======================================================================
                               CFJ 910

"Les règles permettent la soumission des Demands de Jugement aux
 autres langues qu'Anglais; en plus, le Juge de cette DdJ ne peut pas
 la rejeter seulement à cause de sa langue de soumission."

======================================================================

Judge:        favor
Justices:     Michael (C), favor (J), Steve (S)

1st Judgment: DISMISSAL
Appeal jdgmt: Dismissal OVERTURNED
Judgement:    VRAI


Eligible:     (Andre),(Antimatter), Blob, (Chuck), Crito, elJefe,
              favor, General Chaos, Harlequin, (KoJen), (Macross),
              Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, (Swann),
              Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:       Vanyel
Barred:       -
Disqualified: Swann, Antimatter, Andre, KoJen, Chuck
On hold:      -

======================================================================

History:
  Called by Vanyel, Sat, 15 Mar 1997 04:25:53 -0600
  Assigned to Swann, Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:38:26 +0000
  Swann defaults
  Re-assigned to Antimatter, Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:18:25 +0100
  Dismissed, Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:32:17 -0800
  Published, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:39:27 +0100
  Appealed by Michael, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:02:50 +0100
  Appealed by Oerjan, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:13:48 +0200 (MET DST)
  Appealed by General Chaos, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:05:23 -0500
  Appealed by Morendil, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:03:22 +0200
  Appeals process begun, Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:06:26 +0100
  Steve OVERTURNS dismissal, Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:45:30 +1000 (EST)
  favor OVERTURNS dismissal, Fri, 18 Apr 97 09:45:14 EDT -0400
  Michael OVERTURNS dismissal, Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:02:44 +0100
  Appeal published, Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:09:33 +0100
  Assigned to Andre, Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:09:33 +0100
  Andre defaults.
  Assigned to KoJen, Tue, 6 May 1997 11:53:47 +0100
  KoJen defaults.
  Assigned to Chuck, Mon, 19 May 1997 09:35:28 +0100
  Chuck becomes ineligible, Sat, 24 May 1997 16:46:36 -0500 (CDT)
  Assigned to favor, Thu, 29 May 1997 10:47:51 +0100
  Judged VRAI, Thu, 29 May 97 10:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
  Published, Thu, 29 May 1997 16:34:11 +0100

======================================================================

Judgement: VRAI

Reasons and arguments:

The Rules seem to be silent on the issue of what language Agoran
communication must be in, with the exception of Rule 754, which says
very broadly that, as long as there is no ambiguity, differences of
spelling, grammar, dialect, and synonym-substitution are
inconsequential.  The consensus of the Justices was that synonymy may
cross language boundaries, and this seems to me to imply that there is
no requirement in the Rules that business be conducted in any
particular language.  I think that a particular Judge *could*
conceivably dismiss a CFJ in a language that e did not speak, not
because of the language it was in, but rather because it was
incomprehensible to em (a CFJ in English could be dismissed for the
same reason, on the grounds that Rule 754's words about a lack of
ambiguity, and Rule 1563's requirements on the Statement, were not
satisfied relative to that Judge).  But even in that case it would not
be *solely* the language of submission that was causing the rejection
(since at least in principle some other CFJ in the same language might
contain enough cognates for the Judge to be confident enough to Judge
it).

So I find that, while each Judge must weigh the comprehensibility of
any CFJ put before em, there is nothing in the Rules of Agora that
requires CFJs to be in any particular language, and that language of
submission alone is not justification for rejecting a CFJ.  In that
spirit, I Judge this Statement VRAI.

======================================================================

Dismissal appeal proceedings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker's judgement: OVERTURN

Reasons and arguments:

I hereby overturn Judge Antimatter's decision to dismiss the CFJ.  It
seems clear to me at least that 'DdJ' is an acronym in French of the
phrase 'Demand de Jugement', which is synonymous (in the sense of
having the same meaning as) 'Call for Judgement'. Rule 754 seems to me
to apply in this case. The Statement, although in French, is
nevertheless clearly about what kinds of Calls for Judgement may
legally be made and this is a question which Agoran Courts may
legimitately address.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justiciar's judgement: OVERTURN

Reasons and arguments:

I find the dismissal unjustified, although I am not entirely
unsympathetic to the Judge's reasoning.  In particular, it is not
entirely clear whether the notion of synonymy that appears in Rule 754
can be applied across languages.  If "Demand de Jugement" is a synonym
for "Call for Judgement", then Rule 754 applies, and the CFJ in
question is about CFJ's, and therefore quite relevant to the Rules,
and may not be dismissed for irrelevance.  On the other hand, if two
phrases can be synonyms only if they are in the same language, then
Rule 754 would not apply.

I have consulted those references that are to hand, and I can find no
indication that synonyms must be in the same language.  While examples
of synonyms are usually both in the same language, a few examples
turned up on the Web that might be considered cross-language: for
instance, various pages give the common names of plants and "Synonym:"
followed by the Latin name.  That evidence, and the general spirit of
R754, suggest that when two words clearly have the same meaning, the
fact that they are in different languages does not prevent them from
being synonyms, so Rule 754 applies, and this CFJ should not be
dismissed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

CotC's judgement: OVERTURN

Reasons and arguments:

that

"... substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation
[is] inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as
there is no ambiguity in meaning."

Webster's Online says that a "synonym" is

"One of two or more words (commonly words of the same language) which
are equivalents of each other; one of two or more words which have
very nearly the same signification, and therefore may often be used
interchangeably."

Clearly then the phrase "Demand de Jugement" (and the associated
abbreviation "DdJ") are synonyms for "Call for Judgement", and the
question of the CFJ is of relevance to the game.  Therefore the
Judge's dismissal is not justified.

======================================================================

Original Judgement: to dismiss the CFJ

Reasons and arguments:

I am dismissing Vanyel's CFJ for the reason that whether or not a DdJ
can be made in a language other than English is irrelevant to the
rules.

======================================================================

(Caller's) Arguments:

Les règles ne disent jamais d'une langue obligatoire.  Heureusement,
je ne sais rien de langue très étrange... :)

======================================================================