were well structured (Legal system). We do not know if other approaches would have worked, since that respective case was unique. However, we also know that this trains French speakers in their "metaductive" form of thinking, by first understanding how the world is and then "boringly" striving to make it "French" i.e. equal, logical, and reasonably exciting for everyone. <br>
<br>
One could, in some way (which Kant implied), oppose this with the Descartes' Method 4th rule: limited human methodical considerations come second after a global vision (this is precisely what we are trying to address via research [such as "Complex" or "Intelligent" thinking and "epistemology" (in the French school meaning)] towards a <b>networked consideration of reality</b>). <br>
<br><a name="An_inspiration_for_innovation"></a></font>
<h2><font size="2"><b>An inspiration for innovation </b></font></h2><font size="2">This introduction of the legal language in the language itself, with all its logical implications and constraints, is very similar to the problem that we are facing, which is to make natural languages and <b>mecalanguages</b> [natural language support by machines] (the first issue being IDNA) converge. Metaductive thinking is what registries and metadata networks permit (JTC1/WG2/SC32, ISO 11179): it is the most probable support of mecalanguages. <br>
<br>
However, it took French a few centuries; we do not have that kind of time - but we do have French as an experimental basis for the job at hand: the <b>Intersem</b>, the multilingual and semantic Internet. </font><br>