Do you ever have the sense that a piece of text just isn’t right? Much of what passes for “news” is actually advocacy wrapped in journalistic packaging. We sense the spin, we feel the manipulation, but we often lack the language to say what’s happening.
This article shows a way to analyse text to identify language patterns which are particularly misleading. Once you can name a pattern, you can analyse it and judge it. And once you can consciously judge it, you can stop being manipulated by it.
The method is to use AI to identify Milton Model language‑pattern categories. Originally promoted by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in the 1970s for Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), these patterns have since been used in sales, training and general persuasion. The Milton Model language patterns relate to concepts from linguistics, cognitive psychology, philosophy and English grammar.
Political speech typically uses language which creates agreement without argument, which is what the Milton Model was designed to do. Consequently, Milton-Model language patterns may be distinguished in political reporting and commentary.
Actually, they show up in AI responses too. When I asked Copilot to define a “double bind,” they ended their explanation with: “Would you like to explore how to use them effectively – or how to spot when someone’s using one on you?”
Note that both options assume you will continue the conversation. That’s a textbook ‘double bind’ – and a ‘presupposition’ that I will continue. Once you know what to look for, you see these patterns everywhere.
This guide takes you through half a dozen of the most common patterns, with examples from New Zealand media and politics. A comprehensive set of 27 Milton Model language patterns as used by Copilot are identified in Appendix A.
If you’d like help analysing an extract for misleading language patterns, you can paste it into Copilot and ask for a Milton-Model analysis. Copilot will name particular patterns in your piece, give you an analysis of the pattern and outline the kinds of problems it can create. Copilot will then offer you a number of further possible questions or you can formulate your own.
You can also give Copilot a link to a web-page, such as that for a political party manifesto, and ask a particular question about the page. However, Copilot sometimes cannot access the link which can lead to confusion. Pasting a portion of the text is the most reliable method, but note that there is a 10,240 character limit.
A useful tactic is to ask Copilot to rewrite a passage to exclude the Milton-Model language patterns, which consequently removes emotional impact, rhetorical shortcuts, implied logic and identity framing. Removing those elements reveals the underlying thought that the rhetoric is masking which results in a different debate than the one the original wording provokes.
For a worked example by Copilot, see Appendix B on the Treaty of Waitangi.
Bear in mind that the usefulness of the answer depends on the suitability of your question. You have complementary competencies: Whereas Copilot’s strength is applying logic to a large amount of serial information, you have intuition which applies across your memory of experience. You need to work through how to make these disparate skills work together.
If the response is not what you expected, review your question and repeat. AI can be erratic, so stay with the mechanics of analysing language and don’t debate the topic. You must always apply your rational mind to the results. You are the intentional agent; Copilot is your AI helper.
You are working with a machine which knows not what the words mean, but how they go together – i.e., language patterns. So, frame your question as an exercise in linguistics – the study of language and its structure – rather than in politics. Clearly say what you want analysed and what you want to understand.
For example, ask:
- “Which Milton-Model patterns are present?”
- “How does this framing influence the debate?”
- “What changes if we rewrite it without these patterns?”
If something feels like humbug, it probably is. This is how you identify why.
SIX COMMON MILTON MODEL LANGUAGE PATTERNS
The following describes six language patterns and gives some examples from New Zealand politics. A comprehensive set of 27 Milton Model language patterns used by Copilot is given in Appendix A.
1. Presuppositions
Presuppositions are everywhere. They are assumptions smuggled into statements: the Trojan horse of political language. Presuppositions may be used by a communicator who presupposes what they do not want to have questioned.
One tactic is to give the reader choices, and yet have all the choices presuppose the response the writer wants. The way to determine what is presupposed and not open to question in a sentence is to negate the sentence and find out what is still true.
Examples
“Together for ti Tiriti” presupposes we are apart. And if we are, why?
“This is the only way to end racism” presupposes racism is present.
Co-governance Examples
“We must always come back to rights first as asserted in Te Tiriti o Waitangi,” (here) Presupposes rights in the Treaty.
Helmut Modlik: it “would ‘belie’ the partnership between Māori and the Crown”. (here) Presupposes a ‘partnership’.
Helmut Modlik: “It strengthens our partnership with [the government].” (here)
Presuppositions are powerful because they bypass debate: They move the conversation forward on terms you didn’t agree to, such as ‘Partnership’.
2. Lost Performative
Evaluative statements in which the person making the evaluation is missing (lost) from the sentence. They are value judgments or opinions stated as facts, with no source or reasoning.
Statements such as, “It’s important to vote Labour in this family” can be challenged with a simple: “According to who?”
Statements using lost performatives can be an effective way of delivering presuppositions, as in the following examples.
1) Jacinda Ardern: “If I could distil it down into one concept what we are pursuing in New Zealand, it is simple and it is this: kindness.”
Who is “we”? The government? The nation? The speaker? The referent is lost.
2) Rawiri Waititi: “This Government is waging war on our existence as Maori and on the fabric of this nation.” here
A dramatic claim with no evidence or authority cited.
3) Rawiri Waititi: “If Luxon ignores these recommendations he will go down in history as having led the most anti-Māori government in generations.” (here)
A sweeping historical judgement with no comparative analysis.
4) Willie Jackson: ‘Maori “will go to war” over ACT's Treaty referendum’ (here).
The phrase “Maori” implies a whole people, but later the article reveals it refers to “some” individuals.
5) Claims that haka (here), Treaty principles (here), and knowledge systems (here) are “sacred.”
Sacred according to whom? When was this decided? By what authority?
Lost performatives often sound authoritative — because the authority is hidden.
3. Cause and Effect
Implying that X causes Y without proving it.
Correlation is not causation. Coincidence is not causation. And sometimes the events didn’t even happen.
Examples
1) Waitangi Tribunal: The Treaty Principles Bill would “prejudice Māori” and “Māori will feel the brunt of the division and even social disorder that could ensue.” (here)
How specifically did the Bill cause prejudice to Maoris and what is the particular prejudice? How specifically did the Bill cause division and social disorder and how did Maoris feel the chief impact of that?
2) Select Committee on the TPB: “What he put in was a rewrite of the Treaty … the amount of division it’s caused is not good for this country.” (here)
The TPB legislates to remove division which the Waitangi Tribunal has created between part-Maori and non-Maori. So, did the Bill cause division, or was the claim an affected reaction to it? Or political framing? Or something else?
3) The National Iwi Chairs Forum remind Charles III that, “he expressed deep personal sorrow for the suffering caused in the past and highlighted the need to confront and learn from this history to build a better future.” (here)
What specifically was the suffering, who caused it and how? Was Maori suffering primarily caused by taurekareka, kai tangata and roromi, and the 20% to 50% of the population killed during the Maori Wars?
Cause‑and‑effect claims are persuasive because they feel logical. But they often rest on nothing.
4. Complex Equivalence
Assuming two things mean the same thing when they don’t.
Whereas cause and effect is due to causality (A caused B), complex equivalence is due to meaning (A means B).
It is called ‘complex’ because it is not easy to understand and the equivalent verbal description is more complicated than that which it expounds. If A happens at the same time as B, or near B, or vaguely resembles B, people often conclude A means B.
Examples:
1) David Seymour: “If the proposition is that being Māori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that’s not a very attractive proposition.” (here)
David Seymour challenges the implied equivalence.
2) Separation of powers “means Ministers must not engage in any personal criticism of judges or the leadership of the Courts.” (here)
That is a meaning leap, not a demonstrated principle.
3) Rawiri Waititi: “I’m 20% of this country … I expect nothing less than 20% of the total Budget in this country...” (here)
You may like to ask Copilot what Milton-Model language patterns there are in this quote, but complex equivalence is one of them.
Complex equivalence is persuasive because it feels tidy. Reality rarely is.
5. Double Binds
Double Binds offer two (illusory) choices, both of which have same outcome. A Double Bind is an invitation to choose one or the other of two alternatives, which may be opposites, but not both or neither. For computer buffs, it is logically an Exclusive Or (XOR) function. The word ‘or’ in English means ‘used to link alternatives’, which is logically an Exclusive Or conjunction.
Example: Will you vote National or Labour? Either way, you’re going to get ‘Partnership’ and co-governance.
The Maoris frame colonialism as a ‘heads I win - tails you lose’ double bind: if its heads, Maoris receive the benefits of European science and technology; if its tails, Europeans cannot live in New Zealand as equal citizens. It cannot be both.
Double binds often contain presuppositions. They’re common in political messaging, advertising, and yes – AI responses.
6. Mind Reading
A person mind reads when they believe that they know what someone else thinks, feels, or intends, without direct evidence.
In response, ask: “How specifically do you know …?”
The equivalent in Cognitive Science is Theory of Mind – the ability to imagine what others might be thinking. It’s natural, but it’s also a fertile ground for presentism, projection and negative transference (“the pot calling the kettle black”).
Examples:
1) Treaty Principles Bill debate
Helmut Modlik claimed it is “culturally and psychologically impossible” that 1840 rangatira would surrender their ‘mana’. (here)
I expect that Mr Modlik is projecting his modern values and concepts onto the 1840 chiefs, which is also known as presentism. If so, he claims to know how they thought.
2) Board diversity debate
Dr Karl Löfgren: “I think we can all agree it is good for equity for representative reasons, but in terms of becoming more effective, productive and making better decisions, we don’t know really. We just assume that is the case.” (here)
Dr Löfgren says it is an assumption but still treats it as shared knowledge, thereby claiming to know what others assume without saying why.
3) “In an interview with TVNZ on Sunday, Rawiri Waititi, co-leader of Te Pāti Māori (TPM, the Māori Party) defended the statement: ‘It is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.’” (here)
Waititi is asserting what he says others know about Maori genetic makeup, without evidence.
Mind reading isn’t always negative. Sometimes it’s affectionate or aspirational. But in politics, it’s often a red flag.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Once you learn to spot these patterns, political language becomes transparent. You start to see the framing, the manipulation, the missing information. You start asking better questions:
Who said that?
How do they know?
What’s missing?
What assumptions are being smuggled in?
What alternatives are being excluded?
It’s about strengthening your internal Humbug Automatic Detector faculty – your HAD. As you develop it further, you’ll notice these patterns everywhere: in headlines, speeches, press releases, and social media.
You can also give Copilot any political statement, and ask them to take you through a Milton-Model, pattern‑by‑pattern breakdown so you can see the process in action.
And you can ask them to rewrite a passage excluding the Milton-Model language patterns, which removes the humbug so you can see an underlying meaning.
I am already looking forward to seeing the party manifestos in the runup to the election.
References
Ethan Mollick, Co-intelligence: Living and Working with AI, 2024.
John Grinder and Richard Bandler, Trance-formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis, Edited by Connirae Andreas, 1981. Appendix II Hypnotic Language Patterns: The Milton Model.
This Appendix gives a structured description of the individual Milton Model language patterns without dependence on other NLP techniques such as hypnosis.
Richard Bandler and John Grinder, The Structure of Magic I, 1975. Appendix B Syntactic Environments for Identifying Natural Language Presuppositions in English.
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
APPENDIX A. Milton Model Language Patterns
Copilot is familiar with the following Milton Model language patterns. This list is the key to understanding a Copilot analysis of a text using the Milton Model.
1. Presuppositions (also see above)
Unsupported assumptions embedded into statements.
Examples: 1) “When is it best for us to meet?” Presupposes we will meet.
2) “Why are critics resisting progress?” Presupposes the policy is progress.
3) “When we restore fairness…” Presupposes fairness has been lost.
Presuppositions bypass critical evaluation because the listener focuses on answering the question rather than challenging the frame.
2. Lost Performative (also see above)
Judgments stated without saying who made the judgment.
Examples: 1) “It’s essential that we act now.”
2) “It’s the right thing to do.”
Lost performatives often sound authoritative — because the authority is hidden.
3. Cause and Effect (also see above)
Statements implying that one thing causes another without proving it.
Examples: 1) “Passing this bill will divide the country.”
2) “These reforms are driving division.”
3) “If we act now, we can turn this around.”
Causal claims are powerful but often unexamined.
4. Complex Equivalence (also see above)
Assuming two things mean the same thing when they don’t.
Examples: 1) “Criticizing this policy means you oppose Maori.”
2) “Supporting this initiative means you’re anti‑science.”
3) “High crime means communities are being failed.”
These examples collapse nuance and force binary interpretations.
5. Double Binds (also see above)
Apparent alternatives which lead to the same outcome.
Examples: 1) “You can vote early or on election day.”
2) “Should we expand the program slowly or quickly?”
This creates the illusion of agency while steering the outcome.
6. Mind Reading (also see above)
Statements that claim to know what others think, feel, or intend — without evidence.
Examples: 1) “You want a government that listens.”
2) “New Zealanders are tired of this debate.”
3) “Members of this House, who’ve so far been so fortified against reason…” (Here)
These examples replace evidence with assumed consensus.
7. Nominalizations
Turning actions into abstract nouns that appear fixed.
Signature words: division, prejudice, equity, prosperity, unity, security.
Response: Who is doing what to whom? When? How?
Examples: 1. “This reform will strengthen our unity.”
2. “This bill creates uncertainty.” Uncertainty is a nominalization
3. Maori words ending in ‘-tanga’ and ‘matau’ into ‘matauranga’.
Nominalizations hide who is doing what to whom. They turn debates about actions into debates about abstractions.
Nominalizations are politically useful because they make issues sound objective and inevitable.
8. Universal Quantifiers
Words like all, every, never, everyone are universal quantifiers.
They turn partial truths into sweeping claims of overgeneralization.
Examples: 1) “Everyone agrees the system is broken.”
2) “New Zealanders are tired of this.” Assumes the entire population.
9. Modal Operators
Words like must, should, can’t indicate lack of choice.
They imply rules, obligations, or impossibilities that may not exist.
Examples: 1) “We must protect our national identity.”
2) “We must rebuild the economy.”
10. Unspecified Verbs
What? When? How? In what way?
Examples: 1) “The policy will improve outcomes.”
2) “He harmed the community.” How did he harm the community?
3) “We will improve healthcare.” ‘Improve’ is vague and undefined.
11. Unspecified Referential Index
The noun being talked about is not specified.
“We need to move forward together.” Who is “we”?
“This can be easily learned.” What can be easily learned?
12. Comparative Deletions
A major noun phrase is missing.
“This approach is fairer.” Compared to what?
“I know you are curious.” What am I supposedly curious about?
13. Pacing
Describing a person’s undeniable experience, often followed by a cause-effect pattern, a complex equivalence, or a simple suggestion.
“You’re seeing prices rise every week, and that’s why this plan matters.”
14. Causal Linkage: Utilisation
Using any comments or other incidental events and linking them to suggestions.
Example: “As you hear the debate continuing outside this chamber, you’ll understand why action is urgent.”
15. Truisms
Undeniable generalizations.
Example: “Change is always challenging.”
16. Yes Sets
Making a series of statements which the person (verbally or mentally) says yes to, followed by a suggestion.
Example: “You care about your family, you want stability, you want opportunity – so you’ll see why this policy is essential.”
17. Phonological Ambiguity
Uncertain meaning caused by use of a word sounding like another word. Such words include: right/write/rite; I/eye; insecurity/in security; red/read; there/their/they’re; weight/wait; knows/nose; here/hear.
Example: “We need a clear vision to steer the nation, not just a clear version of the same old ideas.”
18 Syntactic Ambiguity
Uncertain meaning due to the word’s position in the sentence (usually using an “…ing” word). For example, “They were milking cows.” The pronoun ‘they’ could refer to people milking cows, or to the cows themselves.
Example: “The ministers discussing funding schools raised concerns.”
19. Scope Ambiguity
A sentence where it is unclear how many words a verb / adverb / adjective applies to.
Example: “We’re supporting hardworking businesses and families.”
Signature words: “Change,” “hope,” “stronger together.”
20. Punctuation Ambiguity
Uncertain meaning due to the unusual position of a pause, or to the lack of a pause.
“We’re committed to serving the people who need us most.”
21. Embedded Suggestions
Suggestions, imperatives or questions included in a larger sentence structure.
Examples: 1) “…and you’ll see why we must act now.”
2) “You might wonder why our opponents oppose this,” rhetorical question.
3) “When you look at the evidence, you might notice how this direction naturally makes sense.”
22. Extended Quotes
Quotes can be used to deliver any message without taking responsibility for the message. They are also used to add authenticity or emotional weight.
Examples: 1) “I was talking to a farmer who said…”
2) “As one community leader told me, ‘If we want progress, we need to back this plan.’”
23. Switching Referential Index
Changing the subject of the sentence half way through.
“If people feel uncertain at first, you can appreciate how important clarity becomes.”
24. Selectional Restriction Violation
A statement which metaphorically assumes something or someone has qualities that they cannot have by definition.
Examples: 1) “Freedom is calling.”
2) “This policy gives the economy a chance to breathe.”
25. Conversational Postulate
A sentence which sounds like a “yes” – “no” question, but causes the person to follow the suggestion in the sentence. For example, if you approach someone in the street and ask “Do you have the time?” the person generally won’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but tell you what the time is.
Examples: 1) “Can you imagine a country where…”
2) “Could you take a moment to consider what this means for your neighbourhood.”
26. Negative Statements
Suggestions which sound like negatives but are acted on as positive suggestions.
When a statement is given in its negative form, the positive form is generally what is responded to. For example, if someone says “Don’t think of pink polka dots” you have to think of pink polka dots to understand the sentence.
Example: “Don’t imagine that this will be difficult to implement.”
27. Negative Tag Questions
Questions tagged onto the end of the sentence.
Examples: 1) “We all want a stronger future, don’t we.”
2) “We’re on the right track, aren’t we.”
These examples soften assertion and invite agreement.
APPENDIX B Worked Example of the Treaty of Waitangi
Copilot identifies the Milton Model language patterns in the Treaty of Waitangi in Maori which demonstrates its lack of specificity and hence its vagueness. Copilot then interprets the Treaty by removing the misleading peculiarities of the Milton-style language to more clearly reveal its meaning.
Text to be Analysed
Treaty of Waitangi in Maori
KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira – hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani – kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga motu – na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.
Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana. Na kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei amua atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.
Ko te tuatahi
Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
Ko te tuarua
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.
Ko te tuatoru
Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.
(signed) William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor.
Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.
Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.
Step 1. Milton Model Language Patterns Identified
BD, 15 Jan 26: Please do a Milton Model language pattern analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi in Maori, as given above.
Copilot: You picked a rich text for this—there’s a lot of artful vagueness and presupposition woven into it. I’ll keep this focused on Milton Model patterns rather than legal or historical interpretation.
Brief Milton model snapshot
Very quickly, some key Milton Model patterns I’ll refer to:
Unspecified reference: “they”, “it”, “this” without clear referent.
Nominalization: turning processes into abstract nouns (e.g. “Kawanatanga”, “Rongo”, “Atanoho”).
Presupposition: things that must be assumed true for the sentence to make sense.
Cause–effect / complex equivalence: “X so that Y”, “because X, therefore Y”.
Universal quantifiers: “all”, “katoa”, “katoa atu”.
Lost performative: value judgments without saying who judges (e.g. “he mea tika” – “it is right/just”).
I’ll walk through the text and highlight where these show up.
Preamble: framing, authority, and benevolence
KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani…
Nominalizations: “mahara atawai” (benevolent thought), “rangatiratanga”, “Rongo”, “Atanoho” are all abstracted processes/experiences turned into “things”, which makes them feel solid but undefined in operational terms.
Unspecified reference / vagueness: “mahara atawai” doesn’t specify how that benevolence is expressed; “kia tohungia… o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua” doesn’t specify by what means or to what extent they are to be preserved.
Presuppositions:
That the Queen already has “mahara atawai” toward the rangatira and hapū.
That “tohungia… o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua” is needed—implying they are at risk.
That “kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo… me te Atanoho” presupposes peace and good order are desirable and currently fragile.
Cause–effect: The structure implies: because the Queen is benevolent and wants to preserve rangatiratanga and land and peace, “kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira – hei kai wakarite…”—her benevolence causes the sending of a representative.
Lost performative: “he mea tika” (“it is right/just”) is a value judgment with no explicit source—classic Milton pattern.
…kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini…
Nominalization: “Kawanatanga” (governorship/government) is treated as a single, reified “thing” to be accepted, rather than a set of specific powers and processes.
Deletion / unspecified process: No detail on what “Kawanatanga” practically entails—this is a key Milton-style deletion that allows each party to fill in their own meaning.
Presupposition: That “Kawanatanga o te Kuini” is something that can be “wakaaetia” (accepted) by rangatira, implying a legitimate choice and a pre-existing right to decide.
…na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.
Cause–effect: Because many of her people have settled and are coming, therefore governance must be arranged. The causal link is implied, not argued.
Presupposition: That the presence of many settlers requires a new form of governance.
Queen’s intention: preventing “kino” and defining the Governor
Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai…
Nominalization: Again “Kawanatanga” as a thing to be “wakaritea” (arranged).
Cause–effect: “kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai”—arranging government so that evils do not arise. Governance is equated with prevention of harm.
Unspecified reference: “nga kino” (the evils/harm) is vague—no specific harms are named. This is artfully vague and allows broad agreement.
Complex equivalence: Lack of government = “ture kore” (lawlessness) = “kino” (harm). That equivalence is implied, not argued.
…ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.
Universal framing: Both Māori and Pākehā are included, suggesting fairness and shared protection—this widens rapport.
Presupposition: That there is “noho ture kore” (lawless living) currently happening or likely.
Na kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona…
Authority and role framing: The Queen’s approval (“kua pai te Kuini”) is the source of Hobson’s authority—this is a cause–effect frame: Queen’s will → Hobson’s role.
Unspecified reference: “enei ture ka korerotia nei” (“these laws that are spoken of”) are not specified—another Milton-style deletion.
Article 1: ceding “Kawanatanga”
Ko nga Rangatira… ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini… te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
Universal quantifier: “katoa” (all) in “te Kawanatanga katoa”—a strong Milton pattern: sweeping generalization that leaves no exceptions.
Nominalization: “Kawanatanga” again as a single, totalizable entity.
Deletion / unspecified process: No detail on what “tuku rawa atu… te Kawanatanga katoa” practically means—what powers, what limits, what mechanisms. This is a major deletion that allows different internal representations.
Presupposition: That rangatira have “Kawanatanga” to give, and that it can be transferred “ake tonu atu” (for ever).
Article 2: “tino rangatiratanga” and pre-emption
…ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira… te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.
Nominalization: “tino rangatiratanga” is a powerful abstraction—ultimate chieftainship/authority—left undefined in operational terms.
Universal quantifier: “taonga katoa” (all their treasures/possessions) is a sweeping term that can include tangible and intangible things.
Presupposition: That they already possess “tino rangatiratanga” and that it is something the Queen can “wakarite” and “wakaae” to—implying recognition rather than bestowal.
Artful vagueness: The exact relationship between “Kawanatanga” (Article 1) and “tino rangatiratanga” (Article 2) is not spelled out—this ambiguity is very Milton-esque, allowing both sides to maintain different internal maps.
Otiia ko nga Rangatira… ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua…
Nominalization: “te hokonga” (the buying/sale) as a thing, not a process with negotiable rules.
Cause–effect / conditional: “e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko”—if the owner is willing, and the price is arranged, then sale occurs. The structure suggests fairness and mutual agreement.
Unspecified reference: “te ritenga o te utu” (the arrangement of the price) is vague—no criteria for fairness are given.
Presupposition: That the Queen has (or will have) exclusive right of purchase (“te hokonga”) when owners wish to sell.
Article 3: equal rights and protection
Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani…
Universal quantifier: “katoa” again—“all Māori people of New Zealand”.
Nominalization: “tiakina” (protection) is treated as a general guarantee, not a set of specific obligations.
Presupposition: That the Queen can, and will, protect all Māori; that such protection is needed and desirable.
ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.
Universal quantifier: “nga tikanga katoa” (all the rights/customs/laws) and “rite tahi” (exactly equal) are broad, inclusive terms.
Artful vagueness: “nga tikanga… ki nga tangata o Ingarani” is not defined—what “tikanga” (here, effectively “rights and privileges”) are in scope? This allows a positive emotional response without committing to specifics.
Complex equivalence: Being under the Queen’s “Kawanatanga” = being protected and having equal rights.
Closing: consent and unity
…ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou…
Nominalization: “te ritenga o enei kupu” (the meaning/arrangement of these words) is itself vague—“ritenga” can carry multiple shades (sense, arrangement, effect).
Universal quantifier: “wakaaetia katoatia” (entirely/wholly agreed to) suggests complete, unanimous acceptance.
Presupposition: That the rangatira have understood (“ka kite nei i te ritenga”) and that understanding leads naturally to acceptance.
Cause–effect: Seeing/understanding the meaning → taking and fully agreeing → signing.
Pulling the Milton patterns together
Across the Māori text, you see a consistent cluster of Milton-style patterns:
Heavy use of nominalizations: “Kawanatanga”, “tino rangatiratanga”, “Rongo”, “Atanoho”, “tiakina”, “tikanga”, “hokonga”, “ritenga” all package complex, negotiable processes into single, seemingly solid “things”.
Artful vagueness and deletions: Key terms (what exactly is “Kawanatanga”? what are “tikanga katoa”? what “kino”?) are left unspecified, allowing each side to project their own meanings.
Presuppositions: The text assumes benevolence, necessity of governance, existing authority of rangatira, and the legitimacy of the Queen’s role—all embedded rather than argued.
Cause–effect and complex equivalence: Governance is equated with peace and protection; lawlessness with harm; acceptance of the Queen’s authority with receiving rights and protection.
Universal quantifiers: “katoa”, “katoa atu”, “ake tonu atu” create a sense of completeness and permanence.
If you sit with it, the emotional shape of the language is soothing and reassuring—benevolence, protection, peace, equality—while the structural vagueness around the core power concepts is exactly the kind of pattern the Milton Model points to.
Step 2. Vagueness Removed and Meaning Restored
BD, 15 Jan 26: Can you translate that text of the Treaty of Waitangi into English and remove the Milton Model language, please.
Absolutely — and I can make this very clean and direct. What I’ll do is translate the Māori text into plain, explicit English, and remove the Milton‑style vagueness by replacing nominalisations, unspecified references, and presuppositions with concrete, operational wording.
This is not a legal interpretation — just a clarity‑focused rewrite.
Treaty of Waitangi (Māori text) — Direct English Translation with Milton‑Model Vagueness Removed
Preamble
Victoria, the Queen of England, states clearly that she intends to protect the chiefs and hapū of New Zealand. She intends to protect their authority and their land, and she intends to maintain peace and good order. Because of these goals, she has decided to send a representative to negotiate directly with Māori.
She asks the Māori chiefs to give the Queen authority to govern all the areas of this land and its islands. She states that many of her people already live here and more are arriving, and therefore she believes a system of government is necessary.
The Queen states that she wants a system of government established so that harmful actions by either Māori or Pākehā will be prevented. She has appointed William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to act as Governor over all parts of New Zealand that are or will be given to the Queen. He now presents the following terms to the chiefs.
Article 1
The chiefs of the Confederation and all other chiefs who have not joined that Confederation agree to give the Queen of England full authority to govern their lands. (Removed vagueness: “Kawanatanga katoa” is rendered as “full authority to govern”, not an undefined nominalisation.)
Article 2
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, the hapū, and all the people of New Zealand the complete authority they hold over their lands, their homes, and all their possessions.
However, the chiefs agree that if any landowners wish to sell land, they will offer it first to the Queen. The price will be negotiated directly between the seller and the Queen’s appointed buyer. (Removed vagueness: “tino rangatiratanga” is rendered as “complete authority”, and “te hokonga” is expressed as a concrete process.)
Article 3
In return for the chiefs’ agreement to the Queen’s authority, the Queen of England will protect all Māori people of New Zealand. She will give Māori the same legal rights and protections as the people of England. (Removed vagueness: “tikanga katoa rite tahi” is rendered as “the same legal rights and protections”.)
Closing Statement
We, the chiefs of the Confederation of the hapū of New Zealand, and we, the chiefs of New Zealand who are assembled at Waitangi, have read and understood these terms. We accept them completely and sign our names and marks.
This was done at Waitangi on the sixth day of February in the year 1840.
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.