In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.
Let's proceed to refute the second part of his "rebuttal," providing a brief yet precise rebuttal that will further expose his ignorance in the Hebrew language, and his knowledge of the Bible as well.
He writes:

The prophecy so closely matches those events that even scecular scholars agree which is the primary reason secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events. Their idea is the book is actually recording history but pretending to present prophecy.

But it doesn’t. Not even close. The chapter is about a prophet/messenger of God who brought a Holy Covenant. His successors fell into dispute over who was the rightful heir to his kingdom. The rightful successors were supposed to be his descendants (his followers), but that turned out not to be the case according to what verse 4 states. This is strikingly similar to how Islamic history played out.
He writes:

I'm not sure where Exion found this translation.

I found it here: biblehub - Pulpit's commentary. Literally a direct copy and paste. Not sure how he missed it.
Regarding the "The prophecy describes a sequence of events" thing he pointed out, I had already revised each verse from part 1 in part 2, and it now makes perfect sense. He should read part 2.
He writes:

A few things here. The verb is עמדים. The same verb is used in verse 3 and again in verse 4. Both cases it's referring to a king rising to power rather than rising against someone/somthing else. That context suggests the same meaning for the kings in verse 2. We also see verse 2 describing a king being against a nation when it says "he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece." This is a different verb and preposition.

Yes, I agree. 'Umar was the first king to rise in Persia when he fought the Persians and won. 'Uthman and 'Ali were the second and third kings, and Mu'awiyah was the fourth, the wealthy king. I'm not sure what he thinks he is refuting here because I literally wrote:
"This 'rising' could either be in support of Persia or in opposition to it. Remarkably, this aligns perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam, and here's why:..."
In other words, both interpretations align perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam. I believe he misunderstood that part; regardless, let's move on.

The Hebrew word is גִּבּוֹר which means strong/mighty not righteous

You also missed the part where I said that this would be made clear later in the chapter, specifically here:
Daniel 11:30:

• "...and he will be crushed, and he will return and be wroth with the holy covenant, and he will succeed, and he will return and contemplate those who abandoned the holy covenant."

The Holy Covenant was brought by the mighty king, of course. However, he completely missed this point and is portraying the Bible as if it prophesies random historical secular events and secular kings, like a history book, rather than a Holy Book foretelling the era of a prophet and a king, much like King David. He claims that secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events and believe the book is recording history while pretending to present prophecy. What a silly assertion. Don’t you think people would generally reject such false "prophecy" and declare them deviant liars, especially if they depicted events that had recently happened and everyone knew about? Both you and these secular scholars need to rethink your position because it is very unlikely (almost impossible to be true) and rather ridiculous, if I'm being very frank.
The chapter is about a prophet who brought a Holy Covenant from God, which is why it is literally called "Holy."
Definition of "Holy":

holy / ˈhəʊli / adjective
1.dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred."the Holy Bible" Similar: sacred, consecrated, hallowed, sanctified, venerated, revered. (Source: Google)

The Bible is considered to be the Words of God (or inspired Words of God), and these Words literally call this Covenant "Holy." Meanwhile, you are deviating from this description by portraying an erroneous picture of a bunch of atheist ancient kings fighting each other over various kingdoms.
He writes:

The specific word is וּכְעָמְדוֹ. The וּ is the conjunctive. It's not a vav relative in this case since the verb tense isn't the perfect or imperfect The כְ is a Hebrew proposition added to the verb. The verb is עָמְד and the וֹ is a possesive suffix. The verb form is the infinitive construct. When that verb form is combined with the preposition כְ it indicates a temporal clause which is where the "as soon as" comes from. The possesive suffix indicates the subject of the verb which is where the "he" comes from. Combined with the verb we get as soon as he has risen. Exion's translation ignores the preposition and possesive suffix on the verb.

I will respond to each claim by giving it a short name and my rebuttal next to it:
Regarding: Conjunctive וּ: It is agreed that the וּ functions as a conjunctive "and" or "but," connecting phrases. This conjunction alone does not necessarily indicate a temporal clause.
Not a Vav Relative: Correct, this is not a vav relative case.
Preposition כְ: The preposition כְ does mean "like" or "as." While it can form a temporal clause in combination with an infinitive construct, this temporal interpretation must be contextually supported rather than assumed.
Verb עָמַד and Possessive Suffix וֹ: Correct, the verb עָמַד means "to stand" or "to arise," and the suffix וֹ indicates possession, translating to "his."
Infinitive Construct: Agreed, the form is an infinitive construct.
Temporal Clause Interpretation: While כְ combined with an infinitive construct can imply a temporal clause, translating it as "as soon as" is an interpretative choice. A more literal translation is "when he stood" or "as he stood," and any temporal implication would be derived from what you believe is the context.
Possessive Suffix: Agreed, the suffix וֹ indicates "he" or "his."
Your interpretation that it is saying "as soon as he has risen" adds a temporal nuance that is contextually based rather than explicitly stated in the preposition and verb form. My translation aims for a more direct rendering of "when he stood" or "as he stood," which also respects the grammatical structure without adding interpretative elements not present in the original text.
Let's move on.
He writes:

It can also refer to the 4 generals after Alexander the Great. He came after the Persian kings, conqured all of Greece, had a mighty dominion, shortly after he conqured Greece he died, and his kingdom was divided among his 4 generals none of which were his decendents.

No, it can't, because this is about a Holy Covenant. I genuinely hope you can understand this because I know you tend to repeat the same misunderstandings and rarely admit when you are wrong. However, this is explicitly clear:
The phrase is: "על־ברית־קודש"
Breakdown:

• Word: על־ (ʿal)
  
• Preposition
  
• Meaning: "upon," "on," "over," "concerning"
  
• Word: ברית־ (b'rith)
  
• Noun - feminine singular construct
  
• Meaning: "covenant," "treaty," "alliance"
  
• Word: קודש (qodesh)
  
• Noun - masculine singular
  
• Meaning: "holiness," "sanctity," "sacredness"
  

Literal Translation:

• "Upon the covenant of holiness"

Neither Alexander the Great nor anyone else you mention (or anyone related to Alexander) anything to do with a Holy Covenant. This is beyond ridiculous, and I couldn't believe your scholars were claiming this. I thought it was so absurd that it didn't even need refutation. Yet here I am, refuting you because you actually hold this view.
He writes:

That fits better than Exion's interpretation for a few reasons. First this king came after the 4 mentioned in verse 2. If those in verse 2 are the Caliphs this king can't be Mohammed who was before the Caliphs.

What makes you think that the mighty king came after the 4 kings? The 3rd verse only said:

"And a mighty king will arise and will rule a great dominion and do according to his will."

Are you claiming that this must be in chronological order just because the four kings were mentioned before the mighty king? If so, this is the first time I've heard such a claim. Please provide your proof for this supposed Biblical rule; I'd like to read it :). You won't provide any because none exist. But claiming that it does gives you something to "expose," so I understand your motive. However, in the real world, you're just making statements that aren't true.
The 4th verse says:
"...but not to his posterity, and not like the dominion that he ruled, for his kingdom will be uprooted and to others besides those."
The posterity refers to the Rashidun Caliphs, while "to others besides those" refers to Mu'awiyah and those who followed him. Do you know what "posterity" even means? Posterity literally means future followers or descendants. Lol. The mighty king is the one with the followers, which is why he is the one who brought the Holy Covenant from God, not the four other kings. Had you known what posterity means, you would never have written this in the first place, but we will look past this mistake. Now you know a new word and won't repeat this mistake again. Let's move on.
Regarding "The king of the south is prophet Muhammad" I had revisited this verse in part 2.
He writes:

This is false. The source Exion links doesn't give any English meaning. The BDB does give the English meaning. For the former it means sprout/branch, the latter means root.

Noun נֵצֶר (nétser) m (plural indefinite נְצָרִים, singular construct נֵצֶר־, plural construct נִצְרֵי־) [pattern: קֵטֶל]

1. stem, shoot
2. (literary, collectively) scion(s)

References:

• H5342 in Strong, James (1979)
• “נצר” in the Hebrew Terms Database of the Academy of Hebrew Language

The other word (i.e. שרש):

Root: שֹֽׁרֶשׁ (m.n.)

1. root.

2. source, origin.

1. bottom, lowest part.
   
2. root, stem (Heb. grammar).
   

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary
I don't know if you know this, but stem and branch are synonymous words, they essentially mean the same thing. And lowest part, bottom could also mean stem. Dictionaries define both words similarly:

Word: שֹׁרֶשׁ, שׁוֹרֶשׁ (m.) (b. h.; apocope of שרשר
, v. שָׁרָר) [chain, knot,] root. — Pl. שֳׁרָשִׁים, שֳׁרָשִׁין; constr. שָׁרְשֵׁי, שׁוֹרְשֵׁי. B. Bath. V, 4 העולה … ומן הש׳ וכ׳ that which shoots forth out of the trunk, or out of the roots, belongs to the landowner (v. גֶּזַע), expl. ib. 82ᵃ כל שאינו … זהו מן הש׳ that which does not see the light of day (when it shoots forth) is out of the roots’. Y. Ab. Zar. III, 43ᵃ top; Y. Taan. I, 64ᵇ ש׳ חטה the roots of wheat; ש׳ תאנה of fig-trees. Tosef. Shebi. VII, 17; ‘Uktsin I, 4, v. קוֹלָס. Ab. III, 17 וְשֳׁרָשָׁיו מרובין whose roots are many; a. fr.

Source: מקור: Jastrow Dictionary
Either way, let's pretend you're right (even though you're not) it still doesn't matter because a branch out of her roots did sprout, which came to be a sect called Khawarij. This was explained in part two. The ones that assassinated 'Ali were initially Shiites that later turned against 'Ali and assassinated him. It's interesting how Pulpit commentary writes:

"The version of the LXX. is very different here also, "And a plant shall arise out of his root against himself,"

He writes:

Edit: I just noticed another problem with Exion’s interpretation. They take Ali as both the commander mentioned in verse 5 who is one of commanders of the king of the south, and also as the king of the north mentioned in verse 6. That can’t be since the commander isn’t also the king of the north.

Revised in part 2 already.
He writes:

They show rather than trying to first establish the historical facts and show it lines up with the prophecy they are willing to misrepresent the historical facts to fit their interpretation of the prophecy and as their interpretation of the prophecy changes their claims about the historical facts change to match their new interpretation.

This is just your faulty conclusion and presumption. I speculated that they might have lied about 'Aishah being his wife. However, I'm not satisfied with speculations, so I revised the entire post of part 1, and it turned out to be even more accurate.
This marks the end of his part 2 post.
Thanks for reading, /Your bro, Exion

Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.

On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.

This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection

A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

Suprabhat, Vannakam, Adab and Welcome to the 2024 LOK SABHA GENERAL ELECTION THUNDERDOME.
NO RULES, NO LIMITS, ONLY CHAOS.
THE CAGE -
India is a parliamentary democracy that follows the first-past-the-post voting system, similar to the standard Westminster System. The Lower House of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) consists of 543 seats representing 543 constituencies that send 1 Member of Parliament (MP) each. These 543 MP's then choose a prime minister via simple majority.
For each constituency, a political party gives a ticket to a single Candidate. The Candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a constituency represents that Constituency in parliament as a member of the party.
There are no party level primaries in India, the candidate for a constituency is decided by the party high command and only one person from a party can be on the ticket for a particular seat. You can contest multiple constituencies though from the same party as both Narendra Modi (2014 BJP Candidate for both Varanasi and Vadodara) and Rahul Gandhi (2024 Congress Candidate for both Rae Bareili and Wayanad) have done. If no existing political party gives you a ticket, you can contest as an Independent Candidate or form your own party and contest as a member of your own party.
The government can be formed by the party or the alliance that has a simple majority of MP's. When no single political party has a majority of MP's, an alliance of various parties can be formed that contains the majority of MP's. This is called a post-poll alliance, where the parties contest elections separately but might come together after the elections in order to form the government or be part of the government. However there is also the pre-poll alliance where political parties join or form an alliance before the elections.
THE DATES -
THE RESULTS -
EXIT POLLS -
THE FIGHTS -
Economy & Employment:
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government makes the positive case of economic growth and development under its decade long tenure. It points to strong rejuvenated GDP growth with relatively low inflation, rising wages, a growing middle class, stable macroeconomic positioning, strong spending, slashing of multidimensional poverty, a strong and well administered welfare state, expanded free trade, sharp reduction in regulation, increase in select manufacturing and industry, a revitalized finance sector, and a thriving service market.
The government points to the large-scale infrastructure development undertaken, expanding roadways, delivering expansive electrification, and provisions of basic utility services. They point to the stagnation and policy paralysis observed under the tenure of the last Congress government (UPA 2), and further make point to the opposition's alleged proposed populist economic programs as untenable and unfeasible. They make the case that the opposition has leftist economic policies that are not grounded in economic reality.
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, makes the negative case against the incumbents, pointing to large scale youth unemployment, even among educated youth. They point to an alleged inability of the government to tie growth to employment. They allege a failure of manufacturing capacity and sufficient industrialization of the economy, highlighting the lack of sufficient private capital inflows. They criticize the growth figures of the economy by casting doubt on the government's statistics, and focusing extensively on growing wealth inequality, alleging that growth only occurs for the rich billionaire class, with minimal relief for the poor, targeting specific attacks against domestic industrial magnates, Adani and Ambani. They allege favoritism on the part of the incumbent government towards their select base, highlighting the state of Gujarat as being prioritized over other states.
In making their positive case, they propose a more inclusive and redistributive model of growth, proposing heightened subsidization programmes, more welfare and support programmes, higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations, leveraging private capital inflows for infrastructure development, and prioritizing equitable growth through a caste census, developing corrective policies for inequalities between castes.
They aim to solve the employment crisis through expanding roles in state enterprises and filling government vacancies, alongside expanding labour intensive industries like manufacturing and mining, whilst pointing to high growth rates of the economy as well as committing to expand manufacturing through reforms and subsidy platforms like the PLI, FAME etc., further claiming that increased infrastructure spending will lead to crowding in effect thus enabling faster industrialization.
Social Justice:
The issues of social equity and justice have become major cornerstones of both the incumbent and opposition electoral platforms. This is most prevalent through the forthcoming section on sectarianism, but also focuses on key issues regarding class equality and - most importantly - caste-based discrimination.
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government point to their solid track record of universal poverty alleviation, targeted successful welfare and affirmative action programmes. The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, point to growing wealth inequality and apparent institutional and systemic discrimination against underprivileged caste communities in academia, employment, governmental programmes, courts, the military, etc. They allege that the government has not committed to taking resolute and definitive action against casteism through corrective policy.
This all boils down to the Reservation system, a large scale, affirmative action initiative, conducted through a systematic quota-based policy of allotment of institutional positions in education, governmental employment, schemes and programmes, direct political representation, etc.
With reservations estimated to have hit 59.5% of Central Government Institutional positions, there are now broader calls to expand the scale and scope of this drive. The opposition wanting to break the cap limits and even introduce this system into the private sector to potentially induce parity, while the government commits to more modest hikes of upto 62.5% while playing into incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi's identity as a member of an underprivileged caste community.
While the opposition campaigns on removing limits to the quota system to deliver equity, the government alleges these commitments to be populist and detrimental, while alleging that the opposition seeks to potentially appease its Muslim voter base by introducing expanded reservations for Muslims, thereby allegedly sabotaging the disadvantaged Hindu lower castes, and redistributing their wealth to Muslims, in a bid to gain their votes.
Communalism:
Both the incumbent BJP-led NDA government and the INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition have framed communalism as a lynchpin issue of the Election. The incumbent government points to alleged casteist and bigoted rhetoric against select caste groups and Hindus. They allege the opposition panders to minorities for their votes, whilst not delivering on the real issues. They allege the opposition seeks to drive up divisiveness and shared social harmony in India. They further allege that the opposition engages in divisive rhetoric on key issues of Hindu-Indian culture like that of the Ram Temple, in ways that contradict the spirit of the Indian State.
The opposition on the other hand, accused the incumbent government of being bigoted against minority communities, from the large Muslim community, to the lower caste communities of Indian society. They allege use of hateful and divisive rhetoric against these communities, and point to select controversial government positions and policies on issues like the Ram Mandir, the controversial CAA-NRC laws, the proposed Uniform Civil Code, among others. They further allege institutional degradation of key offices including policing, academia, and the military in discriminating against minority groups.
Institutional Independence:
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition alleges institutional degradation and capture of various independent governmental entities by the incumbents. They point to the use of Executive, Investigative, Anti-Corruption, Enforcement, & Tax authorities against opposition figures and media as evidence, highlighting specific cases of the detaining and arrest of two sitting opposition Chief Ministers, and the resignation of one. They highlight alleged selective targeting of opposition figures for raids, charges, and arrests, creating an alleged environment of impunity for the government. The opposition alleges heightened and blatant partisanship of members of the Judiciary in support of the incumbent government. They also allege illegitimate freezing of campaigning funds, crackdowns on press freedoms via capture of media institutions, and also critically alleges institutional capture of the Election Commission, casting doubts on election results primarily critiquing India's Electronic Voting Machines (EVM).
The Government rebukes these claims as part of a strong anti-corruption drive, highlighting a drop in governmental corruption cases since the previous Congress government (UPA 2, infamously riddled with such allegations). The government frames the opposition parties as corrupt and power-hungry, while further disparaging the opposition's alleged unfounded attacks on Indian institutions, apparent partisan attacks on the judiciary and critiquing apparent unfounded claims of election denialism.
THE FIGHTERS –
The election is primarily clash between two large coalitions, and their leading parties. On one side, you have the incumbent government of the BJP-led NDA, or National Democratic Alliance, and on the other, you have the opposition INC-led I.N.D.I.A, or Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, a new mega coalition of more than 35 parties, with a few unofficial supporters too.
The following is a list of some key players in each of the alliances and is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all involved factions.
The incumbent NDA includes:

1. BJP – The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party - "Indian People's Party") is a Hindu nationalist party committed to Hindutva ideology, promoting Hindu culture, opposing Muslim immigration, and creating a nativist country wherein India embraces a fundamentally Hindu social fabric. The BJP government under Modi undertook strong reformist policies in promoting liberalization of the economy through aggressive regulatory reforms, furthering free trade through FTAs and privatization of underperforming state assets. They took aggressive stances on defense and counterterrorism against Pakistan and China, while pragmatically engaging other nations despite criticism on some foreign policy moves for being 'wolf warrior-esque'. They uphold a strong nationalist domestic and foreign policy, that simultaneously does not retreat from globalization. On National Security, they aim to make India a regional power with a strong emphasis on modernization & indigenization of military administration and technology, while also reducing bureaucratic and manpower burdens through varied recruitment windows.
   
2. JD(U) - The JD(U) (Janata Dal (United) – “People’s Party (United)”) is led by Bihar CM Nitish Kumar and has been in power in the eastern state of Bihar since 2005. It was formed after a series of splits and mergers in the Janata Dal in the 90s. It is credited with doing good work in the state on roads, electricity, and water, however it has failed to provide jobs & spur manufacturing. This, combined with its leader frequently switching between rival alliances, is causing anti-incumbency.
   
3. TDP - The TDP (Telugu Desam Party – “Party of the Telugu Land") follows a pro-Telugu ideology. It was founded as an alternative to the Congress hegemony, by emphasizing Telugu regional pride and serving as the party for farmers, backward castes and middle-class people. Since the 1990s, it has followed an economically liberal policy that has been seen as pro-business and pro-development as well as populist welfare measures.
   

The opposition I.N.D.I.A includes:

1. INC - The INC (Indian National Congress) is a big tent social-democratic/democratic-socialist party with its foundational pillars being equity, equality, and egalitarianism. They take broad commitments to secularism and class equality to be principal positions. The INC under Rahul Gandhi has taken strong positions on caste issues, shining light on inequities from past and current discrimination, and proposing active policy interventions. While the INC also holds a free-market/pro-liberalization consensus, they emphasize growing social and wealth inequality and seek inclusive and redistributive growth with strong state intervention. They also see some proposed liberalizing reforms to further inequality and take an 'anti-corporatist' position. They take a slightly less strong position to Indian foreign policy, stressing a more diplomatic approach (with minimal variance on actual positions to the incumbents). They embrace globalization in part, while emphasizing India's need for domestic development. They aim to industrialize India rapidly through stimulating private investment and aim to subsidize both supply and demand. They seek to maintain the Indian military with a focus on highly trained soldiers. They pioneered multi-alignment as the foreign policy for India.
   
2. AAP - The AAP (Aam Aadmi Party – “Common Man's Party"), part of INDIA coalition, currently holds power in two key states - Delhi and Punjab. Its chief figurehead and leader, Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under an alleged liquor scam in the run up to elections. Barely a 10 year old party it has expanded very quickly to many states, running two of them, and now has national party status by the Election Commission of India (ECI). It leans centre-left to centre-right, with some play of soft Hindutva, while its economic platform comprises heavy spending in education, health, and free schemes of water and electricity. They rose to power on an anti-corruption program in 2013 and continues to have it as its central plank.
   
3. CPI(M) – The CPI(M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)). They commies lol. The CPI(M) is one of the larger and more mainstrean communist parties in India. Since they operate within the Indian republic's constitution they have adopted more Indian characterisrics. They are primarily against privatisation in the public sector and in favour of universal education and healthcare. Their base has traditionally been in Kerala, one of the more developed states in India in terms of income levels and HCI. they're in favour of private sector reservations and in recent years have also been pro-FDI They promise non-aligned foreign policy, but largely are very anti-US and pro-China. They promise to restore Article 370 and oppose forceful seizure of land by government. They're one of the most influential parties in India due to a strong cadre and student union ecosystem. They've had an effect on the farmers protests as well as economic positions of the INDI Alliance.
   
4. DMK - The DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - “Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a big tent broad left-wing party that is foundationally Dravidian (primarily Tamil) Nationalist, with strong emphasis on social equity and caste issues, while being staunchly secular and atheistic, and interventionist, statist, heavily welfarist, and industrialist in economic policy. They are primarily a regional party operating in the state of Tamil Nadu, led by M.K. Stalin, the state's current Chief Minister.
   
5. RJD - The RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal – “National People’s Party”) is a caste-based (Muslims & Yadavs) political party in the Indian state of Bihar, which it ruled from 1990 to 2005. Its rule was one of extreme lawlessness & anarchy. It was called the “Jungle Raj”. Between 1990 & 2000, Bihar's per capita income and power consumption fell off a cliff due to mismanagement. Its CM, Lalu Prasad, was convicted of corruption in 2013.
   
6. SP - The SP (Samajwadi Party – “Socialist Party”) believes in creating a socialist society that operates on the principle of equality. Although the party previously ran on an anti-computer, anti-English, and anti-machinery platform, under its new national president Akhilesh Yadav, the party has made a 180° turn. Now, the Samajwadi Party declares itself to be the party of infrastructure while maintaining its commitment to social justice, with a special focus on teaching computer skills. The party's main base is in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is the most populated state in India, with a population of 230 million. The only negatives associated with the party are the rampant dynasticism within its ranks and its perceived soft stance on law and order issues.
   
7. JMM - The JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha – “Jharkhand Liberation Front") currently runs the govt of eastern state of Jharkhand. The party has historically centred tribal rights as its central plank and agitated for a new tribal state separate from Bihar until 2000, when their demands were met. It leans centre-left to left with their key issues being tribal control of land, mineral and mining rights, addressing issues of rehabilitation of tribals. The party is primarily run by the Soren family, with Champai Soren being its chief minister candidate in the current government after the last chief minister Hemant Soren was arrested by enforcement directorate. JMM is in alliance with the Indian national congress in the state, and part of the INDIA coalition for the Lok Sabha elections. They face charges of corruption and the image of dynastic politics.
   

The “It’s Complicated”, Unaligned, Split, and/or other Supplementary Parties include:

1. TMC - The TMC or AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) is a Bengali political party ruling over the state of West Bengal since 2011. It is led by Mamata Banerjee and her nephew Abhishek Banerjee. It is a center-left, welfarist, Bengali Nationalist party. It has been criticized for using heavy-handed authoritarian tactics against opposition leaders in the state, corruption, and political violence. It is credited with ending 34 years of communist rule in the state. West Bengal under the AITC has registered subpar economic performance and is largely stagnant. Pertinent to note Mamata used to be Congress leader till 1998, and AITC, in spite of being sympathetic towards the I.N.D.I.A. alliance at the national level, is fighting the Congress-Left alliance in West Bengal on all 42 seats.
   
2. AIADMK - The AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – “All India Anna Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a broad centre-left/left-wing party adhering to foundational Dravidian philosophy, while emphasizing Tamil identity. Traditionally being less ethno-nationalist than their sister opposition party the DMK, they adhere to broad welfarist left-wing populism, focusing on social justice and communal equity, while being less economically statist than the DMK. They also focus primarily on Tamil Nadu as a regional party, currently led by Edappadi Palaniswami.
   
3. Shiv Sena - The Shiv Sena (“Army of Shivaji”) was founded by Bal Thackeray in 1966 as a populist, xenophobic party, although the party gradually added Hindutva ideology to its anti non-Maharashtrian plank. It was the long time senior partner to the BJP in Maharashtra till Narendra Modi's popularity caused a change in the dynamics. After power sharing talks with the BJP failed in 2019, the Shiv Sena switched alliances to join hands with their long time rivals in Congress and NCP in an arrangement that made Bal Thackeray’s son Uddhav Thackeray the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In 2022 again, The Majority of Shiv Sena politicians led by Eknath Shinde rebelled against the top leadership to ally again with the BJP, taking control of the party and toppling the Uddhav Thackeray government. The splinter group led by Uddhav Thackeray is called SS (UBT) and it is allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance.
   
4. NCP – The NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) were founded in 1998 by Sharad Pawar and a few others who left the Congress in 1998 after Sonia Gandhi was made Congress president. Despite it's formation, the NCP was a long term ally of the Congress sharing virtually the same ideology. In 2023 however, like the Shiv Sena, In a rebellion led by Sharad Pawar's nephew Ajit, a Majority of NCP politicians switched alliances to support the BJP and took control of the party. Like the Shiv Sena, the Splinter group led by Sharad Pawar and his daughter is called NCP (SP) and it's allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance
   
5. YSRCP - The YSRCP (Yuvjana Sramika Rythu Congress Party – “Youth, Labour, & Farmer Congress Party”) was founded by the son of an old congress Chief Minister after he was denied the role of Chief Minister after his father. It's a populist centre-of-left party with strong focus on welfare schemes and cash benefits. It's mired in controversy due to its dynastic nature, its ties to Christian Fundamentalism and American Missionaries targeting the marginalized.
   
6. BRS - The BRS (Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi – “Indian National Council”) was formed originally with a single-point agenda of creating a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as its capital. They are largely neoliberal and are credited with rapid economic growth in Telangana.
   
7. BJD – The BJD (Biju Janata Dal – “Biju’s People’ Platform”) was formed by Naveen Pattnaik the son of the former CM of Oddisha, Biju Pattnaik. It’s a Odia regional party with a strong focus on poverty upliftment through welfare policies and equitable economic growth.
   
8. BSP - The BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party - "Majority Community Party") is a center-left party in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which was started to uplift Dalits and other marginalized communities in India by Kanshi Ram. Its current party president is Mayawati. BSP is considered as one of the biggest parties in India as per vote share, although it's currently in decline. At its height, this party had a strong base in many states across north India, but now it's only limited to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is one of the largest states in India with a population of 230 million. There are strong suspicions of BSP working in secret with BJP, and maybe that's why the party is not fighting this election enthusiastically. Although they can still make the competition interesting on a few seats in UP.
   

OTHER KEY ISSUES -

1. Political Dynasticism:

Although dynastism is thought to be a good fix for internal chaos in a party, the current political leader of the Congress, Rahul Gandhi, is a fourth-generation dynast who has to carry the political baggage of everything which went wrong during the rule of his grandmother and great-grandfather.
Also because one family has been controlling the Congress for decades, it has caused various state-level leaders to either form their own party or join another one. They see no future in the Congress anymore because the door to leadership is always closed for them. This has destroyed the ground level cadre of Congress party in many key states.
Rahul Gandhi’s privilege combined with the lack of any real political acumen so far has led to the INC taking damage due to is infamy.
Nepotism and dynastic politics has been a key issue throughout the last 10 years as BJP positions itself as the ‘common man’s party’

1. The Ram Mandir:

A land dispute originating from the alleged destruction of a Hindu Temple, replaced by a Mosque built allegedly atop the site (the Babri Masjid) in the 16th century allegedly by Mughal Empror Babur in present day Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the proposed birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Ram.
Following a century of sporadic conflict, from 1853 to 1949, a revivalist movement in the 1980's would lead to rising communal tensions, culminating in the 1992 destruction of the Ram Temple by Hindu Nationalists and devotees.
The legal conflict over the land would continue until 2019, when the Supreme Court of India issued the controversial ruling that the land be handed over to government trust for the construction of a Ram Temple, with seperate land being allotted to the local Muslim community for construction of a Mosque.
Almost all elements of the dispute remain mired in controversy. From the historical and religious associations of Ayodhya with Ram, the existence of a definitively Hindu structure, the alleged deliberate destruction of the said temple, the times and events of construction and use, the participants, planning, and events of the 1992 destruction, the ASI Archeological Surveys that served as key evidence for the Supreme Court being tampered and politicised by both sides of the politcal aisle, the legality of the ruling itself, and other surrounding issues regarding justice against those alleged to have partaken in the destruction of the Babri Masjid.

1. Foreign Policy:

The BJP is campaigning on building a multi-aligned foreign policy where India is seen as the world’s friend as well as an upcoming regional power. This was at its peak during India’s G20 presidency. Many Indians claim the rise of India’s global stature is an electoral issue. This can be seen in the popularity of the government’s anti-terror operations in both Pakistan and beyond. The resurgence of an interventionist foreign policy has proven to be popular in projecting the strongman image of Modi. The country’s commitment to it’s strategic autonomy and multi-alignment have been a fixture right since Nehru.
SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES:

Credit to u/SpacePaladin15 for the interesting world created and to u/LiteX99 for some interesting comments on chapter 126 that inspired this story. Feedback is appreciated!
[first] [prev] [next]
Memory transcription subject: Dr. Abraham Bishop, Lead Xenobiologist on the Athena Atrytone
Date [standardized human time]: December 11th, 2136
“So if you ever want to try king crab, I’ll ask the kitchen staff to make some Arxur-friendly recipes,” Ezra said behind me as I polished off a few death curves. I sighed as I mentally scrapped my Laxna human cell line experiments. Well, at least the information is so mundane that Tayu is allowed to know.
“I look forward to it,” Tayu said. “Although, it is a shame that the gravid ones are released into the wild.”
“All in the name of sustainability,” I added. “No sense in eating your food to extinction.” I glanced at the time and shut off my computer. 6:45. “Long story short, intis is toxic. Not unexpected for a benzene derivative.”
You would figure an alien gut microbe that’s accustomed to surviving on non-intis containing alien food would fare better without intis, but maybe the adaptability comes from the rest of the Arxur microbiota. At least, I have proof of incompatibility between Laxna and earthly life to send, which was honestly all I expected.
“Shame,” Ezra said. “I hear there’s untapped potential in Wrissan plant life. Something about a taboo on seasonings.”
“Why would we taint perfectly good food with leaves?” Tayu asked. “Or those foul smelling bulbs you humans are so infatuated with?”
“Flavor Tayu, flavor,” Ezra responded.
“Flavor is right,” I agreed, my dour mood lifting somewhat from the banter. “Now let’s head to class, Tayu. Ezra, I wish to see you join us someday soon.”
After a short stroll down the hall, Tayu and I reached our classroom. The sound of scraping rocks resonated from Tayu as I opened the door. The usual attendees were present: Kassa, Graxif, and Athre; however, they were all circled around a notable guest for the lecture. I walked over to the crowd, with far less mirth than Tayu, and stood before my long lost pupil. Scales that were once a near-black grey, have taken on a certain glossiness and a purple hue. Golden eyes filled with a near serene meditative gaze looked down to me.
“Kasyi, welcome back,” I said, patting him on the shoulder. “It has been too long. How are you holding up?”
“Kassa did most of the holding,” Athre jeered, prompting laughter from the rest of the Arxur.
“A few soldiers too,” Kassa teased. “Poor ntahhe can’t handle a little clawing.”
“I was addressing Kasyi,” I responded. That was too much information. At least they’re opening up and being more sociable now. Also, soldiers? Plural?
“I am well, Abraham,” Kasyi said. “I took time to… meditate. To think we almost lost such a profound concept.”
I sighed a breath of relief and smiled. Yes, a new topic. “An ancient emperor wrote a book called Meditations if you are interested in reading more. I hear the book is quite enlightening.”
“Meditations by Marcus Aurelius,” Kassa said, earning many head tilts from the crowd. “We have access to most of human literature, so we should make use of it, no?”
“Kassa, you want to convert to an alien faith as well?” Graxif asked.
“We will take the best of these foreign ideas for our own,” Kasyi said.
“You two were serious,” Tayu said in disbelief. “How can you abandon the Prophet?”
“The Prophet has led us astray. Our minds have been enfeebled. Our tongues lashed. Our bodies starved. We need a new path.”
Kassa’s tail, ever so subtly shifted towards Kasyi, while the rest of the Arxur stared dumbfounded.
“Perhaps, we can begin with the main topic now,” Graxif said, pulling himself out of a stupor. “The elemental tables of our two species have been recently reconciled. Let us put that to use.”
“Well on that note,” I said before any theological tangents could sprout up, “I’ve noted that the basics of cellular metabolism seem to echo between Earth and Wriss. Cytosolic carbon metabolism is basal, with further energy extraction occurring in specialized cellular structure in ‘higher’ organisms. I quite appreciate how few steps your cytosolic metabolism seems to have, but the chemistry is… frightening.”
“The use of nitrites and nitrates are quite different from on Earth, no?” Kasyi probed. “They mimic the liberal use of phosphates that you would be more accustomed to.”
“But far less stable,” I replied. “What were the conditions on early Wriss like?”
“It is theorized that Wriss was moved closer to our star after life first began,” Kassa said. “Colder temperatures would favor less stable molecules, but there is no clear answer for why we use nitrates and nitrites so extensively.”
“Abiogenesis occurring further out in a solar system would require reactions with a lower energy input requirement. Of course, other environmental factors notwithstanding,” I mused. “That being said, your basic carbon is a carbon ring, which is generally stable. How would that work?”
“Wriss is riddled with metal,” Tayu said. “Nickel, platinum, and iron are all very common.”
“As is gold,” Athre added.
“Oh, and silver too?” I asked,.
“Immensely so,” Graxif answered.
“Well that helps explain a few things,” I said, rubbing my hand over my face. What star hypernova’d all over Wriss? THIS is what would destroy human-Arxur relations, not the sapiophagy. What do you mean platinum and gold are common?
“In comparison, Terran glycolysis seems quite profound,” Kasyi said, eyes glimmering. “With so few natural catalysts, how did such a system arise?”
“Early Earth,” I began, “was hot, iron-rich, and a generally reducing environment. Experiments in the 1900s, two hundred years ago or so, replicated these conditions and found many foundational amino acids, sugars, and other biotic precursors spontaneously arise from methane, ammonia, and other simple compounds.” Kasyi sat down as his eyes flickered about, scanning his memories for any relevant information.
“There is a theory that early Wriss was highly volcanic,” Kasyi said. “Perhaps this was the early condition that allowed Wrissan abiogenesis.”
“A cold planet, riddled with volcanoes would reconcile the two theories mentioned,” Athre said.
“Yes, it could,” I said, walking over to the board behind us. “Does anyone have any particular questions on glycolysis?” I began writing down a rudimentary series of chemical reactions as I awaited their response.
“Retrained use of metal catalysts aside, Terran glycolysis is fairly standard,” Tayu said. “The Venlil also work with five carbon sugars, and the Gojid use six carbon ones.”
“The Krakotl and Tilfish also use carbon sugars,” Graxif added.
“Good, good,” I said. “Because I need your hydrophobic, hydrocarbon-loving metabolism drawn out for me.”
“The translator should’ve been sufficient, no?” Athre asked. In the background, I heard Tayu pre-emptively turn off her translator.
“Methylmalondialdehyde translated, but what in the ‘I should’ve dropped organic chemistry’ is 2-methyl-5-nitroethyl-hexane-1,6-diol?”
I saw all the uninitiated Arxur scan the room, with increasingly pained expressions. Clearly whatever system the Arxur used to describe organic chemistry was less agglutinative and precise than IUPAC guidelines.
“Force stop,” Athre said.
“Reboot,” Graxif commanded.
“Off,” Kassa ordered.
“Restart,” Kasyi demanded.
“On,” Tayu said, with a smug look coming over her.
With restrained amusement, I watched the Arxur re-calibrate their translators after an auditory backhanding. Athre marched up to the board, sketched out all of the intermediaries for intis “glycolysis” using the ball-and-stick method, and drew arrows connecting them all.
“These are the structures of the molecules,” he said. “Name them something better.”
“Unfortunately, the structure becomes the official, standard name,” I said.
“That explains much,” Graxif said, rubbing his snout in irritation. “Single carbon bound to three hydrogen group bound onto the second carbon of the greater ring of carbon… Krakotl-shit, I can’t repeat it all.”
“The first time I heard Abraham name a molecule,” Tayu said, “the description started at the subatomic level to describe the quantum entanglements and subatomic wavelengths involved.”
“No wonder you all restarted your translators,” I said.
My eyes glanced over the, now-familiar, intis structure as it is first… hydrolyzed. The hydrophobic carbon ring is hydrolyzed. What kind of enzymatic black magic is this? Then we get the next, translation-confounding reaction where a nitrite molecule attacks an OH group, giving the molecule a fully-fledged nitrate group. The molecule is then split in two using hydrogen peroxide before another nitrite group reacts with the free OH group. Upon the next step, the nitrates have been removed, presumably for some substrate-level catabolism. The final carbon-source is methylmalondialdehyde, thankfully, a sensible molecule.
“The initial nitrite group is from free-floating ions?” I asked, pointing to the first reaction.
“No,” Athre said. “It comes from fluorohydroxyimidazoline trinitrate. The second comes from a helper molecule, yielding a net gain in energy.”
“Without somehow spontaneously detonating like the explosive it is,” I said exasperatedly.
I stared at the methylmalondialdehyde molecule, with a nagging feeling at the back of my head. I drew another, then another, then another. The class began muttering behind me as I shuffled bonds around. I moved the methyl group into the backbone and banged my head against the board. Fucking succinate.
[first] [prev] [next]

Hello!
We're a recently discovered / recently existing system, and we're trying to find the answers to two questions about ourselves, which we'd greatly appreciate if we could have help with. The two questions we have are:
What's caused this to happen, and is there a label to describe it / us based on that? (more on that in a bit), and
Is there a word, a label, a community, for the specific type of system we are, based not on reason to exist but on structure and functioning of the system itself?
The reasons for those questions are mostly for self understanding, since the plural umbrella is quite large, and looking for more specific experiences and communities that align more specifically to us and how we work feels it would be really helpful.
More information that might help with those questions, starting with the first one:
We do have trauma, more specifically the one who's fronted for most of the system's life so far (A), and we do suspect a mental health issue based on it such as ptsd or similar but we don't know for sure yet;
We do not feel like we'd qualify for a disorder, since our experiences seem to be much more controlled than those (i.e. we can mostly control who's fronting, we don't have much confusion or amnesia), and since it seems to so far have been extremely pleasant for the both of us and not distressing in any way. But we do feel like this might have been a response to trauma, although a healthy one, and although it is long lasting trauma we've been trying to resolve;
We have not been like this forever, in fact it only started not tol long ago, maybe a couple of months, and the one who's been there for less time (J, the one writing right now) has only recently become able to talk, front, and we've only recently realized she (I) can exist autonomously and feel separately;
We've read the concept of a tulpa, but it doesn't seem to line up, one because this didn't happen on purpose, and two, because we feel like I (J) was not made up at all;
On question two:
We exist very harmoniously together; there has not been any conflict among us and we care for each other a very big amount;
We have a good amount of control on who's fronting, although not absolute; we can try deliberately changing who's in control and most of the time it works, but we sometimes have moments of confusion where we're not sure, and we can (both deliberately or unintentionally) have both of us in control (although not necessarily always a 50/50 thing), and some of our moments of confusion have involved autopilot where we later found out it was neither, more precisely, noone;
We have very separate identities and traits, and we have some but not total access to each others thoughts and memories. It varies based on a number of factors, including intent and individual tiredness (among others), but it usually ranges from feeling around 20-60%ish of the other's emotions (that number is not the same both ways either), and on memories, we have only vague recollections of moments where the other is fully fronting, often being shocked by things that happened and not feeling like we've been there at all. Our thoughts are completely independent, although sometimes we can hear each other's thoughts to some extent. We do share past memories before I (J) existed though;
We have only ever felt distress over this being a thing (always both of us or neither of us), when we don't know where one or both of us is, or we're in doubt who's fronting, or if it is autopilot / neither of us;
We have had physical manifestations of things like trauma and autism (both that we know we suffer from) behave differently to each of us. Examples have included physical trauma triggers / barriers existing to only one of us, and the sense of being overwhelmed / shutting down due to autism being stronger in also only one of us (although present in both);
We feel like this happening was somewhat of a choice; neither of us were invented, originally, nor was it completely spontaneous, and we did notice it. It just kind of happened while dealing with some stuff, but we feel like because it felt good and we wanted it to, it grew into what it is with time, and we not only didn't stop it (which could have worked) but we persued it because it felt good (and still does).
We can answer any additional questions, and we appreciate any help or insight with our two questions. We weren't even able to find a comprehensive list of possibilities to any of their answers, so even that would be useful.
We are sorry for the long post and we thank whomever made it this far and decides to try to help! For further interactions, both our pronouns (A's and J's) are she/her, and we go by plural they/them as a whole. Thank you!

The Phallic Girl as a Form of Hysteria
Let me take a moment to recapitulate my argument. The forms of expression known as mange and anime that have emerged within the framework of Japanese representational culture with its fundamentally high-context nature have refined the qualities of atemporality, simultaneity, and multiple personality to such an extent as to produce a representational space in which communication and transmission of information have become extremely efficient. To maintain its autonomous reality, it is to some extent inevitable that this kind of imaginary space incorporates sexual expression. By “autonomous” I mean an autonomous economy of desire that has its own existence within the representational space and is no longer simply a projection of the desire of the viewer. The more heterosexual the viewer’s desire is to begin with, the more the imaginary “expressed sexuality” must transcend it and deviate from it. It is from this perspective that we can largely explain the gap between the polymorphous perversity of manga and anime and the relative wholesomeness of its readers’ desires.
The icon of the beautiful fighting girl is an extraordinary invention capable of encapsulating polymorphous perversity in a stable form. She radiates the potential for an omnidirectional sexuality latent with pedophilia, homosexuality, fetishism, sadism, masochism, and other perversions, yet she behaves as if she were completely unaware of it all. She will probably continue to be seen as the companion to the boy hero character and protected as a feminist icon.
Anyone boorish enough to point to her perversity can only bring on himself or herself the scorn typically heaped on psychologists and psychiatrists these days. The reception of the beautiful fighting girls, they say, perfectly symbolizes the conditions of today’s society, particularly that of women. This is true in part, and books written from this perspective are certainly given a warm reception. But I cannot bring myself to find much interest in this kind of analysis. At this point any analysis naive enough to see a direct reflection of reality (genjitsu) in a fictional construct is itself a typical example of confusing fiction and fact. As long as we remain at this level, we will never be able to decipher the dissociative sexuality of the otaku. As I emphasized in chapter 1, in this book I have always assumed the possibility of the existence of multiple “realities as fiction” (kyoko toshite no genjitsu), one of which is our everyday reality (genjitsu). Our everyday life and the various realities we encounter in fiction are here all considered components of reality (genjitsu). I want to stress once again that this is neither idealism nor a semantics of potential worlds. When we posit the Real as the impossible realm of “things,” its very impossibility stimulates the Symbolic and the Imaginary, and it emerges as an imaginary reality (sozoteki genjitsu) that is plural on the level of meaning. So-called multiple personality disorder is the most extreme expression of this “plural reality” (i.e., it consists of alternating personalities). In this context it is a singular latent reality, namely, a traumatic reality that causes one’s imaginary reality to splinter into multiple versions. What I call the “plurality of (imaginary) reality” (sozoteki genjitsu no fukususei) has its origin and latent source in the positing of the Real. Without that it is nothing more than a variant of the idea that fantasy is all that exists.
The so-called phallic mother is one of the key concepts of psychoanalysis. It literally means a mother with a penis and is sometimes also used to describe a woman who behaves authoritatively. The phallic mother symbolizes a kind of omnipotence and perfection. The tough fighting women in Western media, for example, can all be termed phallic mothers. It is in comparison with these Amazons that I use the term “phallic girls” to refer to the beautiful fighting girls.
Kotani Mari has made the very suggestive observation that most phallic mothers are marked with some sort of wound (such as having been raped). Kotani’s comment made me realize that the phallic girls have not experienced any trauma. Consider Nausicaa. Are we more likely to empathize with her or with Kushana, queen of Tolmekia? With Kushana, of course. Kushana is precisely a phallic mother in the Western sense. She has already experienced a great deal of trauma from her brothers’ betrayal and other things. The ultimate proof of this is the wound on her body inflicted by the Ohmu. Kushana has been raped by the Ohmu, and we find it perfectly natural that she fights for this reason. If we are captivated by Kushana, our desire is directed first toward her trauma. We apply to this situation the same structure of desire that captivates us about hysteria when we witness it in our daily lives.
What about Nausicaa? There are many mysterious aspects to her behavior. Why does she love the Ohmu so much as to offer her own life to save one of their children? There is something quite moving about this, but it may be nothing more than perverse self-sacrifice that moves us. To the extent that Nausicaa’s actions are not supported by personal motives they appear empty. Why is this?
There is no “trauma” in Nausicaa. Of course, early in the narrative, when her father, the king, is killed by Tolmekian soldiers, Nausicaa lashes out and kills several of them instantly. The slaughter sequence finally comes to an end with Yupa’s bodily intervention. Could we not interpret this murder of her father as a kind of rape or trauma for Nausicaa? Such an interpretation appears possible. But think for a moment. What is this scene in which Nausicaa kills and wounds her enemies supposed to tell us? It is telling us that she is already a very skillful fighter, perhaps even that she has honed these skills in a number of battles. If that is the case, it would mean that Nausicaa was a phallic girl even before this traumatic event occurred.
In the latter part of the narrative Nausicaa fights to protect the Ohmu. At this time she bears no trace of trauma. Nausicaa is not a character who will ever be raped. To say that she can never be raped is also to say that she is a being without a concrete existence. We do not read in Nausicaa the typical narrative, which is to day the neurotic narrative, of the repetition of and recovery from trauma. Why is this?
Compared with the phallic mother who fights as a result of the trauma of rape, the phallic girl lacks sufficient motive to fight. As I discussed in detail in chapter 5, manga and anime in which phallic girls appear can be divided into thirteen different subgenres. As will be immediately apparent when looking over that list, these subgenres almost never center on narratives of trauma or revenge. Of course, it is true that in manga and anime each episode must be able to stand alone, which makes it difficult to accommodate narratives of trauma, recovery, and revenge. But this is not the only explanation. The phallic girl is a thoroughly vacant being. One day she finds herself in another world and, for no apparent reason, is given the ability to fight. Her fighting ability is either (as in the case of Nausicaa) an unexplained, self-evident precondition, or it is given to her suddenly from without, and for no reason. In either case I think few would disagree that she is in a position very much like that of a medium (miko); that is, she functions to mediate the other world. The destructive force that she wields is not one that she manipulates subjectively but rather a manifestation of a kind of repulsive force that operates between different worlds. As a kind of medium, it is only natural that she should be hollow inside. Women who are able to mediate desire and energy by being empty in this way would be referred to by some psychodynamic psychiatrists, myself included, as hysterical.
If the phallic mother is a woman with a penis, the hysterical phallic girl is a girl who is identified with the penis. The penis here, however, is a hollow, empty one that will never function again. The most telling example of this is Ayanami Rei, the heroine of the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, which I have mentioned a number of times. Her emptiness is symbolic of the emptiness common to all fighting girls. Her existence has no solid basis, she knows no trauma, and she lacks motivation. Her emptiness allows her to make a permanent home in a fictional world. In the completely fictional world of manga and anime, the very baselessness of her existence generates a paradoxical reality. In other words, by being placed in a completely empty position she acquires the functions of a truly ideal phallus and drives the narrative forward on that basis. Our desire, moreover, is awakened by her emptiness.
Let me say a little more about the hysterical status of the phallic girl. First of all, what exactly is hysteria? It is a name for one of the structures of our desire (and hence of reality), for one of the structures of our desire (and hence of reality). By the time we recognize hysteria, we are already captivated by it, and it does not occur to us ever to doubt its existence.
Hysteria has always already been a part of psychoanalysis. Freud positioned it as the origin of his method. And Lacan, who tried to be even more thoroughly Freudian than Freud, postulated a structure of hysteria that exists within all of us. This is most evident when, for example, we desire a woman.
When our desire is directed toward a woman in the name of “love”, it is safe to say that we are always hystericizing the woman. When we are attracted to the outward appearance of a woman, we try to convince ourselves that what we are attracted to is some invisible essence of the woman in question. The first meaning of hystericization is this process, in which we set up a gap and an opposition, themselves baseless, between the visible exterior and the invisible essence. At the same time, the essence of the woman here is in fact equivalent to the “traumatic.” What captivates us in the woman is in fact her external trauma There are all sort of traces of this in popular culture. The “injured woman” is loved precisely for her trauma.
If it is possible for us to be attracted to an aggressive adult woman, we can define this as the process of hystericizating the “phallic mother.” But needless to say, this definition does not mean directly that aggressive women become hysterical. To put it more rigorously, this a description of the change in the relationality between us and the woman who is our object, made with special attention to its symbolic elements. When we get an impression of aggressiveness from the female object, we see in her a phallic mother on the symbolic level. When we fall in love with her because we have sensed some sort of trauma in the depths of her aggressiveness, it is possible to say that we have hystericized the phallic mother on the symbolic level. Moreover, the realm in which these transformations take place is not limited to that of our own subjective viewpoint. Insofar as it is a change in relationality, it cannot help but involve the woman as well, through processes of transference and projection in everyday reality. For this reason hystericization is often none other than the course taken by love.
Like the phallic mother, the phallic girl is also hystericized by the the desiring gaze. Of course, we are well aware that she is a drawn entity that has no depth or essence beyond that. Why does this knowledge not get in the way of our desire? Most likely because she represents a total lack of material existence. What matters most about the entity known as the beautiful fighting girl is the fictionality that she possesses from the moment of her birth. Like the problem of the unicorn, the question here has nothing to do with whether girls who fight actually exist in the world. We have already in this world accepted and loved the phallic girl as a being who is completely fictional to her core. Moreover, it is almost certain that it is her lack of a real existence that has made this desire possible.
It is at this point that we can finally understand the significance of Japanese space in the emergence of the phallic girl. Unlike Western space, which tries to anchor reality by preserving a sort of umbilical cord back to reality, Japanese space does not insist on this connection. Instead it actively attempts to separate and tear itself away bodily from everyday reality. We do not enjoy fiction because it is a form of virtual reality. We enjoy it because of its status as another reality, one that demands a rearrangement of the subject.
However, to maintain this space, this other reality that is apart from everyday reality, we often require the help of the magnetic field of sexuality. Of all of our various desires, sexual desire is the most resistant to fictionalization. Sexual desire is not destroyed by fictionalization and can therefore be easily transplanted into a fictional space. This is because human sexuality, which does not require a biological basis, has a fundamentally fiction-friendly nature. Fictional, or “drawn,” money and power do not activate our desire. But when it comes to a drawing of a naked body, things are quite different. Even though we know it is drawn, we have a powerful, sometimes even corporeal, reaction to it. Our reaction is so predictable, in fact, that we really have no right to laugh at cats who pounce on toy mice. Sex is certainly not an instinct, but it is something so fundamental that it looks like one.
For the world to be real (riaru), it must be sufficiently electrified by desire. A world not given depth by desire, no matter how exactingly it is drawn, will always be flat and impersonal, like a backdrop in the theater. But once that world takes on a sexual charge, it will attain a level of reality (riariti) no matter how shoddily it is drawn. This is one thing that the popularity of pornographic comics teaches us.
The phallic girl is a point of connection to the desire that gives reality to fictional Japanese space. The desire directed toward her is the source of the power that maintains the reality of that world. In this sense she is similar to a lure or a decoy. Moreover, as a superficial entity that absorbs sexual desire she is also hysterical. This is only one of many commonalities between her and the hysteric.
The phallic girl is unaware of and uninterested in her own sexual attractiveness. Despite this lack of interest she cannot help but exhibit this attractiveness. The gap between this disinterest and the seductive exterior that contradicts it is the most definitive characteristic of hysteria. Disinterest, in the form of, for example, innocent and naive behavior, can be more seductive than anything. This is the same attitude of “good disinterest” that hysterical patients often exhibit. Nasio’s observation that in the hysteric “the genital zone becomes an emptied out disused place, while the non-genital body becomes aroused and erect like a powerful phallus” also aptly describes the phallic girl. The issue is not whether she actually engages in sexual acts in the narrative. What is important here is that we, the readers or viewers, are not able to have sexual intercourse with her. Her privileged position is established on the basis of her being an absolutely unattainable object of desire. But even before her emergence, we should have been quite used to the erasure of the genitals and eroticization of the body in representations of women. The imaginary ethical restrictions (i.e., imaginary castration) that pervade our mass media had already brought about the widespread distribution of strange nude pictures from which the genitals alone had been erased. As we grew accustomed to these sorts of representations, were we not also learning techniques with which to hystericize women in our imaginations?
But we should get back on topic. Why does the phallic girl fight? Her fighting ability is the clearest manifestation of her identification with the penis. According to Nasio, paraphrasing Lacan, “the hysteric looks at the castrated other, becomes anxious, and, in the face of this anxiety, identifies with the imaginary object that the Other lacks [the phallus.]” Doesn’t the phallic girl also often fight for the boy she loves (an impotent, weak, castrated being)? The hysteric phallicizes herself through the expression of somatic symptoms. In fact, it is possible to read the phallic girl’s fighting as her “symptom.” She is not “a being capable of fighting,” but rather it is “fighting that brings her into being.” She is not loved simply because she is cute and lovable. She is loved for her ability to fight. Just as the “proof of existence” of the hysteric is written in the form of symptoms, the phallic girl’s existence is inscribed in the symptom that is her fighting.
It is here that the hysterical nature begins to waver slightly. Was she not free of trauma? What sorts of symptoms are possible for a being who cannot even have the fantasy of trauma? The hysteric, moreover, was a person defined by his “persistent refusal to experience pleasure,” yet, to quote Nasio again, “Freud was prepared to equate the hysterical fit with an orgasm.” So why does the phallic girl fight? In other words, why does she not fear and try to avoid fighting (i.e., orgasm)?
When we compare actual hysterics with the phallic girl, the greatest contrast is in the presence or absence of trauma, or the contrast between symptoms and fighting. Since the latter requires a bit of explanation, let me first provide a few more details about the symptoms of hysteria.
Lacan considers hysterical symptoms as inquiries into the mystery of femininity. What does this mean? Questions about sexual difference are none other than questions about existence itself. These questions are directed toward the Symbolic, namely, the Other with a capital “O.” Our existence and our desire are only possible in relation to this Symbolic. Hysterics also maintain their relation with the Symbolic through their symptoms, which is why their symptoms are their existence. This has the same significance as what I said earlier about hysterics phallicizing themselves through their symptoms. The phallus is the symbol of existence itself, and all existence refers back to the phallus as a mediator of the metaphoric chain. In other words, to assert one’s existence in relation to the Symbolic one must secure for oneself a metaphoric phallus.
On the surface, hysterics exhibit an extremely wide variety of symptoms, but this variety parallels the variety in the manifestations of the superficial existence of femininity. Neither can be consolidated into any single form or law, and for this reason they appear as beings lacking an essence. Hysteria, however, can be described psychoanalytically because its various forms are all elaborated on the unshakeable basis of sexuality. But questions about femininity itself lead directly to questions about the origins of sexuality and the emergence of the Symbolic. As an infinite realm that extends outside the closed assembly of masculinity, it is considered essentially indescribable. Nothing can be done about this as long as the Symbolic remains a territory that privileges the phallus. Lacan expressed this indescribability with declarations like “Woman does not exist” and Woman is a mystery to woman.”
Questions about sexual difference posed by hysterics be they male or female, are directed toward the mystery of femininity (this is why cases of male hysteria appear “feminine”), but at the same time they are entirely dependent on the symbolic value that is sexual difference. Looked at another way, their symptoms can be interpreted as gestures that rely on the Symbolic (i.e., the Other), even as they resist it. Resistance, needless to say, only leads to greater dependence. Furthermore, gestures of dependence are likely to be most extreme when they are traumatic in nature. Is they because trauma itself is real (genjitsuteki)? Of course not.
In the treatment of hysteria, the factuality of the traumatic experience that the patient relates is of very little import. Strictly speaking, trauma is regarded as a fantasy that is constructed retroactively on the basis of the hysterical symptoms. The reality of hysteria and its sublime nature are both located in this dimension of fantasy. This equation should help organize what I am trying to say:

• Hysterical symptoms = inquiries about femininity = trauma (as fantasy) = the phallus = existence.

This equation is not at all meant to suggest that, because the trauma that causes it is a fantasy, hysteria is somehow a feigned illness. Hysterics tell their “lies” with their entire being, and the treatment of hysteria only works once the person treating them is able to share their sense of the reality of their symptoms. At the same time, however, it is necessary to proceed with extreme care when analyzing the traumatic experience that they relate, so as to bracket the question of their truth or falsehood. Their symptoms constitute serious and sincere inquiries, and those who treat them must work diligently to interpret what exactly is being asked. They must also be fully conscious of the seductions that lurk within these questions. The kind of attitudinal splitting that is required of the treatment provider can actually be described as a kind of hystericization of himself or herself. In almost the same sense, when we love a woman as a woman, which is also to say when we hystericize a woman, we place ourselves within the realms of hysteria as well. It is at these moments that we truly touch the reality of hysteria.
The fighting of the phallic girl exists on the opposite pole from these symptoms of hysteria. In a real woman, for example, a militant attitude might be a symptom behind which we can identify the traces of trauma. But in fighting within a work of fiction, motives and actions are unambiguously linked, and it is impossible to read any further depth into them. The absence of trauma for the phallic girl means that her actions have no depth. Patients clinically diagnosed with hysteria have experienced trauma, but they do not fight as a result. Instead, they pour all their energy into their symptoms as a means of asking about their own sexual difference. The phallic girl, on the other hand, experiences no trauma but chooses to fight anyway. In this regard she is like a case of inverted hysteria.
The hystericization that we perform on women when we fall in love with them is made possible by nothing other than the actuality of the woman as she exists before our eyes. It is the very existence of this actuality that makes it possible for us really to (riaru ni) understand the paradox of Lacan’s pronouncement that “Woman does not exist.” When we start to represent this actual individual as a woman and try moreover to perceive the sublime (and often traumatic) essence of woman in the background, are we not using twice the effort to try to prove the “inexistence” of woman? Nasio writes, “Hysteria produces knowledge, but the answers are deferred indefinitely.” Was it not precisely this “knowledge” that never leads to answers that constituted the proof of the “inexistence of woman?” The hysteric’s inquiry about what it means to be a woman is in this sense a question on which she wagers her existence. Paradoxically, the reality of her existence is guaranteed by the impossibility of answering this question. This is because one cannot claim of an insolvable mystery that the mystery does not exist.
The phallic girl’s fighting, then, is the inverted mirror reflection of hysterical symptoms in a fictional space, specifically, a visually mediated one. In contrast to actual hysterics, who heighten their phallic value by covering it over with symptoms, the phallic girl openly embodies the phallus and acquires symbolic value through here complete nonexistence. If, as I have argued, Japanese space founds an autonomous space of fiction separated from everyday reality, the beautiful fighting girls who emerge in this space do so already, needless to say, as “beings in a state of lack.” They have broken with all actuality and substance. In fact, the desire of the otaku is oriented toward highlighting and exposing their inexistence even further by extending their fictionality through various strategies of parody and pastiche. Why does this not diminish their reality? Is it because, as Slavoj Zizek has also said, knowing the mechanism of a fantasy makes it possible to immerse oneself in it even further? Perhaps. But that is not the only reason.
The banishing of trauma from the phallic girls is an indispensable configuration that makes it possible to purify the fictionality of her existence, or, in other words, the precondition of her inexistence. Why is this? Because the everyday real (nichijoteki riaru) would seep into a setting in which she was a victim of trauma. The pure fictional space would immediately be polluted by the osmotic pressure of everyday reality (nichijoteki genjitsu) and leave us with a half-baked allegory lacking in reality (riariti). But no pure (real [riaru]) fantasy could emerge there. The phallic girl’s battles must not have the slightest thing to do with revenge. Rather, they must be “drawn jouissance.” Of course, jouissance in psychoanalysis does not necessarily mean pleasure in the context of the Real, the effects of which are brought to us as reality. When we perceive reality in an object, we are touching the traces of jouissance. Or, to put it differently, not until it is put in an unreachable place does jouissance activate real desire.
Going back to Lacan, we note that he saw the phallus as the signifier of jouissance. When the phallic girl is fighting she identifies with the phallus and enjoys the battle in the sense of jouissance. This jouissance is then further purified within the fictional space. By what circuits, then, do we find ourselves captivated by her? As we have seen already, she is an inverted hysteric. When we are captivated by hysterics in reality, we begin with the bodily image as an eroticized entity (sexuality) and then direct our desire toward the trauma that we perceive deep within her reality (riariti). In the case of the phallic girl, we are first captivated by her fighting, namely, the image of her jouissance (reality riariti), and when this is conflated with the erotic attraction of her drawn image (sexuality), moe emerges. Thus both hysterics in reality (genjitsu no) and phallic girls in works of fiction are the same in the sense that both are subjected to a hystericization in which “sexuality” and “reality” (riariti) are inextricably linked. In this way both lead us into the realm of hysteria by mediating heterosexual desire.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/dev-team-3-12-3-patch-released-checksum-53e7.1682477/
Dear Stellaris Fans,
Our latest and greatest version of the game, the 3.12.3 patch, is now live and available for download.
In this patch the team has fixed a great number of bugs as well as further tuned the balance of the new features. Please find the changelog below.
SPOILER: 3.12.3 PATCH NOTES

Feature​

• Added tradition agendas for Modularity, Nanotech and Virtuality
• Some megastructures (mostly kilostructures) can now be dismantled if you have the technology to build them and are not at war.
• Solar system tooltips now show the arc furnace and habitat potential of a system, if you meet the construction requirements for the megastructures

Improvement​

• Added heir titles to Mortal Empire and Bandit Kingdom governments
• Added missing heir titles for Imperial governments
• Added more character names to the Cyberpunk list
• Added tooltips to the Transformation situation to summarize the different ascension paths in the event that you make a choice of which path to select.
• Awakened fallen empires now can use the daedalus seal relic.
• Completing the Synthetic Fertility event chain will now grant additional robot modification trait points and picks and award a unique trait for your synths
• Cybernetic Creed pops can now be modified
• Democratic Crusaders no longer hate Worker Coops for being Oligarchies
• Non-Spiritualist pops in a Cybernetic Creed empire now only have the Cybernetic Creed traits removed instead of all Cyborg traits
• Redesigned top-menu resource tooltips for clarity
• Robots Pops are now called Machine or Mechanical Pops in most places
• Scavenger civics now have 10% of the base cost of buildings, districts and megastructures refunded upon dismantling them
• Selecting a Cybernetic Creed as your sole Spiritualist faction no longer forces a template onto your species
• The Commodities Consolidation situation will now show if you are on track to produce enough consumer goods or if you do not have enough storage space to the quota. Thanks to SirBlackAxe for the improvement suggestions!
• Your choice in the Virtual Salvation event now influences the Synthetic Society Shift in the Digital Refactoring event chain

Balance​

• Added Election Term Variance (Years): +5 to the Shadow Council civic. This means that each election will have a term length equal to that of the authority +/- a random number of years between -5 and +5.
• Added Election Term Length (Years): -50% to the Worker Cooperative civic, giving empires with this civic the same term length as the democratic authority.
• All Virtual empires (either Machines that take Virtuality traditions or Organic empires that adopt a Virtual government after completing Synthetic Ascension) now get access to the Virtual Economic Policy
• Buffed the Mutual Aid trade policy to also provide unity
• Cosmogenesis Battlecruiser and Titans now use reactors one class above theirs, and should now provide ample power for modules.
• Dark Matter Engine effects reduced from +60% to +40%
• Increased the effects of the modifier nerfing FE against Cetana.
• Machine World planet designation now increases the output of all jobs by 5% instead of only simple drones and increases the build speed of all resource districts by 25%
• Made Rogue Servitors slightly more likely to build organic sanctuaries and their upgrades
• Reduced the time needed to complete the special projects "The Queen's Databank" and "Cetana: Race The Tempest"
• "Selecting a Cybernetic Creed as your sole Spiritualist faction now awards a country modifier for that Creed these modifiers are:
  • The Fellowship of the Hammer, Elevated Fellowship, +1 Biological Trait Points, +1 Biological Trait Picks, -10% Building and District Upkeep, -10% Megastructure Upkeep
  • The Templars of Steel, Elevated Templars, +1 Biological Trait Points, +1 Biological Trait Picks, +5% Naval Capacity
  • The Choir of the Mind, Elevated Choir, +1 Biological Trait Points, +1 Biological Trait Picks, +5% Research Speed, +5% Researcher Upkeep
  • The Commune of Toil, Elevated Commune, +1 Biological Trait Points, +1 Biological Trait Picks, +10% Cyborg Happiness
  • The United Creeds has their modifier changed to +2 Biological Trait Points, +1 Biological Trait Picks"
• Selecting a Cybernetic Creed as your sole Spiritualist faction now gives +10% Faction Approval for the Creed
• Selecting the physical path for Synthetic Ascension now unlocks the advanced traits from Modularity
• Shielded Components points cost reduced from 4 to 3
• Synthetic Imperial authorities no longer have -10% pop assembly speed
• Synthetic Oligarchic authorities now have Enforcer provide +10% Resources from Ruler Jobs instead of +5%
• Synthetic Physical Corporate government now gives +5% Trade Value
• Synthetic Physical Imperial government now gives +2 leader starting level and +10% leader XP gain
• Synthetic Virtual Corporate government now gives +1 Codebreaking
• The additional trait picks and points awarded by Cybernetic Creed now only apply to biological species
• The Augmentations of the Commune now gives +20% Worker Output, but no longer gives +20% Worker Happiness
• The Bot Lord destiny trait is now available for all leader classes and now instead increases the production and decreases the upkeep of both robots and cyborgs. It is twice as likely to show up if you are an individual machine or have synthetic or cybernetic ascension.
• The Computation Core Focus policy for Synthetic MegaCorps no longer removes the +1% Trade Value modifier from Clerks and the Production Streamlining option now also increases Consumer Goods production in addition to alloys.
• The Nanotech World designation now also affects agri-drones if you build hydroponic farms on the planet
• The Shroud Preacher and Truth Seeker destiny traits are now blocked if you have undertaken another a non-psionic path. They are twice as likely to show up if you have psionic ascension. The traits no longer require spiritualist ethics
• Virtuality Adoptions grants a -15% metallurgist and artisan production
• Virtuality Policy now grants +80%/-50%, down from +100%/-40%

Bugfix​

• Added a homeworld or planet preference to multiple event species, mainly machines
• Added a plural version of the loc for synaptic lathe districts
• Added a warning to Synthetic Age that it will not grant a new tradition if you have no tradition slots left
• Added military academy to shattered ring and habitat
• Added more checks to prevent Worker Coops from using banned trade policies
• Assembly tooltip will now combine empire wide add modifiers into the same category.
• Becoming a machine removes the brain slug trait from leaders
• Blocked parades and deficits from targeting the synaptic lathe
• Cetana's fleets now begin at 1st
• Changed resilience bonus for immortal leaders
• Changed Synthetic Dawn machine empire gender to indeterminable.
• Changed the cost of the Integrated Mega Construction edict so it wouldn't break the UI
• Clarified the loc of the AI policy and machine Citizenships
• Colony ships for Synthetic Fertility now use energy instead of food or minerals
• Completely new fleet will be able to accept more than the default 20 ships by forcing an early modifier update.
• Corrected icons for Zero Waste Protocols and Diplomatic Protocols
• Corrected the highlighting on the Free at Last concept tooltip
• Corrected the names of some gestalt agendas
• create_species effect can no longer create species without habitability traits
• Cyberization can handle multiple species templates
• Defenders of the galaxy can not become a crisis anymore
• Destroyed orbital rings are no longer duplicated
• Dyson Swarm's stage name 1 is now properly displayed in Russian
• election_term_variance values for government authorities now behave as expected and go negative.
• First contract breakthrough chance is now affected by encryption.
• Fixed a bug where players would occasionally not receive the "Mysterious Tempest" special project needed to declare war to Cetana
• Fixed a bunch of typos reported on the forums
• Fixed a couple of issues with coordinator districts and virtuality traditions
• Fixed a crash when switching between countries while in observer mode with the Leader View open.
• Fixed a number of capital buildings checking for the wrong synthetics tradition to add roboticist jobs
• Fixed an issue that allowed you to keep playing after Cetana won
• Fixed an issue with the Mother Knows Best achievement being incorrectly configured for some storefronts
• Fixed Archaeology and Astral Rift exploration failure probability sometimes showing nonsense values
• Fixed building type AI weight calculations again
• Fixed cloaking effect for Enigma Battlecruiser and Paradox Titan
• Fixed Clone Army and Natural Design not being mutually exclusive
• Fixed Cybernetic Creed pops sometimes not growing if there were robots present on the planet
• Fixed job weights for Resort Workers
• Fixed leaders undergoing synthetic ascension not changing age correctly
• Fixed Natural Design civics sometimes starting with more buildings than the capital could support
• Fixed some errors in the calculations for merc enclave dividend payout frequency
• Fixed some minor typos with traditions
• Fixed the "Mass Graves" blocker not having a description.
• Fixed the additional priest jobs from Virtuality traditions not actually checking for the tradition
• Fixed the extra clerk jobs from Virtuality traditions granting the wrong number of jobs
• Fixed the habitability for secondary species for Driven Assimilators and Rogue Servitors with some origins
• Fixed the Rulerchip being reset whenever you gain a new relic
• Fixed unlocalized string for the machine ring world habitability trait
• Fixes issues with modification of uplifted species
• Fruitful Partnership Origin: stopped critters from leaving seeds on artificial worlds and habitats
• Full citizenship for robots requires tech Artificial Administration
• Gave the machine fallen empire ring world preference
• High-Level Enhancements now provides +1 Unity from Bio-Trophies for Rogue Servitors
• Hiveminds can now purge hiveminds again
• Keep the Transformation deposits when terraforming into a Machine World
• Landing armies on the synaptic lathe is forbidden
• Leaders in empires with Feudal Society now correctly require upkeep
• Limited the first contact breakthrough and insight gain percentages to values between 0 and 100 percent.
• Loading a save should now unassign scientists from the pre-3.8 research areas.
• Machines with the Shattered Ring origin now require robomodding techs in order to modify their machine species
• Made AI realize it can not take FEs with 10k fleetpower
• Made explosion after cracking lathe/habitat/ringworld stick until it has played thru.
• Made the language used for trait points and trait picks modifiers consistent
• Make sure planet jobs are properly refreshed upon building/district build queue actions finishes.
• Ministry of Acquisition now correctly produces Consumer Goods if the overlord uses them
• Moved warning text for virtuality into tradition adoption effect instead of widely available trait
• Moving the capital destroys the old Cyberdome building
• Opinion modifiers of Interstellar Assemblies now stacks for each owned Assembly
• Other Crises should no longer be allowed to spawn while the Synth Queen is ongoing
• Pops on the lathe can not be assimilated
• Pops that are turned Virtual while on the Lathe, will have their Virtuality trait quietly removed
• Progenitor hives now receive the correct jobs from the Fallen Empire clinic buildings.
• Reduced the likelihood of designation switching for foundry and factory worlds
• Refugees won't willingly resettle to the Synaptic Lathe anymore
• Removed mentions of stockpiles from the Delete Sector tooltip
• Removed the formless from the end-game crisis list, which might have caused some issues regarding crisis spawning
• Removed the reference to the Server Load Reduction decision, since it is no longer available
• Removed useless "go to" camera button in the "No Response" event
• Show disabled crisis button on Synaptic Lathe view in case another empire takes it over.
• Show large weapon slot and hangars as separate entries for sections in ship designer
• Special project names in tooltips are now highlighted in yellow
• Special projects to raid outposts should now get properly cleared after failing a raid and new projects should display the proper location instead of the empire name.
• Subsuming a planet into a nanite world now correctly removes planetary modifiers and features
• Synthetic Fertility gets access to edicts Subsidized Identity Backups and Optimized Identity Creation
• Synthetic Fertility should now always have access to the AI right policy
• Synthetic Fertility: Keep the organic species portrait in the Identity Repository and Robot Surrogates are now non-holographic
• Terraforming planets related to Keides event chain now removes their unique features
• The Artifact Exhibition planetary decision is now available for Haruspex jobs
• The brainmines now require a minimum sapience
• The Determined Exterminator civic no longer mentions that you start on a tomb world
• The FE robot assembly building should no longer be automatically destroyed after being built.
• The Grand Battlements of Steel and Aegis Complex now provide FTL inhibitors
• The limit on the number of built Dyson Swarm and Arc Furnaces now correctly includes structures under construction
• The modifiers from the Rulerchip are now listed in the same order as leader classes in the leader UI
• The Nanotech World designation now requires the Unbridled Consumption tradition
• The United Creeds now have their unique faction icon
• Unique planetary features added through the Transformation situation and Genesis Guides civics are now kept when restoring a shattered ringworld or turning a planet into an ecumenopolis
• Updated Archaeological Site Excavation failure probability to show accurate number on the tooltip.
• Updated Astral Rift Exploration failure probability to show accurate number on the tooltip.
• Virtual Pops are now properly blocked from resettling on the lathe
• Wrecked Fleet event only fires once afterwards, notifications are given
• You can now only trade one leader at a time
• Initial election for countries now takes into account modifiers to election term length

Stability​

• Adding check to start_astral_action_cooldown effect for validating that the country type can use astral actions (currently either playable or has the ai interior_minister_module) instead of potentially crashing.
• Fixed CTD when a non playable empire decides to lock wormholes etc
• Fixed OOS in hotjoin/resync due to clients cleaning up invalid ship components

UI/UX​

• Added "Build Megastructure" option to fleet order context menu in galaxy view.
• Fixed planet "Build Megastructure" command not correctly hiding unbuildable megastructures from the list.
• Fixed some incorrect leader assignment text.
• Fixed subscription's title not being localized in the popup when buying it through the additional content browser.
• Fixed zoom animation not playing if you go to system view for the last system that you visited in system view.
• Implemented unique icons for galactic focuses concerning mid-game and end-game crises
• System megastructure selection view tooltips show detailed fail text for non-planet-specific checks.
• The Science Nexus build tooltip no longer shows "Exists" fail text in systems without a starbase.
• The government panel now shows your election frequency

Modding​

• Added election_term_variance_add and election_term_variance_mult modifiers
• Adding the ability to dismantle megastructures, see megastructure documentation
• Readding support for appending portrait sets and implementing it for portrait categories
• Removed obsolete is_researching_area and research_leader triggers.
• Renamed government_election_years_add and government_election_years_mult to election_term_years_add and election_term_years_mult

Привіт! I decided to stop learning Russian a couple days ago in favor of Ukrainian (have a Ukrainian friend and the phonetic spelling was very appealing to me). I wasn't too far into Russian, I learned a couple cases but I was far too unorganized and it got extremely tiring to deal with it's irregularities on top of it. Once again, it'll take a little bit before I can try reading and fully understand any grammatical structures. I'm just wondering where any fellow learners (or even a teacher) would recommend that I start learning alongside teacher and maybe stories + TV.
I'm thinking maybe after I finish my Beginner's Ukrainian textbook, I'm on lesson 5 right now and things are pretty easy to digest, however I'll have to wait until I finish chapters 6-10 before I learn all cases in their singular, and 12-15 to learn all of them in their plural. Do you think it would be okay to wait that long?
Дуже дякую.

For your consideration. I am going to post and wait for the initial wave to die down, then engage with thoughtful and reasonably polite objections.
updated: I’m ruling out responses that 1) criticize leveraging AI. I used it ethically and transparently. It’s a tool that will become more and more common. You should get over it. 2) if you basically responded with the arguments I addressed with nothing novel to add
(caveat: I am constantly tuning the argument, but it is mostly developed)
The Longmire Teleological Argument: A Human-AI Collaboration
Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance. That being said, I am also aware that this in not likely to convince a committed atheist. The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe
The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind
The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind
The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses
Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection

One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.
On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection

Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.
This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection

A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes:
[1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.
[8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

I'm still learning too, so if I've made any mistakes, just let me know in the comments!
To speak about something happening now, you can use either of the below sentence structures. They come from different dialects of Te Reo Māori. They're both equally understood and mean the same thing:
Kei te + verb + pronoun.
Or
E + verb + ana + pronoun.
..............
Verbs:
Hiahia = want
Haere = go
Kai = eat
Inu = drink
..............
Pronouns:
Ahau = I
Koe = you
..............
Put them together:
Kei te hiahia ahau.
E hiahia ana ahau.
I’m wanting.
..............
Kei te haere ahau.
E haere ana ahau.
I’m going.
..............
Kei te kai koe.
E kai ana koe.
You’re eating.
..............
You can just change the tone a little or add a question mark to make it a question:
Kei te inu koe?
E inu ana koe?
Are you drinking?
..............
From here, we’ll just use ‘kei te’ to make it simple. But the same sentence structures can be used with ‘e… ana…’ as well.
..............
Add on some extra words:
Kei te + verb + pronoun + i + this/these/that/those.
These words with a ‘t’ are singular, without a ‘t’ are plural.
This = tēnei
These = ēnei
That (near someone you’re talking to) = tēnā
Those (near someone you’re talking to) = ēnā
That (away from you and the person you’re talking to) = tērā
Those (away from you and the person you’re talking to) = ērā
..............
Put it together:
Kei te hiahia ahau i tēnei.
I’m wanting this.
Kei te kai koe i tēnā?
Are you eating that?
Kei te inu ahau i ēnā.
I’m drinking those.
..............
Add more to the sentence:
Kei te + verb + pronoun + i + te/ngā + noun.
Te = the (singular)
Ngā = the (plural)
In Te Reo Māori, you don’t add an ‘s’ on the end of a word to make it plural, instead you change the words before it.
Kei te hiahia ahau i te motokā.
I’m wanting the car.
Kei te hiahia koe i ngā kurī?
Are you wanting the dogs?
Kei te kai koe i te kai?
Are you eating the food?
..............
Add some more to the sentence:
Kei te + verb + pronoun + ki te + noun.
Kei te haere ahau ki te kura.
I’m going to the school.
Kei te haere koe ki te whare?
Are you going to the house?
..............
Add some more:
Kei te + verb + pronoun + ki te + verb.
Kei te hiahia ahau ki te kai.
I’m wanting to eat.
Vs
Kei te hiahia ahau i te kai.
I’m wanting the food.
Kei te hiahia koe ki te haere?
Are you wanting to go?
Kei te hiahia ahau ki te inu.
I’m wanting to drink.
..............
Add some more:
Kei te + verb + pronoun + ki te + verb + ki te/ngā + noun.
Kei te hiahia ahau ki te oma ki te kura.
I’m wanting to run to the school.
Kei te hiahia koe ki te hīkoi ki te motokā?
Are you wanting to walk to the car?
Kei te hiahia koe ki te taraiwa ki te toa?
Are you wanting to drive to the store?
..............
Change the tenses – past and future. All that is needed is to change ‘kei te’ to the below words. Everything else stays the same:
Past = kei te -> i
I hiahia ahau ki te haere ki te toa.
I wanted to go to the store.
I kai ahau i tēnei.
I ate this.
Future = kei te -> ka
Ka haere ahau ki te kura.
I will go to the school.
Ka inu koe i tērā?
Will you drink that (away from both you and the one you’re speaking to)?

To be clear, I'm talking about languages such as Italian, Spanish, French or Portuguese. (I mean Romanian is also one of them.) They all have gender cases including gendered nouns. I do keep hearing that English speakers have an 'easier' time to learn them due to them having an alphabet, plus they are considered "Romance" languages. (I'm not going to talk about that here, as there are many posts mentioning them.)
Instead, I'm discussing on how hard are both Mandarin & Japanese for native French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese speakers to learn? Since both JP & ZH are completely alien to European languages in terms of their writing system, grammar or syntax, so they have no common ground with the European framework in regards to their orthography or grammar.

Even though Japanese has hiragana / katakana, it does not mean they write every word like that, since they have Kanji. (It helps condense sentence length, also that makes it clearer to tell the difference on what the correct word is, as some sound exactly the same but have different meanings altogether.

The features that each language has:

Mandarin	Japanese
Tones (4-5)	Pitch accent
Classifiers (for counting)	Counting words
Stroke order (differs from Japanese)	Stroke order (differs from Mandarin)
Word particles (different from Japanese)	Word particles (different from Mandarin)
Polite language (formality)	Keigo & Honorifics
Sentence structure: SVO	Sentence structure: SOV
Untranslatable nuances	Untranslatable nuances

From both ZH & JP: 1 漢字 equates to a SINGLE word in which multiple letters are needed in European languages to spell out. Both Kanji & Hanzi are drawn from visual concepts on how they interpret a word based on semantic meaning. (Characters are fun for caligraphy practice, it's also a work of art.) For reference, take the Kanji & Hanzi: 川
[The stroke order between both languages are different despite having the same character for some words, since they are both different languages after all.]
The shape of the character is derivative on how its visualized.

Japanese - 訓読み：かわ・音読み：セン
Mandarin - Pinyin: Chuān

For instance, take the kanji & hanzi:「軍」
As you can see, a single kanji & hanzi already equates to 1 word as it is logographic, which will require multiple letters in Romance languages to spell.
Kanji from Japanese has multiple readings for ONE character, for example:「行」
An example of a Kanji, but as indicated their phonologies change depending on how it used within a word, or placed in a sentence.

Kunyomi: Native Japanese Reading of a kanji.
Onyomi: Reading of a kanji derivative of Mandarin phonology.
Nanori: These readings only apply when a kanji is used within a persons name.

That is also another "complex" part of Japanese, as kanji has multiple pronunciations alone. (Yep, this applies to most of the 2,136+ characters having their own assigned phonologies that differ.)
This often gets lost in translation (like all the time!), as ONE character can imply so many definitions depending on the context you associate it with, in a literal or figurative sense. As opposed to European languages, the translation is mainly consistent with what you put it for "common" words but there are some that can also pose multiple meanings.

Japanese & Mandarin	Romance (Euro) languages (letter count)
They have a large amount of characters, getting the feeling like it's 'limitless' but they contrast around 2,000 - 10,000+ in their total amount.	French (26), Spanish (27), Italian (21) & Portuguese (26) As they are alphabetical, you read each letter as it is.
Both languages have zero concept of gender cases as it's not a thing in Japanese & Mandarin.	They have gender cases and gendered nouns (Whether it is FR, ES, IT or PT.)

On the other hand, they both have idioms and proverbs you can create out of 4 characters, conveying a proverb and idiomatic phrase (both in a literal & figurative sense) using only 4 characters:

• In Mandarin - 成語
• In Japanese - 四字熟語

As mentioned, they only use 4 characters to construct a proverb & idiom.

I mean, can you also do this in European languages: only using 4 short words alone? (To create a proverb that still conveys an idiomatic meaning with only 4 words.)

Both Mandarin and Japanese have radicals (on both hanzi & kanji) which are building blocks of their characters, that radical has a meaning on its own as it's derivative of an existing word, but when associated with another kanji & hanzi. (Hence why some characters look similar to one another.)
The connotation of its meaning can change, but the theme surrounding the vocabulary involving the radical still conveys a message despite it being a different word entirely, even though the radical is present in an unrelated word that does not relate to the meaning of the radical.
As shown, pay close attention to the radical present in these words. (Despite some of them having the same one, they connotate a different word entirely.)

The Kanji in Grey: Unreleated words surrounding the radical present.
The Kanji in Pink: Related words surrounding the radical present.
Be careful not to get these mixed up, you need a good eye to distiguish them apart.

List of words from Mandarin containing the radical 女.

The Hanzi in Pink - Words associated with nouns relating to girls & women.
The Hanzi in Purple - Words associated with a "positive" connotation.
The Hanzi in Maroon - Words associated with womanhood.

Japanese

They have 45 ひらがな & 45 カタカナ but that is only scratching the surface, not forgetting to include over 2,136+ 漢字 with readings such as: 訓読み, 音読み & 名乗り for each character, imagine doing that 2k times, knowing all the phonologies for most or all of them.
The grammar too is alien to all European languages, as what is stated last in a [EU lang] sentence is positioned at the beginning in Japanese. On top of kanji implying more than one definition as it is dependent on context, also the reading can change if its paired with kana or another kanji.

For example, take the sentence「ジュールズさんが家族と家でフランス語を話します」(You can clearly see as indicated by the word positionings: Japanese word order is SOV while the translations below it are complicit with the SVO order as usual in European languages.)
As shown here, the sentence strutcure in Japanese is very different to the counterparts in French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese. (Indicated in color)

The さん (in red) is a honorific. (More about that later.)

Subject omission is common in Japanese, as they don't always need to include words like (I am, me, we, us, etc.) as opposed to European languages where it's needed, since you are already inferring to the speaker in question, so it is a lot more straight forward. For instance:
From this sentence (私は) is omitted in Japanese. (Translations conveyed in brackets and light text.)

To speakers of Romance languages, can you omit words like "I am" or any pronoun alike and still be understood by the other party? (Can it really work?)
For example, in Portuguese: instead of saying "O meu nome é Francisco" > just put it as "Francisco" [Omitting O meu nome é] (in Japanese that is connotated as フランシスコです - without 私は)

I won't forget 丁寧語、尊敬語、謙遜語 which are all part of 敬語 in Japanese, especially in verbs as to express a level of politeness (in corporate or formal setting) to empathize respect to the other party to not be connotated as rude (you can use the 'normal' variant but that will come off as impolite - in let's say a business meeting or any formal event / setting.), between a "dictionary" form including teineigo, sonkeigo & kensongo. For instance:
As you can see, all 4 variations of 1 verb exist in Japanese, keeping in mind with the level of formality on which variant you'll use. (They all mean 1 verb, but connotate different levels of politeness, empathizing the level of respect or decorum.)

For example, you would not use 言う in an formal setting when talking to people within either a business or special occassion where decorum is required, you would instead use 申し上げる or something amongst the lines of おっしゃる depending on the situation and setting or formality.
Is there anything like this in European languages to this extent? If not, then this will be difficult for you all to fully understand as there's verbs in Japanese that do this based on the level of decorum incuding the setting you are in, the people you are talking to.

The honorific system in Japanese is often "lost in translation" as evident in both manga or anime (what I hate about translation is that they transliterate it instead of coming up with an equivalent), as there are many levels of politeness and formality within their language, for example:

日本語	Roughly equivalent to:
博士 (はかせ)	Dr. / PhD
後輩 (こうはい)	Junior
先輩 (せんぱい)	Senior
先生 (せんせい)	Teach / Mr / Mrs
様 (さま)	Mr / Mrs (Formal variant, eg. clients, judges)
さん	Mr / Mrs (Addressed towards grown ups)
たん	(Refers to babies)
ちゃん	(Refers to young children - boys / girls)
殿 (どの)	(Formal / archanic ver: of you)
君 (くん)	(Semi-formal title referring to men)
氏 (し)	(Used for family names or important stuff alike)
陛下 (へいか)	Your Majesty
殿下 (でんか)	Your Highness
閣下 (かっか)	Your excelency
坊 (ぼう)	(A term for endearment regarding young boys)
被告 (ひこく)	(Addresses the accused - legal / court)
容疑者 (ようぎしゃ)	(Addresses the suspect - police / legal)
受刑者 (じゅけいしゃ)	(Addresses the one convicted - legal / court)

Of course this also gets lost in translation, in European languages as they OFTEN just romanize the term, which is not how you are not meant to translate it. (If there is no actual equivalent in European languages, just omit it instead of transliterating it.)

In regards to Kanji: there are words that bare the same phoneme, but keep in mind of numerous kanji variations that also possess the same phonology, with each having their own separate meanings. For example, take the onyomi reading for カン -
I only listed 100 kanji that are pronounced the same, but there are 286 more with the same sound: カン (By the way, each kanji has their own definition.)

This phoneme (カン) alone comprises 386 漢字 in Japanese, some of the characters have become 'obscure' in their usage, as in you don't even know they existed until you've looked hard enough. (Even native speakers don't know all of them.)
How difficult is this concept for speakers of European languages to remember and fully grasp? (Some of the kanji are used for people's names.)

The most diffcult part a "word" can have various meanings for one phoneme, take for example 「こうか」which comprises of 39 words with this pronunciation, so depending on the sentence you are listening to or reading, you got to infer the correct one based on context. Also, Japanese has 188 word particles in total. (I won't list them all.)
I can only think of 54 word particles that are used in Japanese sentences. (Although there are quite a lot, with specific uses.)
In terms of how counting works in Japanese, it is not like in European languages at all. Japanese has 助数詞, which are counting / measure words used to count the number of things, actions, events, items, and etc. to make it clear on what you are exactly counting.
A list of Japanese 助数詞 - (There's about 350 of them, but I won't list them all.)

There is so many counter words in Japanese, that even native speakers don't even use ALL of them, as their uses are situational or only applicable in some instances.

Counting suffix (within a number / qty.)	A rough summary
つ	A counter for [things] in general, as it is also commonly used in Japanese.
個	Counter for [no. of pieces] or some things, you see this word in relation to let's say: food.
本	Counts books, pens, pencils, nail clippers, etc. (This one is quite versatile in its usage.)
枚	Equiv. to no. of reams of paper, no. of pics, also counts bath mats, credit cards, clothing, etc.
匹	Used for counting [small / medium] animals (eg. household pets or other small creatures.)
頭	Counter for [no. of livestock] or large animals such as elephants, whales, camels, etc.
冊	Primarily a counting suffix used for documents or books (equiv. to: Olivier read 3 books.)
台	Counting word in relation to the no. of vehicles (such as trucks or cars) for example.
羽	Counter word for birds (specifically) but can be used to count rabbits too.
階	Used to refer to no. of storeys or floors within a building. (eg this apartment has 20 floors.)
缶	Refers to the no. of [cans] such as soda cans, tins, paint cans, etc. (When empty, use: 個)
巻	Refers to no. of [books / comics] in a series. (equiv to: Carlos read all 7 harry potter novels.)
切れ	Refers to no. of [sliced food] (equiv. to: Maria sliced 4 loaves of bread for her sibilings.)
口	As a counter, it refers to [times] bitten in food. (equiv. to: Pierre took one bite from a scone.)
件	Refers to the no. of [cases / incidents] but this counter has versatility in its usage.

For example, the counting word 羽 is present in Japanese (regardless if it is singular or plural), as it is needed to be specific on the indicator within a numerical unit of [something / someone / event / action, etc.] to clarify what you're referring to.
As highlighted, the presence of the counting word is needed. It's not conveyed in the translations displayed below.
Pitch accent is another part of Japanese phonology, as the word can change based on the volume of each phoneme depending on your pronunciation, it connotates a different word altogether affecting the overall meaning, on what you actually want to say. For example, take むし -
Accent 1 is noted as High Low & Accent 2 is noted as Low High. The pitch accent connotates a different word despite them both sounding similar to one another, as in adjusting the volume of one phoneme upon your pronunciation.

Mandarin

7,000 - 80,000+ 漢字 (There are dictionaries that state the existence of around 106,230 漢字 in Mandarin.) However a modern dictionary only features 20,000 hanzi while an educated native speaker memorizes 8,000 hanzi but reading a newspaper only requires knowing 3,000 hanzi.
The sentence structure is different from Japanese (as it is SVO), although their wordings can imply more than one definition, as it is also dependent on how you associate it within a sentence, keep in mind too that they also have tones embedded within their phonology.

For example, take the sentence「醫生根據病人的病情以最好的方式治療他們」(You can clearly see the differences, as indicated by the word positionings - shown in color.)
As shown, the positioning of the words from Mandarin are different despite the word order being SVO, the translations are still different regardless.
Another feature that Mandarin has are separable verbs. (It may sound confusing at first) From this example, take the verb: 見面 (Rencontrer / Incontrare / Conocerte / Conhecer) used here:
As indicated, the hanzi 面 is omitted since 見 already conveys the verb.

Can you also do this in French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese?

In this example, an extra hanzi (了 - as an particle / indicator: past tense) is added in the middle but the verb 吃飯 (Repas / Mangiare / Comer / Come) is still intact:
As the hanzi 了 is placed inbetween both 吃 and 飯, but the verb overall is still there.
From Mandarin - there are words that sound the "same" to the untrained musical ear, as it is a tonal language, so you need to keep that in mind, for example from pinyin: 'bi' consists of multiple hanzi depending on the tone you use, based on pronuncation.
All of them may sound the \"same\" to the untrained musical ear, but they are completely different words altogether. That is the difficult part of Mandarin for \"Euro\" language speakers as it's not a thing in their languages.
There are phonemes from Mandarin that comprise of a LOT of hanzi (that imply different definitions altogether, based on tones.) from 1 sound alone, such as this example below:
I can only think of 82 hanzi which all are pronounced as \"BI\" (there are perhaps more) but their tones connotate a different word. (Also, pay attention to the radicals.)
Like Japanese, Mandarin has word particles too. For example:
Some word particles present in Mandarin. (Although there are perhaps more.)
Akin to the Japanese counting system, Mandarin has 漢語量詞 which are classifiers used to count the number of things, actions, events, items, and etc. to make it clear on what you are exactly counting, that classifier is tied to a specific category and usage.
As indicated, the classifer 輛 is required to be within the sentence in Mandarin. (As you can see from the translations, an equivalent word for that classifier doesn't exist.)
A list of Mandarin 漢語量詞 - (There's quite a few, but I won't list them all.)

Although these classifers can imply multiple meanings and uses, it's context specific though if you want to know what that classifer is referring to.

Classifier (no. / qty. of something / action)	A rough explanation
句	Refers to no of. [lines / sentences] (equiv. to: Sam wrote on the first 2 lines of his book.)
發	Refers to no. of [rounds / bullets] (equiv. to: Diego fired 20 rounds from his M16A4.)
封	Refers to [letters - mail] (equiv. to: Ella opened 4 letters coming from the city council.)
根	Refers to [long thin] objects, eg. needles. (equiv. to: Jack only found 1 needle in a haystack.)
棵	No. of trees (equiv. to: Alice planted 6 trees around the park not far from Paris.)
輛	No. of vehicles (eg. Giovani spotted 3 cars in front of him during a traffic jam in Rome.)
列	Refers to [rows / columns] (eg. Adrian had to wait within a queue stetching 3 rows.)
首	Refers to [poems] (equiv. to: Theo wrote 7 poems within the first month or so.)
水	No of. [rinses / times washed] (eg. Henry washed his laundry for the third time.)
堂	No of. [periods within a class] (eg. Claire skipped 2 study periods for her English exam.)
班	No of [students] (eg. Jean knew there were 20 other pupils in his English class.)
牀	Refers to the [no. of blankets / sheets] (eg. James placed 3 bedsheets in the cabinet.)
排	Refers to [items grouped in rows] (eg. Sally saw 4 chairs untucked in the classroom.)
部	Refers to [no. of movies / novels] (eg. Chris Pratt starred in 3 films this year.)
包	Refers to [no. of packages / bundles] (eg. Reese received 3 bundles of bubble wrap.)

In European languages, do you also have counter words or classifers in relation to numerical units when referring to specific nouns? If not, than this concept from both Japanese & Mandarin might be a struggle to wrap your head around. (As there's one for EVERYTHING, quite a lot!)

Hanzi can be flipped to create:

1. Reversal of verbs & adjectives
2. Different meanings
3. Similar meanings
4. Loosely related definition
5. Closely related definition
6. Logical meanings

Japanese: Kanji can their positions swapped, but in doing so changes the meaning completely.

[Apologies for the long post: since there's a LOT of detail to uncover.]
In hindsight:

• Japanese has different word order compared to Romance langauges, how hard is this grammatical difference for European language speakers to wrap their head around?
• In terms of the honorific system and levels of politeness in speech: Does that really exist in European languages to the extent of Japanese, even for the slightest ones?
• How common is subject omission in European languages? I mean is it to the extent of Japanese in terms of it being common throughout Romance languages. (omitting words or pronouns like: Us, I'm, We, etc.)?
• From European languages: can you omit or separate as well as adding an extra [letter] to verbs witnin a sentence (like Mandarin) and still be understood?
• Since Japanese & Mandarin are logographic and heavily draw on visual concepts for their vocabulary having thousands of characters, how difficult is it for Romance language speakers?
• Tones from Mandarin: How difficult are those for speakers of Romance languages to determine the "right" word by listening to the "same" phoneme 4-5 times at different volume & tone?
• How difficult is the Japanese counting system for speakers of European languages to grasp, since there are 350 of these counting suffixes and specific words integral to numerical units?
• Mandarin has classifiers when referring to numerical units (akin to the Japanese counting system) how hard is this concept for native speakers of Romance languages?

THE DAILY ROMAN

Sponsored by The Guild of Millers:
The Guild of Millers uses only the finest grains. True Roman bread, for true Romans.

Written by By Maria Petronia, 29 May, 2072
Vibe

CONSTANTINOPLE, SECOND ROMAN REPUBLIC — In a scene unparalleled in modern history, the Second Roman Republic celebrated the triumphant return of Roman forces to Constantinople, a city steeped in the annals of time. This magnificent event, known as the Triumph of Constantinople, marks the first Roman triumph since the celebrated Triumph of Belisarius in 535 AD, also held in this illustrious city.
A Glorious Procession
The Triumph unfolded with grandeur reminiscent of ancient Rome, as Roman soldiers, clad in their cutting-edge Lorica Robotica power armor, marched with precision through the city's historic avenues. Above, the skies were dominated by sleek AVGVSTVS 7th generation aircraft, their flyovers a testament to the Republic's modern military prowess. Among the ranks of the marching soldiers were the famed Italian units, composing Caesar's Legions, their presence a living link to the storied past.
Red banners bearing the iconic SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus) and Roman eagles fluttered proudly along the route of the procession. The streets, lined with jubilant citizens and foreign dignitaries, echoed with cheers and the ancient chants of "Roma Invicta." The air was thick with the scent of incense and the sound of traditional Roman trumpets, adding to the ceremonial atmosphere. Children waved miniature Roman flags, and elderly citizens, many in tears, watched with pride as history came alive before their eyes.
The procession wound its way through the city's most iconic landmarks, including the Forum of Constantine, the Hippodrome, and the majestic Theodosian Walls. Each step of the way, the soldiers were met with adulation and admiration, their gleaming armor reflecting the bright Mediterranean sun. AVGVSTVS fighter jets performed intricate aerial maneuvers, leaving trails of smoke in the colors of the Roman flag—red and gold.
A Speech for the Ages
At the steps of the Hagia Sophia, the architectural marvel and historical symbol of both Roman and Byzantine splendor, Gaius Appuleius Diocles, Consul of the Second Roman Republic, delivered a stirring oration. His speech, rich in propagandistic fervor, commemorated the city's liberation and underscored the historical significance of its return to Roman hands.
"People of the Republic," Diocles proclaimed, "after centuries of darkness, the light of Rome once again shines upon Constantinople. It has been over 600 years since this city was last held by the Romans. Today, we honor not only our ancestors but also our unyielding spirit and indomitable will. The City of the World's Desire is Roman once more!"
Diocles continued, emphasizing the symbolic importance of Constantinople. "This city, at the crossroads of East and West, has always been one of the two hearts of the empire. Its liberation is not just a military victory; it is a rebirth of our heritage, a testament to our resilience, and a promise to future generations that the legacy of Rome endures."
The crowd erupted in applause, their voices echoing off the ancient walls of the Hagia Sophia. Diocles' speech, laden with references to Roman history and culture, resonated deeply with the gathered masses. He spoke of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan and Justinian, drawing parallels between their conquests and the modern achievements of the Second Republic. The sense of continuity, of being part of an unbroken chain of history, was palpable.
A City Reclaimed, Yet Changed
While the Triumph brought a wave of nationalistic pride and joy, the reality of modern Constantinople cannot be overlooked. The city, a shadow of its former self, lies on the precarious frontline against a powerful successor state of the Caliphate. The strategic importance of Constantinople has necessitated its placement under strict military administration. The entire coastal region of the Second Republic along the Sea of Marmara and the Hellespont is under direct military control, deemed too dangerous for civilian habitation, but tourism activity is permitted and welcomed.
The urban landscape of Constantinople bears the scars of recent conflicts. Crumbling buildings and bullet-ridden facades stand as grim reminders of the battles fought to reclaim the city. The once-bustling markets and vibrant neighborhoods are eerily quiet, patrolled by Roman soldiers who ensure the security of this vital stronghold. The Hagia Sophia, though still magnificent, now serves a dual purpose as both a symbol of victory and a fortress of defense.
Despite the historic reclamation, the Roman Government has opted not to declare Constantinople its new capital, maintaining Thessalonica as the administrative heart of the Republic. The decision reflects the pragmatic approach of the current administration, balancing historical reverence with contemporary geopolitical realities. Thessalonica, with its existing government infrastructure and relative safety deep within the heartland of the Republic, continues to serve as the nerve center of the Republic's governance and administration.
The military administration in Constantinople is tasked with not only securing the city but also beginning the arduous process of rebuilding and revitalization. Plans are underway to restore key historical sites and infrastructure, with the hope that one day, Constantinople might reclaim its status as a thriving metropolis and capital of the Second Roman Republic. However, for now, the priority remains on security and stabilization, with the city's future still hanging in the balance.
The Rise of the True Romans
The triumphant return to Constantinople comes amidst a period of intense Romanization, spearheaded by the True Romans, the dominant political force since their decisive victory in the 2068 elections. Under their governance, the revival of Roman culture and identity has accelerated dramatically. The popularity and ideological fervor of the True Romans have reached unprecedented heights, galvanizing the population around a renewed sense of Roman identity.
In this new era, nearly all citizens have adopted Latin names, and many cities have reverted to their original Greek or Latin appellations. The resurgence of Roman identity has transcended the fragmented Balkan nationalism that characterized the early 21st century, uniting the diverse populations under a common heritage and destiny.
The True Romans have implemented sweeping cultural reforms aimed at resurrecting the traditions and values of ancient Rome. Latin is now a compulsory language in schools, and Roman history and philosophy are central to the education curriculum. Public ceremonies, festivals, and even daily life have become a fusion of both local and Roman customs.
Social policies have emphasized community and civic duty, drawing inspiration from the principles of Roman citizenship. Public health and education systems have been overhauled, with access to high-quality services now enshrined as a fundamental right. These reforms have fostered a sense of unity and collective purpose, reinforcing the Republic's identity and strengthening its social fabric.
Cultural Renaissance
The Romanization of the Republic extends beyond politics and education. The arts have experienced a renaissance, with a renewed focus on classical themes. Literature, theater, and music all draw heavily from Roman motifs, blending ancient forms with contemporary techniques. Roman architecture is ever present, with new public buildings and monuments designed in a modern neoclassical style, harking back to the grandeur of Rome's golden age. Key examples of this can be seen with the Senate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Defense.
A Future Steeped in History
As the Second Roman Republic celebrates its monumental triumph, the path forward is fraught with challenges. Yet, the rebirth of Roman glory in Constantinople stands as a powerful symbol of resilience and renewal. The echoes of ancient Rome, carried forward by the modern Republic, offer a beacon of hope and strength in a tumultuous world.
The Triumph of Constantinople is more than a historical milestone; it is a testament to the enduring legacy of Rome and the unbreakable spirit of its people. As the Republic moves forward, the lessons of the past and the achievements of the present will continue to guide its journey into the future. In this new chapter of history, the Second Roman Republic stands as a bridge between antiquity and modernity, drawing strength from its illustrious heritage while embracing the challenges of the contemporary world. The road ahead is long and uncertain, but with the spirit of Rome rekindled, the Republic faces the future with confidence and resolve. The City of the World's Desire, once again under the aegis of Rome, symbolizes not just a return to past glories, but the dawn of a new era for the Roman people.

Chapter 1: The Escape

Alessandro could hardly believe his luck as he pushed the small boat off the beach and into the churning waters of the Adriatic Sea. He was eighteen, with dark hair and eyes that mirrored the Mediterranean depths. His mother had passed away two years earlier, and his father, a soldier, had fled to Yugoslavia with Caesar’s Legions. Alessandro had been left behind, surviving under the oppressive rule of the Alfr occupation.
The journey to the coast had been perilous. Avoiding Alfr patrols and checkpoints, he had relied on his wits and the kindness of a few trusted neighbors. One of them, an old fisherman, had given him the boat, along with a warning about the dangers of the Adriatic crossing. “The sea can be unforgiving,” the fisherman had said, “but it’s your only chance.”
Alessandro took a deep breath, feeling the salty air fill his lungs. The sun was setting behind him, casting long shadows over the turbulent waters. He set his course east, towards the distant promise of the Second Roman Republic, where he hoped to reunite with his father.

Chapter 2: The Storm

As the night fell, the weather began to change. The gentle waves turned into towering swells, and the wind picked up, howling like a wild beast. Alessandro clung to the rudder, his knuckles white with the strain. Each wave that hit the boat sent a shock through his body, and he fought to keep the vessel upright.
The storm intensified, lightning flashing across the sky, illuminating the dark, menacing clouds. Rain pelted down, stinging his skin and blurring his vision. He could barely see a few feet ahead, and the roar of the wind and waves drowned out all other sounds.A particularly large wave crashed over the side of the boat, nearly capsizing it. Alessandro gasped, struggling to bail out the water with his hands. His muscles ached, and he felt exhaustion creeping in. Just when he thought he couldn’t hold on any longer, a massive silhouette emerged from the storm.

Chapter 3: The Rescue

The ship loomed over Alessandro’s tiny boat, its hull slicing through the waves with ease. He could just make out the words “Boat King” emblazoned on its side. Relief washed over him as he realized it was part of the Roman Navy.
Sailors shouted orders, and ropes were thrown down to Alessandro. Strong hands lifted him from his boat, wrapping him in warm blankets and leading him below deck. Alessandro’s head spun with exhaustion and relief as he was given dry clothes and a steaming mug of soup.
In a small cabin, he collapsed onto a cot, the events of the night catching up with him. The gentle rocking of the ship was a stark contrast to the violent storm he had just endured. He drifted off to sleep, comforted by the knowledge that he was safe.

Chapter 4: A New Beginning

The next morning, Alessandro woke to the sound of seagulls and the gentle lapping of waves against the hull. He was called to the deck, where an officer awaited him. The officer introduced himself as Centurion Marcus Valerius and gave Alessandro a warm smile.
“You’re safe now,” Marcus said, placing a reassuring hand on Alessandro’s shoulder. “Many Italians brave this voyage, but not all make it.” Alessandro nodded, still in awe of his surroundings. “My father is serving in the Legions,” he said, his voice trembling with hope. “Can you help me find him?”
Marcus’s expression softened. “We’ll do our best. For now, you need to go through the basic process all refugee Italians do when they arrive.”

Chapter 5: The Processing Facility

As they docked in Dyrrachium, Alessandro was escorted by soldiers in exoskeletons to a large refugee processing facility. The facility was a hive of activity, with hundreds of Italian refugees being processed, evaluated, and subsequently integrated into the Second Roman Republic.
Inside, Alessandro was asked a series of questions about his education and general intelligence. He answered them as best he could, drawing on the knowledge he had gained from his interrupted schooling. The evaluators seemed pleased with his responses, and he was deemed fit to begin the integration process.
The next day, Alessandro was taken to an auditorium where the first lesson of his integration began. A lecturer stood before a large map, detailing the geographic overview of the Second Roman Republic. Alessandro learned that the Republic comprised the former countries of Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, and all of Thrace to Constantinople. Cities had been renamed to their original Latin or Greek names, and the provinces were reorganized to align with traditional Roman provinces for efficient administration.

Chapter 6: Lesson 1 - Geography of the Second Roman Republic

Alessandro sat in the large auditorium, surrounded by other refugees, all eager to learn about their new home. The lecturer, a tall man with glasses and a kind demeanor, pointed to a large map projected on the screen.
“Welcome to the Second Roman Republic,” the lecturer began. “Our Republic is a union of former countries, now organized into provinces for more efficient administration. Let’s start with Thracia, the land of ancient Thracians, which now includes parts of former Bulgaria and Turkey, all the way to Constantinople.”
Alessandro’s eyes followed the lecturer’s pointer as it moved across the map. The names were familiar yet new. Thracia, Moesia, Macedonia, Epirus, Achaea et Creta, Dardania, Illyria et Histria, and Pannonia. Each province was highlighted in a different color, making it easy to distinguish them.
“Each of these provinces and their cities has been named to reflect their historical significance,” the lecturer continued. “For example, Belgrade is now Singidunum. Sofia is Serdica, and Split is Salona.”
The lecturer went on to explain the strategic importance of these regions, their natural resources, and their cultural heritage. Alessandro found himself captivated by the rich history and the sense of unity that the Second Roman Republic represented.

Chapter 7: Lesson 2 - Government of the Second Roman Republic

The next lesson delved into the government structure of the Second Roman Republic. Alessandro listened intently as the lecturer, now a woman with short, curly hair and a commanding presence, began to speak.
“Our government is a unicameral federal system,” she explained. “The Roman Senate is elected by the people, and the party or coalition with the majority of seats appoints the Consul, who acts as the Head of Government.”
Alessandro scribbled notes, trying to keep up with the information. He learned that elections were held every five years, and the Senate also elected the Princeps, who was the Head of State. The Princeps, while largely ceremonial, had the power to appoint a Dictator in times of crisis.
“The current Consul is Gaius Appuleius Diocles, and the current Princeps is Maximus Decimus Meridius,” the lecturer continued. “Both men belong to the True Roman party, which currently enjoys a supermajority in the Senate.”
Alessandro found the political system fascinating. It seemed fair and structured, a stark contrast to the chaotic and oppressive rule he had experienced under the Alfr occupation.

Chapter 8: Seeking Help

One evening, after an intense day of lessons, Alessandro sought out Marcus, the officer who had promised to find his father. He found him in a small office, tracking further Italian attempts at crossing the Adriatic.
“Have you found my father?” Alessandro asked, his voice filled with hope.
Marcus handed him a phone. “Here, speak to him yourself.”
Alessandro’s heart skipped a beat as his father’s face appeared on the screen. Tears of joy streamed down his cheeks as they spoke briefly. His father was in Histria, along with many other Italians who had settled there. The captain promised to arrange transport for Alessandro as soon as he finished his lessons.

Chapter 9: Lesson 3 - Economy of the Second Roman Republic

The following week, Alessandro attended a lesson on the economy of the Second Roman Republic. The lecturer, a middle-aged man with a booming voice, began to explain the economic structure and its importance to the Republic.
“The Second Roman Republic is one of two market-based economies left in Europe,” he said. “Our economy has received significant investment from all over the world, thanks to the successful business reforms implemented a decade ago.”
Alessandro learned about the Roman Stock Exchange, a prominent global financial center, and the anti-corruption reforms that had strengthened the economy. The integration of Yugoslavia and the rest of Thrace had provided additional human, technological, and material capital.
“Our economy is a pillar of the Roman state,” the lecturer continued. “It helps guarantee our liberties and provides the foundation for our prosperity.” Alessandro was impressed by the economic stability and growth. It gave him hope for the future and a sense of security that he hadn’t felt in a long time.

Chapter 10: Final Lesson - Recent History

Finally, the day came when Alessandro completed his last lesson. The lecturer, an elderly man with a wealth of knowledge and a passion for history, spoke about the recent events that had shaped the Second Roman Republic.
“The Final Brother War, also known as the Second War of Deliverance, saw a joint invasion of the Caliphate by both the UASR and GIGAS,” the lecturer began. “Rome supported coalition with an invasion of Thrace, leading to the liberation of Constantinople.”
Alessandro listened intently as the lecturer described the peace negotiations held in Constantinople, which had been mediated by the Second Roman Republic. These negotiations, known as the Constantinople Accords, had elevated the Republic’s diplomatic stature and secured its future.
“The end of the Gothic War and the occupation of the free Italian state by Alfr led to several hundred thousand Italian soldiers retreating to Yugoslavia,” the lecturer continued. “These soldiers, calling themselves Caesar’s Legions, have a strong presence in the Second Roman Republic and are determined to liberate Italy.”
Alessandro thought about his father and their shared hope for Italy’s liberation. He was inspired by the resilience and determination of the soldiers and felt a renewed sense of purpose.

Chapter 11: The Reunion

As the lesson ended, Alessandro found Marcus waiting for him outside the auditorium. The captain handed him a train ticket and said, “Your train to Histria is ready. Go pack your things.”
Alessandro hurried to his dormitory, packed his belongings, and met Marcus, who drove him to the train station. The sleek maglev train arrived, and Alessandro hugged the captain in gratitude before boarding. The journey to Pula was swift, and upon arrival Alessandro marveled at the flags of the former Italian Republic flying alongside Roman flags.
Stepping off the train, Alessandro scanned the crowd and spotted his father in the distance. Running towards him, Alessandro felt a surge of emotion as they embraced.

“Welcome to the Legion, son.”

SUMMARY

• Name: THE SECOND ROMAN REPUBLIC
• Capital: Thessalonica
• Lingua Franca: Latin
• Currency: Solidus (SOL)
• Government: Federal Constitutional Republic
• Princeps: Maximus Decimus Meridius
• Consul: Gaius Appuelius Diocles

PROVINCES OF THE SECOND ROMAN REPUBLIC

Province	Capital	Notes
Constantine Military District	Constantinople, Kallipolis	Under military administration with limited civilian habitation
Thracia	Philippopolis	Turkish Thrace currently being intensely Romanized and integrated
Macedonia	Thessalonica
Moesia	Serdica
Achaea et Creta	Athenae
Epirus	Dyrrachium
Dardania	Naissus
Illyria	Salona	Plurality Italian population, extensive presence of Caesar’s Legions
Histria	Pula	Majority Italian population, pervasive presence of Caesar’s Legions
Pannonia (Inferior)	Singidunum
Pannonia (Superior)	Emona

ECONOMY OF THE SECOND ROMAN REPUBLIC

Economic Indicator	As of December 31st, 2072
Total GDP ($ in mm)	$3,319,041
Population (mm)	60.80
GDP per Capita ($)	$54,589
National Debt ($ in mm)	$48,000
Debt-to-GDP	1.45%
Budget, % of GDP	50%
Budget ($ in mm)	$1,659,521

 

Ministry	Budget ($ in mm)	Share of Total Budget
Ministry of Justice	$66,381	4.0%
Ministry of Foreign Affairs	$41,488	2.5%
Ministry of Finance	$41,488	2.5%
Ministry for Culture	$41,488	2.5%
Ministry of Infrastructure	$124,464	7.5%
Ministry of Interior	$182,547	11.0%
Ministry of Health	$348,499	21.0%
Ministry of Defense	$224,035	13.5%
Ministry of Education	$215,738	13.0%
Ministry for the Environment	$83,806	5.1%
Ministry of Maritime Affairs	$82,976	5.0%
Ministry of Innovation	$24,893	1.5%
Consul's Office	$4,149	0.3%
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs	$94,593	5.7%
Subtotal	$1,576,544	95.0%
Debt Service	$82,976	5.00%
TOTAL	$1,659,521	100.00%

 

Issuer	Coupon	Issue Date	Maturity Date	Amount Outstanding	Majority Creditors	Interest
Second Roman Republic	0.500%	9/1/2055	9/1/2080	$48,000,000,000	IZANAMI Consortium	$240,000,000
TOTAL				$48,000,000,000		$240,000,000

GOVERNMENT OF THE SECOND ROMAN REPUBLIC

EXECUTIVE

Position	Individual
Princeps	Maximus Decimus Meridius
Consul	Gaius Appuleius Diocles
Praetor of Defense	Lucius Vorenus
Praetor of Justice	Valeria Octavia
Praetor of Foreign Affairs	Lucius Varro
Praetor of Finance	Marcus Janus
Praetor for Culture	Maria Pleminia
Praetor of Infrastructure	Severus Maximus
Praetor of Interior	Lucila Cartholo
Praetor of Health	Julianus Sanitas
Praetor of Education	Quintus Valerius
Praetor for the Environment	Octavia Junia
Praetor of Maritime Affairs	Evander Pulchio
Praetor of Innovation	Cato Delenda
Tribune of Labour and Social Affairs	Tiberius Gracchus

 
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE

Position	Individual
Aedile of the Frumentarii	Livia Drusilla
Legate of the Constantine Military District	Tiberius Antonius
Magister Militum	Titus Pullo
Legate of the Legions	Servius Planta
Legate of the Navy	Victorinus Russo
Legate of the Air Force	Remus Tiberius
Imperator of Caesar's Legions	Armando Rossi Gothicus

SENATE OF THE SECOND REPUBLIC

Party/Coalition	Leaning	Seats	Seat Share
True Romans	Roman Populists	400	80.00%
Populares	Left / Center-Left	40	8.00%
Movement for Change	Left-wing, social democracy	10	2.00%
Democratic Union	Center-left	10	2.00%
Movement for Rights and Freedoms	Center-left, social liberalism	15	3.00%
Coalition of the Radical Left	Left wing, social democracy, secularism	4	0.80%
Optimates	Right / Center-Right	35	7.00%
New Democracy	Center-right, liberal conservatism	8	1.60%
There is Such a People	Center-right, fiscal conservatism	10	2.00%
Christian Democratic Party	Center-right, christian democracy	15	3.00%
Union for the Homeland and the People	Right-wing, national conservatism	2	0.40%
Regionalist and Other Minor Parties	Left-wing to Right-wing	25	5.00%
Democratic Party of Epirus	Centre-right, Epirote regionalist interests	5	1.00%
Achean Solution	Right-wing, Achean regionalist interests	5	1.00%
Democratic Party for Pannonia	Right-wing, Pannonian regionalist interests	5	1.00%
Union of Democratic Forces	Left-wing, Former Yugoslav regionalist interests	5	1.00%
Italia Irredenta	Italian revanchism	5	1.00%
TOTAL		500	100.00%

END

I've had an interest in conlanging for a while now (around a year i think?) And ive made rough sketches or conlangs before, but now i want to start making my own properly. Heres what I have so far.
Lykotopian is for a wolflike human species (think Teen Wolf type werewolves) and tried to build a language around that.
General - Based on Japanese, with an honorifics system and other features borrowed from it. The language is largely dependant on volume, pitch and length of sounds. Lots of different 'r' sounds with minute differences that mean alot in Lykotopian; rhotic sounds are by far the most important in the language. Normal humans struggle due to lack of sensitive hearing and are sometimes incapable of learning all the different sounds.
Gender - Non-grammatical gender (Basically English)
Number System - A Base-10 numeral system.
Script - Uses an alphabet system and was originally written in stone using the Lykos' claws, as both a way to write something permananent but also to sharpen claws. The script of the language therefore resembles cuniform and runic. The script moves left to right in a vertical manner. Has been adapted since to paper, then screens upon the introduction of modern technology.
Measuring - The Metric System.
Structure - Lykotopian is a SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) structure language. As an example; Cow, Grass, Eat, intead of the English order SVO, Cow, Eat, Grass.
Plural - Lacks a traditional plural; instead words indictive of a plural will have numbers attached, or understood through context.
Phonology:
Consonants:
/m/ - voiced bilabial nasal (m>ap)
/n/ - voiced alveolar nasal (n>ow)
/ŋ/ - voiced velar nasal (endi /p/ - voiceless bilabial plosive (p>ower)
/d/ - ejective voiced alveolar plosive (d>own)
/ʔ/ - glottal stop (uh<>oh)
/t/ - voiceless alveolar plosive (t>yre)
/ð/ - voiced dental fricative (th>under)
/k/ - voiceless velar plosive (c>onflict)
/w/ - voiced labial-velar approximant (w>ant)
/v/ - ejective voiced labiodental fricative (v>et)
/s/ - voiceless alveolar fricative (s>aid)
/ʃ/ - voiceless postalveolar fricitive (sh>ave)
/ɣ/ - ejective voiced velar fricative (gh>ali [please google])
/ʁ/ - voiced uvular fricitive (r>ue [french])
/ɹ/ - voiced alveolar approximant (r>ule)
/ɻ/ voiced retroflex approximant (
/ voiced alveolar trill (
/ʀ/ voiced uvular trill (
/h/ - unvoiced glottal fricitive (h>ard)
/l/ - voiced alveolar lateral approximant (l>et)
/y/ - close front rounded (y>ell)
Vowels:
/i/ - close front unrounded (Sk /a/ - open back unrounded (ah [relaxed])
- close back rounded (fd)
/ə/ - mid central schwa (uh)
/ɪ/ - near-close near-front unrounded (i>nner)
/ɛ/ - open-mid front unrounded (eh)
/o/ - close-mid back rounded (o>tter)
(I had trouble finding out the difference in pronunciation of all the different 'r' sounds, which is why the example words are left mostly blank, but I knew I needed them in my language. If you could explain that'd be great too, thanks!)
The only word I have right now is 'ɛnna' which means 'blood'.
Any help, constructive criticism and pointers are welcome! Please help!

I saw a lot of helpful study tips but I just want to share one that hasn’t been discussed as far as I know. I started off with 1200 (440/760) on one of the practice tests. Btw, I moved to US 5 years ago so English is not my first language. But after 3 months I got 1470 (680/790) on the May exam using this method—I call it “strength and weakness analysis,” where I categorize questions into several concepts. For example, writing questions other than Transitions and Rhetorical Analysis are either Boundaries or Form, Structure and Sense(not helpful at all!) so I further categorized like this using Khan Academy:

• Boundaries → Linking Clause, Supplements, Other Punctuations
• Form, Structure and Sense → Pronoun, Subject-verb Modifier, Subject-verb Agreement, Verb Forms, Plurals and Possessives

Reading portion is pretty straightforward but I added frequently tested topics as concepts like Science, Social Science, Government, History, Novel, Poem, Art, Biography, etc.
For each question type and concept, I came up with a “how to approach” strategy and kept applying them on practice exams. This saved me so much time during the exam because once I identified the question type/concept, I knew how to tackle the question without wasting time.
On top of this, I recorded and counted questions I got wrong so that I could find which question types I missed the most, think about why I missed such questions and come up with plans on how to improve. This became really helpful after I took more than 3 tests because I could see what I missed the most and what I need to do to improve on these.
I’m not a good writer so this post might sound all over the place so I’m happy to answer any questions in the comment. Besides the strategy, I think I need to read more books and articles to improve further. I’m open to suggestions too. Good luck everyone!

Salam! I’m Stealthy, but you may know me better as LingoLizard. For many years I’ve been interested in IALs, creating sketches of some as early as 2018. While those earlier ones weren’t good, I gradually honed my skill in making auxlangs, and starting in 2021, I started Dunyago, which I’ve been doing work for on and off ever since. With 950 roots and over 2000 words, Dunyago is ready to be unveiled to the public!
Introduction:
Dunyago is a culturally-neutral international auxiliary language (IAL), meant for communication between people who otherwise wouldn’t have a language in common, meant to be used by and optimized for the general world population. Dunyago avoids the contradictory presence of eurocentrism in other IALs, and has a variety of sources even more global than other modern worldlangs.
Dunyago has 21 source languages, which are, in order of number of speakers: English, Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, French, Arabic, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian, Indonesian, German, Japanese, Telugu, Turkish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Persian, Hausa, Swahili, and Thai.
Orthography and Phonology:
Consonants:

	labial	alveolar	palatal	velar
nasal	m	n		ŋ
plosive	p b	t d		k g
affricate		dz	tʃ dʒ
fricative	f v	s	ʃ	x
trill		r
approximant	w	l	j

Voiceless plosives and affricates are ideally aspirated [pʰ] [tʰ] [kʰ] [tʃʰ] in most syllable-initial contexts to the benefit of speakers of languages with aspiration distinctions instead of voicing.
The rhotic is ideally a trill or a tap /r~ɾ/, but a variety of other realizations are acceptable.
/ŋ/ is only allowed coda position, where it does not contrast with /n/ or /m/ and may be pronounced /ŋg/.
Semivowels /j/ and /w/ are written as glides after consonants and as part of diphthongs, but and elsewhere.
/v/ and /dz/ appear in only a few words, primarily for recognizability in very international words, or when loaning place names.
/dz/ is an affricate instead of a fricative in analogy with fellow sibilant /dʒ/, and is meant to transcribe both /z/ and /ts/.
Many consonants have forbidden minimal pairs to allow for the mergers of sounds that are difficult to distinguish for some speakers. These include but are not limited to:
/p/ with /f/, / with /l/, /s/ with /dz/, /tʃ/ with /ʃ/, /v/ with /w/, with /dʒ/ with /j/.
Vowels:
Typical of an IAL, the vowels of Dunyago are /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ , and its diphthongs are /ai/ /au/ /oi/.
/e/ and /o/ are ideally realized as mid [e̞] and [o̞], in between open-mid [ɛ] and [ɔ] and close-mid [e] and [o].
Phonotactics:
The syllable structure of Dunyago is (C)(L)V(G), where:
C represents all consonants besides /ŋ/
L represents liquids /l/, /, /j/, and /w/
V represents monophthongs
G represents allowed coda consonants /m/, /n/, /ŋ/, /p/, /t/, /k/, /s/, /, /l/, and /i/ and as part of diphthongs /ai/, /au/, and /oi/.
To break up consonant clusters which may be difficult for some to pronounce, filler vowels such as [ə], [ɯ], [ɨ], [i], and [u] may be inserted.
Grammar:
Word Order:
The basic word order of Dunyago is SVO, with prepositions instead of postpositions. As a compromise to head-final languages and in analogy with English and Mandarin, adjectives go before the nouns they modify.
As an example, “The cat drinks the white milk” translates as:
mao pit puti milku, literally “cat drink white milk”
Pronouns:

	singular	plural
1st person	mi	kami
2nd person	tu	antu
3rd person	ta	tara

While not derived regularly, the plural versions of pronouns each contain their singular counterparts inside of them.
mi: from spanish mi, english me, portuguese me, mim, bengali আমি ami, french me, german mich, mir, swahili mimi
kami: from indonesian kami, tagalog kami, russian мы my, нами nami
tu: from hindi तू tu, french tu, spanish tú, portuguese tu, german du, russian ты ty, bengali তুমি tumi, persian تو to
antu: from arabic أنتما ʾantumā, أنتم ʾantum, أنتن ʾantunna
ta: from mandarin 它, 她, 他 tā, hausa ta, ita
tara: from bengali তারা tara
Nouns:
Nouns are simple and isolating, with no articles, grammatical cases, or gender, and plural marking is not required. The plural marker ler may optionally be used, but only in the absence of a number word.
mao - cat, cats
ler mao - cats
dua mao - two cats
The majority of nouns for people are gender-neutral, with the option to prefix fem “woman” and nan “man” to indicate binary gender. All nouns with base gendered forms have gender-neutral equivalents.
bacha - child, kid (neutral)
fembacha - girl (feminine)
nanbacha - boy (masculine)
mama - mom, mother (feminine)
papa - dad, father (masculine)
oya - parent (neutral)
The particle su is used to mark possession, as well as use nouns in an attributive manner.
kuta su gor - dog’s house, dog house, house of the dog
Verbs:
Verbs do not inflect for person, and have a handful of tense and aspect markers, which are all optional and isolating. The base form of verbs without any of these particles can be any tense or aspect.
kar - to do, do, does, did, will do, doing
li kar - did (past tense)
sha kar - will do, shall do, going to do (future tense)
dang kar - doing (imperfective, active)
ha kar - have done, has done (perfective)
Particles be and mek mark the passive and causative forms of verbs respectively.
Derivation:
To form compound words in Dunyago, two words are simply placed next to each other.
bumikengua - peanut (from bumi “dirt” and kengua “nut”)
atismonte - volcano (from atis “fire” and monte “mountain”)
fedamachi - silverfish (from feda “silver” and machi “fish”)
The suffix -ya is used to mark abstractions, particularly of verbs and adjectives, but is used with a handful of nouns as well.
To derive adjectives (and by extension adverbs, since adjective and adverbs are the same in Dunyago), the suffix -ni is added to nouns and verbs ending with vowels, -di is added to ones ending with coda /n/, and -i is added to ones ending with any other consonant. The reason -di is used instead of -i after /n/ is to aid back-formation.
Kos, which in isolation means “thing”, is suffixed to verbs to form concrete nouns of a thing relating to the verb, or a single instance of the action.
The suffix -ka is used to indicate the doer of an action, and is suffixed to a variety of nouns as well to indicate a person with a relation to the noun.
Vocabulary:
When creating new words, the words for the concept in the sourcelangs are analyzed. If there is an international word present (particularly in 3-4+ languages), then the most international word is chosen for Dunyago. If there is no clear international word for a concept, then a word from one of the most currently underrepresented languages that fits Dunyago best is chosen.
Only compounds that one of the 21 source languages used are calqued into Dunyago, with artificial constructions forbidden.
Sample Text:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Kul jen betanjo jiyuni wa igual en ijat wa haku. Tara be dar liyu wa chetnaya wa ingai soro praprut en siblingya su ruhu
(Literally: all people PASS-birth freedom-ADJ and equal in dignity and right 3P-PL PASS give reason and conscious-ABS and should mutually behave in sibling-ABS of spirit)
The etymologies of all the preceding words can be found in this sheet with the entire Dunyago lexicon.
Conclusion:
I’m quite proud of this language, and I hope Dunyago has piqued your interest! If so, feel free to join the official Dunyago Discord server, or the Dunyago subreddit Dunyago! The language is still a work in progress, and helpful feedback is appreciated! I will continue to flesh out Dunyago for many years to come.
A full reference grammar of Dunyago can be found here.