NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel compelled to advise all Member States to oppose the two essentially identical proposals which call for the creation of an artificial language and its institution as the official international medium of discourse.

There have been many attempts at just such a project over the years, Esperanto and Volapük being perhaps the two most famous. They failed, and so too would any future artificial language, for several important reasons.

Firstly, people almost always choose to speak the so-called 'prestige' language variety, which is that vriety spoken by those whom one aspires to be more like. Latin was a prestige variety in the medieval world because it was associated with the extremely successful Romans, a culture the later Europeans wanted to emulate. Later, this role was taken by French, and currently English holds sway in many parts of the world - not because English is intrinsically better than any other language, but because it represents a successful culture, formerly the British Empire and latterly the United States.

An artificial language would have no associated culture, and would have very little prestige as a result.

Secondly, whatever grammatical model one used, it would be impossible to create a language that is 'easy for everyone to learn' (as at least one proposal demands), since a language can only be 'easy' to acquire in relation to one's native language. So, Spanish is simple for an Italian speaker, but Japanese is much more difficult. If we chose to base our new language on, say, a heavily-inflected language like Latin or Hungarian, it would be tough for those speaking Turkish or Portuguese. If we chose an analytic model like Chinese, German and Arabic speakers would be at a disadvantage. There is no such thing as absolute simplicity in language (it must be noted that pidgins are simple, but they are unable to fulfil more than basic communicative functions and are not considered 'true' languages).

I would therefore strongly oppose any such measures as costly fantasies, and urge the proposal to improve the teaching of existing languages, to further the goal of international communication and cooperation.

The First Minister of the Free Land of Scyrenia

not because English is intrinsically better than any other language, but because it represents a successful culture, formerly the British Empire and latterly the United States.

I'm sorry - but I have to object.

And, although my own personal opinions may come across in this thread, I am in no means attempting to Flamebait or insult anybody!

Just because the British Empire failed does not mean that the English language failed in the remainder of the what used to be the Empire. The United States, while I respect have a form of English as their First Language, speak what is commonly known as American English.

The Queen's English, whilst not in every day use over here in Great Britain, is still our official language. We use it, and we have not given it to the US ;-)

I think your statement wasn't phrased as...nicely...as it could have been!

Perhaps instead of saying United States, you could have said the New Commonwealth - which incorporates many of the former parts of the British Empire.

Secondly, whatever grammatical model one used, it would be impossible to create a language that is 'easy for everyone to learn' (as at least one proposal demands), since a language can only be 'easy' to acquire in relation to one's native language. So, Spanish is simple for an Italian speaker, but Japanese is much more difficult. If we chose to base our new language on, say, a heavily-inflected language like Latin or Hungarian, it would be tough for those speaking Turkish or Portuguese. If we chose an analytic model like Chinese, German and Arabic speakers would be at a disadvantage. There is no such thing as absolute simplicity in language (it must be noted that pidgins are simple, but they are unable to fulfil more than basic communicative functions and are not considered 'true' languages).


None of these languages or places exist.

My suggestion is to use the universal language that we are all currently speaking. I don't think it's hard to understand why but because WE ALL
speak it.

For game purposes it needs to be referred to as something else like
Unilang or whatever names you want to come up with.

I feel compelled to advise all Member States to oppose the two essentially identical proposals which call for the creation of an artificial language and its institution as the official international medium of discourse.

I oppose the whole idea of a unified language. For one, not all species are physically capable of using the same language. The beings I'm going to introduce when I do my RP for Terrasot are physically incapable of using human languages, and yet is still highly intelligent.

You have to keep in mind physical capatibilities and how they range among the species known to the UN before making a proposal like this.

There have been many attempts at just such a project over the years, Esperanto and Volapük being perhaps the two most famous. They failed, and so too would any future artificial language, for several important reasons.

Neither of which I have any records of as languages in NS.

Firstly, people almost always choose to speak the so-called 'prestige' language variety, which is that vriety spoken by those whom one aspires to be more like. Latin was a prestige variety in the medieval world because it was associated with the extremely successful Romans, a culture the later Europeans wanted to emulate. Later, this role was taken by French, and currently English holds sway in many parts of the world - not because English is intrinsically better than any other language, but because it represents a successful culture, formerly the British Empire and latterly the United States.

1) The Roman Empire was also easily destroyed when faced with a real threat. It's not exactly what I call successful.

2) Which type of English? There is Queen's English, or just English, and American English, which is known under four names (English, American English, Bastardized English, and American), with the last one holding it as a separate language from English and the third being an unofficial way of referring to it among certain nations.

An artificial language would have no associated culture, and would have very little prestige as a result.

Sarkarasetan is a language I made up (thus, making it artificial), and yet it does have an associated culture with it. Klingon is another example of an artificial language with an associated culture. It's not exactly hard to give an artificial language culture associations.

Secondly, whatever grammatical model one used, it would be impossible to create a language that is 'easy for everyone to learn' (as at least one proposal demands), since a language can only be 'easy' to acquire in relation to one's native language. So, Spanish is simple for an Italian speaker, but Japanese is much more difficult. If we chose to base our new language on, say, a heavily-inflected language like Latin or Hungarian, it would be tough for those speaking Turkish or Portuguese. If we chose an analytic model like Chinese, German and Arabic speakers would be at a disadvantage. There is no such thing as absolute simplicity in language (it must be noted that pidgins are simple, but they are unable to fulfil more than basic communicative functions and are not considered 'true' languages).

And any of those disadvantage speakers of other languages that you did not list. Sarkarasetan would make a lovely language for this, as it has hints of both European and Asian influences, but as a language it is nothing like any Earth language and uses a completely alien set of rules. It's also proven to be completely untranslatable without somebody who speaks it doing the translating. So, it's a horrible candidate for this.

I would therefore strongly oppose any such measures as costly fantasies, and urge the proposal to improve the teaching of existing languages, to further the goal of international communication and cooperation.

Of which, my nation only teaches the one native to it and saves all foreign languages, such as English, for the military.

None of these languages or places exist.

Wrong. Check this location: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Languages

My suggestion is to use the universal language that we are all currently speaking. I don't think it's hard to understand why but because WE ALL
speak it.

Um, OOCly we are all using English. ICly, not all NSUN nations speak English in any form. So, technically, we're not all speaking the same language.

For game purposes it needs to be referred to as something else like
Unilang or whatever names you want to come up with.

Or, how about we stick with calling it what it is?

I like the idea of a Unilang

Not only is it easy for everybody to speak and understand,

It's extremely simple and quick to learn and teach.

Oh dear,
A few clarifications...
First of all, all the languages I mentioned are spoken or used in my nation, so I can assure you they do indeed exist.
My comments on English were deliberately broad - it's hardly possible to do justice to the complexity of any 'real' language situation in a few paragraphs. Yes, the Commonwealth has played a part in the spread of English, but so has the pre-eminance of the BBC and several other media organisations, the economic power of post-Empire Britain, the influence of Australia and New Zealand on the Pacific and many other factors. And of course American and British English are different, but they are considered to be varieties of the same language by almost all - linguists, politicians and the general public.
The Roman Republic and later the Empire lasted for up to a thousand years in the West and a further five hundred in the East (though I accept the language situation in the Eastern Empire was much more complex and not so dominated by Latin).
And yes, constructed languages can have cultures associated with them, and Klingon is a very successful example. However, the 'culture' came first - the success of Star Trek is not due to the invention of this language, but the success of the language is due almost entirely to the popularity of the programme. Perhaps those supporters of 'Unilang' or whatever you want it to be called could also write a very successful television series to give people a reason to use it.
And I accept the problems associated with different species using each other's languages. Maybe computers could provide the answer to that (or we might just have to restrict communication to the written medium).

The Office of the First Minister, Scyrenia

There are 'issues' concerning this, I think one of them is about the South-West part of your Nation wants to break away, form their own Government and have their own official language (or something similar)

I crushed that idea then, and I disagree with it now.

I don't want to speak a 'Unilang'

I don't know scryenia all that stuff sounds an awful lot like
real life here on earth and not at all like the make believe
bullshit nations we're all trying to fuck up.

why don't you want to have a universal language?

Real-Life References:
The Nation States universe is an infinitely varied amalgam of nations. Some people play as medieval kingdoms, others as super-tech space empires. While certain parallels exist between the real world and the Nation States world, they aren’t exact mirrors. Proposals may not make references to real-life people, places, or organizations. As the FAQ specifies, Tony Blair and George Bush don’t exist in Nation States, nor do Cambodia, Argentina, or the UCLA Literature department. Any reference to a real-world entity is grounds for deletion.


from writing a proposal guidlines or some such nonsense above..

Yes, the Commonwealth has played a part in the spread of English

As did England invading every country under the sun and forcing them to learn English :}
And a lot of English people being too lazy or arrogant to learn a new language, just assuming everyone else will learn theirs.
And most nations being able to teach English way better than England does.

And most nations being able to teach English way better than England does.

Oi!

I don't know scryenia all that stuff sounds an awful lot like
real life here on earth and not at all like the make believe
bullshit nations we're all trying to fuck up.

why don't you want to have a universal language?

Because it's an insult to my nation to have a lesser species dictate to it what languages it will and will not be teaching. And yes, that claim is backed by genetics.

Besides, not every species is physically capable of speaking the same language. If you want a unilang, you'll have to use telepathy.

Oi!

What? A school I visited in France was teaching SEVEN YEAR OLDS the proper rules of English grammer and so forth. We didn't get on to that until we were 13 or 14.

And honestly - most children in other countries (France and Germany in particular) can speak English pretty well a long time before anyone in England is taught another language.

(If you think I am having a dig at english teachers - that is people who teach English in England), I am really not. It is just the whole cutulre of our country that is screwed up)

Because it's an insult to my nation to have a lesser species dictate to it what languages it will and will not be teaching. And yes, that claim is backed by genetics.

Besides, not every species is physically capable of speaking the same language. If you want a unilang, you'll have to use telepathy.


Nobody's telling you what language to not teach.

This is a second language that if you want, is only used for global communication.

I also assure you the composition of Unilang is such that every species CAN speak it and learn it quite easily.

why else are you against it?

Hello again.
I was not aware that references to the real world were so tightly controlled. However, since I was and indeed am not submitting a proposal, I am exempted from the rule quoted. It does not state (as far as it was quoted) that discussion of proposals are not allowed to refer to the real world. There would be no point in my making up language names simply to conform to such thought policing.
I accept that NationStates is not the real world, but if you read through the list of extant UN resolutions, they bear an uncanny resemblance to issues at the heart of the real-world UN. Why? Because this simulation is meant to allow the balanced discussion of those issues that affect people, in whatever world. If we merely did what we wanted here, there would be no difference between this and any other site allowing people to post messages and interact.
As with the Global Library, the Unilang seems to work on the premise that "it just works", forgetting the restrictions on things that the world imposes, My argument is that you simply cannot construct a language which will be equally easy for every human to learn, let alone other sentient species, nor can you make it viable because people have to want to learn a new language. If you can wave a magic wand, why didn't people do that on healthcare or education or environmental issues? These resolutions don't say "pollution will no longer exist, because we say so" because that would be absurd. Just the same with this language.

Incidentally, the argument on language teaching is interesting, but you have to try and detach your subjective attitudes towards your language. English grammar is those rules used by native English speakers, not what an "English Grammar Book" or an English teacher says it is. Although there are socio-cultural and indeed economic motivations for having a set of prescriptive rules (to an extent), you cann't say for example that French children have a better grasp of English grammar than their English counterparts. English is those speech varieties spoken by those who consider themselves to be speakers of English - by definition the French kids can never have as good a grasp of it, not being native speakers (though their spelling or punctuation may be better, because these are prescribed).

Office for the First Minister.

What? A school I visited in France was teaching SEVEN YEAR OLDS the proper rules of English grammer and so forth. We didn't get on to that until we were 13 or 14.

And honestly - most children in other countries (France and Germany in particular) can speak English pretty well a long time before anyone in England is taught another language.

(If you think I am having a dig at english teachers - that is people who teach English in England), I am really not. It is just the whole cutulre of our country that is screwed up)

I think one of the main reasons is that we have such a diverse linguistical culture over here in the UK. All parts have a different dialect, with words meaning different things and accents (and accentuations) ranging from broad Yorkshire to Somerset to Mancurian to Essex.

Also, if you think about it, when learning a foreign language - the first things we are taught are all the nuances of the language. When I learnt French (from 9 years and upwards) I was taught how to conjugate verbs, form sentences, etc - and probably to an extent that not even the French used. We didn't learn colloqualisms or slang, but the 'proper' French - which I guess is the same for people learning English abroad.

Nobody's telling you what language to not teach.

The idea of telling my nation what language to teach is indicating a disdain for a language already taught. That will, at best, get concerned citizens voicing their disapproval of it by using the assault rifles on government officials of other nations.

Oh, I might want to mention that assassinating government officials from other nations is not illegal in DLE. It's frowned upon, but not illegal.

This is a second language that if you want, is only used for global communication.

Which globe? DLE has 5 that it deals with daily, three of which it owns entirely, and all of which it has territory on. If you mean internationally, then the only people who need to learn it are the military.

I also assure you the composition of Unilang is such that every species CAN speak it and learn it quite easily.

Okay, let's bring up the Elder Things. Here's an unpainted statue of one with a penguin statue near it:

http://catalog.chaosium.com/images/2935.jpg

Here's a drawing:

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=elder+thing/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/SIG=128tme7pe/EXP=1105304415/*-http%3A//www.bears.org/~raven/art/ElderThing-thumb.jpg

Now, they are a race I'm going to introduce as being attracted by something DLE explorers turn on while on Terrasot and which will eventually ally themselves with DLE. The problem is their language sounds a lot like, to use the best of our ability to render it, "tekilili" or "tekili." The problem is the way in which they sound it is beyond the human vocal capacities to reproduce and they do not have the vocal structure for anything else. Now, I want to know how you are going to render a language that both them and humans can learn and pronounce equally, as they will be integrated into DLE forces by Monday.

And it's not that I an doing this to be capricious. I actually planned to include them back in early December and have been waiting for the right time.

Oh, let's not forget the Shivans, either.

why else are you against it?

I'm against it because it's an impossibility. The only language that can possibly be learned with equal difficulty by the entirety of humanity is going to be useless for communication. And that's not including alien races in the mix.

I would never support this proposal. Language is important to culture. I firmly believe we need to rpeserve the languages we have right now, and having one universal language would hurt this effort.

I don't really see the need for a universal language anyways. It doesn't seem necessary or wanted. Go for it if you want to destroy cultures and their languages.

I think you people argue for the sake of argument.

I think you people argue for the sake of argument.

If I wanted to argue for the sake of arguing, I'd post in General more often. I'm actually trying to weed out the proposals I view as bad for either myself or the UN, point out problems in others, and help the good ones pass.

DLE

everything you post is negative.

Write your own proposal.

DLE

everything you post is negative.

Write your own proposal.

Where's your evidence? I want links to every post I have ever made on this site, including under the following screennames: Merlyns, Tiamat Taveril, Apsu Lilith, Sarkarasa*, and Sarkaraseta*. If even one is positive, you are proven false.

*These two have, at various times, been used by another person, with or without my support. That has been dealt with.

A Unilang would not harm cultures! If anything, it would protect them from from larger cultures because they would not have to learn thier language anymore. The only language that would require teaching would be Unilang (and the national language, I suppose). If the same foriegn language were taught in classes worldwide, it would greatly reduce the confusion that is everyday buisness nowadays.

As far as difficulty goes, I think aliens advanced enough to maintain a firm grasp on three planets and partial ones on another two should have some kind of translation machine, or an ability to mimic alien sounds; the burden of having to deal with just a few nations on Earth is hell for any leader; sometimes dozens of translators are needed to translate the translator for the other person. An alien captian had better get used to hearing strange sounds around him, because every planet will have creatures who have strange speech. Oh, and fuck aliens. We killed 'em in Independence Day (due to thier use of human OS, no doubt) and we'd get them again (this is in no way a challenge. Don't hurt me!)

A Unilang would not harm cultures! If anything, it would protect them from from larger cultures because they would not have to learn thier language anymore. The only language that would require teaching would be Unilang (and the national language, I suppose). If the same foriegn language were taught in classes worldwide, it would greatly reduce the confusion that is everyday buisness nowadays.

Except not all nations teach foreign languages to the general public or even have school systems.

Plus, it is particularly damaging to certain cultures by introducing another language, one that originates from outside their culture, to the nation.

As far as difficulty goes, I think aliens advanced enough to maintain a firm grasp on three planets and partial ones on another two should have some kind of translation machine, or an ability to mimic alien sounds;

Three AIs of one of the most advanced nations in NS spent hours trying to come up with a translation system for Sarkarasetan. They ended up with only getting one word out of every ten and had a 60% error rate on the words. They abandoned the attempt due to the most advanced AIs they have telling them the language is pretty much untranslatable.

The problem with translation machines is they require something to compare the language to. While that is easy to obtain on Earth, that isn't easy when you get into outer space. Sarkarasetan is a language that compares to nothing on Earth and uses totally different rules of grammar and sentence structure than any Earth language. The Elder Thing language also has no correlation. And then you get into languages that don't even rely on vocal soundings. The difficulty is trying to create a language that crosses these borders of totally different idea bases.

the burden of having to deal with just a few nations on Earth is hell for any leader; sometimes dozens of translators are needed to translate the translator for the other person. An alien captian had better get used to hearing strange sounds around him, because every planet will have creatures who have strange speech.

And some forms of speech that don't even rely on the usual forms of communication. I cheat by teaching my pilots English. It seems universal enough.

Oh, and fuck aliens. We killed 'em in Independence Day (due to thier use of human OS, no doubt) and we'd get them again (this is in no way a challenge. Don't hurt me!)

The aliens in ID4 didn't have the capacity to bomb you from a high orbit.

1) The Roman Empire was also easily destroyed when faced with a real threat. It's not exactly what I call successful.

OOC: The Roman Empire survived for over 500 years, and it took the barbarians 80 years to bring down the RL Empire (EDIT- and it was only half that fell. The other half lasted almost a thousand years longer). That's hardly an unsuccessful Empire.

None of these languages or places exist.

OOC: I RP as the continuation of the RL Roman Empire on Earth II. So, technically speaking, "Latin" and "Rome" do exist here.

(However, I do recognize that RL references are illegal in proposals, although I'm not sure if that covers physical places and languages)

IC:

As the representative from DemonLordEnigma pointed out, the failings with incorporating a "unaling" is that it is impossible. Many languages are incomprehensible to non-speakers and they cannot be effectively taught that language, so to make a unaling would be fruitless. Now, if a proposal made it so that each UN Resolution and Proposal was available in every language that might win my support.

OOC: The Roman Empire survived for over 500 years, and it took the barbarians 80 years to bring down the RL Empire. That's hardly an unsuccessful Empire.

500 years really isn't long when you stop and look at other empires from around the same time segment. That would be equivolent to the US falling apart tomorrow and someone calling it a longlasting empire in two hundred years. Quite a few nations around today are far older than that and are not what you would call successful empires.

Rome really wasn't a successful empire. For one thing, their expansion was checked multiple times and finally stopped when they hit Britain. About the only way they could maintain their British holdings were to wall them off. Add in the change of governments, the extremely bloody politics, and how the empire split in two over internal struggles. Now, add in how easy it was for them to change the major identifying part of their culture (the religion) to something drastically different and how many internal problems they had. Hell, most empires wouldn't have a very large army of escaped slaves roaming around and slaughtering at will. And the massive problems there at the end...

Rome appears on the surface to be a success, but after the government changed they began a downward slide into abbysmal failure.

500 years really isn't long when you stop and look at other empires from around the same time segment. That would be equivolent to the US falling apart tomorrow and someone calling it a longlasting empire in two hundred years. Quite a few nations around today are far older than that and are not what you would call successful empires.

Rome really wasn't a successful empire. For one thing, their expansion was checked multiple times and finally stopped when they hit Britain. About the only way they could maintain their British holdings were to wall them off. Add in the change of governments, the extremely bloody politics, and how the empire split in two over internal struggles. Now, add in how easy it was for them to change the major identifying part of their culture (the religion) to something drastically different and how many internal problems they had. Hell, most empires wouldn't have a very large army of escaped slaves roaming around and slaughtering at will. And the massive problems there at the end...

Rome appears on the surface to be a success, but after the government changed they began a downward slide into abbysmal failure.

Not necessarily. Granted, much of the Romans' military success came during the Republican period and not during the Imperial years (Rome reached its territorial zenith barely over 120 years after Augustus founded the Empire in 27 BC), but the fact does remain that much of the Romans' territory remained in Roman hands for 600 years. No other Empire in the history of the world has ever lasted that long. Sure, some states have survived for longer- Japan the state actually predates the Romans, and technically speaking, Britain has been continuously independent since the Battle of Hastings almost 1,000 years ago- but none of them continuously ruled the same large area that the Romans did for as long as the Romans were able to.

(For the record, the Americans' empire has barely lasted 100 years. It wasn't until the Spanish-American War of 1898 before the Americans were taken seriously on the world stage, and since 1898 they've even lost territory- the Phillipines was once American)

Sure, it's easy to say that the Romans did not face any real opposition for much of the Imperial period and say that they were overrated, but considering they handily defeated everyone that opposed them in the formation of the Empire, there was nobody left to really provide a challenge (the Sassanids were the closest, but they didn't do much to the Romans); and when they did, it a) took them 80 years to finally win and b) they only managed to secure half of the Empire- the Eastern half lived on to 1453 (I could argue that it never really fell, but that's another debate). Instead, the real source for the success of the Roman Empire was that they held the Mediterranean for 600 years- a feat no other Empire has ever done; and this is despite the turmoils that wrecked havoc on Rome (for the record, the Romans barely faced any revolts during their rule over the Mediterranean). Was Rome perfect? Obviously not- the Romans never really developed a sophisticated economy, and the State was corrupt at times (then again, what government isn't?)- but for the sheer fact that it managed to hold on to so much for so long it is considered a success.

Language is one of the things that make us who we are. It is part of our culture.
I will not support a resolution that will destroy that.

(For the record, the Americans' empire has barely lasted 100 years. It wasn't until the Spanish-American War of 1898 before the Americans were taken seriously on the world stage, and since 1898 they've even lost territory- the Phillipines was once American)


Though a bit off-topic, this is rather interesting. :)

First, with a name RomeW, I kinda expect your "nation" to be familiar with this history. Second, I'd be curious to hear if you think the United States will continue to be significant for many years to come.

I'll get to the proposal at hand here in a short bit.

I would therefore strongly oppose any such measures as costly fantasies, and urge the proposal to improve the teaching of existing languages, to further the goal of international communication and cooperation.


Wow. That was a well thought out and informative post. You've certainly earned my support. I hope you stick around and remain active in this forum.

...but of course. I'm Roman by background officially, but what drew me to Rome was its immense longevity and success, and since then I've read up a lot about them.

Not to drag too far off-topic, but to answer you Mikitivity, it's my honest opinion that I don't ever think the Americans were a superpower, or much of one anyway. The US essentially joined both World Wars when essentially the Wars were already won (which is why they avoided the economic reprecussions the European states faced), and when they face their first challenges as "undisputed superpowers" they flop mightily, getting booted out of Vietnam and embarrassing themselves today in Iraq. Their economy is already sputtering, with several economists predicting that India and China- two of the world's most populous areas and, before European colonialism, the two places that were the most economically successful- will surpass the US (if I remember correctly). I hate to say it, but I'm seeing signs that the US may already be in decline (and no, this doesn't have anything to do with George W. Bush- I've thought this before he came to power), although I hope- for my sake and my children's sake- that if the Americans ever do collapse, it won't cause World War III.

I hate to say it, but I'm seeing signs that the US may already be in decline (and no, this doesn't have anything to do with George W. Bush- I've thought this before he came to power), although I hope- for my sake and my children's sake- that if the Americans ever do collapse, it won't cause World War III.

This is still kinda related to the subject at hand, as it relates to determining what a relevant language will be.

And what you've predicted about the decline of the US is something I've heard echoed here as well. It is certainly something I've been wondering too, but I'm guessing it won't lead to WWIII. I like to think enough people fear that to put the stopper on it.

This is still kinda related to the subject at hand, as it relates to determining what a relevant language will be.

And what you've predicted about the decline of the US is something I've heard echoed here as well. It is certainly something I've been wondering too, but I'm guessing it won't lead to WWIII. I like to think enough people fear that to put the stopper on it.

The unfortunate part in history is that usually when a huge power exists and starts to crumble, everyone starts jumping in on them to make the kill "final". However, you may be right- this time around, if nations did that there many not be much of a planet left afterward, so we may be able to escape complete disaster. Of course, what worries me is, how long will that last?

RomeW, Congrats on that last one. Sometimes I get shot down, and this was one of those times.

As with the Global Library, the Unilang seems to work on the premise that "it just works", forgetting the restrictions on things that the world imposes, My argument is that you simply cannot construct a language which will be equally easy for every human to learn, let alone other sentient species, nor can you make it viable because people have to want to learn a new language. If you can wave a magic wand, why didn't people do that on healthcare or education or environmental issues? These resolutions don't say "pollution will no longer exist, because we say so" because that would be absurd. Just the same with this language.



I don't get the problem here.

If you can magically wave a wand and say well we have 4 globes and can't speak that language (that you know nothing about), then why can't we also wave a magic wand and say YES YOU CAN?

I don't get the problem here.

If you can magically wave a wand and say well we have 4 globes and can't speak that language (that you know nothing about), then why can't we also wave a magic wand and say YES YOU CAN?

Because you can't without having a long backstory of explanation as to how you got those four globes. Check my factbook and then search for "Terrator" and "Terrasot" in II.

Wow. That was a well thought out and informative post. You've certainly earned my support. I hope you stick around and remain active in this forum.

Thanks! That's very sweet. It's a subject very close to my heart (and work!)

It seems that support for these proposals is waning, which is good. It might be a good idea for the UN to make a resolution of some kind on languages. Those who have pointed to the link between language and culture have hit an important issue: languages can be very potent symbols of belonging to a community, be that a nation, a subculture or an ethnic group. Languages are vast repertories of cultural information, and each shows us a different way of carving up the world into comprehensible pieces. When a language is lost without being recorded, an entire world-view is lost with it. Language death is not unlike the loss of species; perhaps the UN should seek to record all existing languages (and other varieties, including regional dialects and sociolects) so that if they are no longer spoken due to social or political factors (which cannot really be prevented) they are at least not lost completely. Given the increasing mobility of people both within and across nations, and the pervasive influence of instant communications, languages spoken by fewer than several hundred thousand people, and even those spoken by more but which have no accompanying political identity are threatened by extinction in a few generations. Should we record them, and therefore save them, for the future? It wouldn't cost much, and could have untold benefits to the furtherment of knowledge.

How much support would there be for this sort of proposal?

The sometimes Commonwealth, often just dallying around government of Ile-Rien gives unconditional and full support to the nation of Scyrenia.

Then asks if someone would pass the sandwich plate over, please.

I oppose the whole idea of a unified language. For one, not all species are physically capable of using the same language. The beings I'm going to introduce when I do my RP for Terrasot are physically incapable of using human languages, and yet is still highly intelligent.


That should make for an... interesting... roleplay.
Have you given much thought to how you're going to represent their speech?

Because you can't without having a long backstory of explanation as to how you got those four globes. Check my factbook and then search for "Terrator" and "Terrasot" in II.



It doesn't matter how much bullshit you type to reinforce it.

it's still made up bullshit.

RomeW, Congrats on that last one. Sometimes I get shot down, and this was one of those times.

Thanks, although I won't gloat.

That should make for an... interesting... roleplay.
Have you given much thought to how you're going to represent their speech?

Yes. I have planned how I'm going to meet them, what contacts are going to be made, their reactions, etc. I've been working on this for a month, after all.

It doesn't matter how much bullshit you type to reinforce it.

it's still made up bullshit.

If you want to get technical, that applies to everything about NS, including your nation. It's all a bunch of worthless electrons being disturbed to create something and us deciding the meaning of what is created. The difference is that there is a general agreement among forum users as to the standard interpretation.

Thanks! That's very sweet. It's a subject very close to my heart (and work!)


OOC: It shows by the quality of the post. :) What is your work?

When a language is lost without being recorded, an entire world-view is lost with it. Language death is not unlike the loss of species; perhaps the UN should seek to record all existing languages (and other varieties, including regional dialects and sociolects) so that if they are no longer spoken due to social or political factors (which cannot really be prevented) they are at least not lost completely.

Should we record them, and therefore save them, for the future? It wouldn't cost much, and could have untold benefits to the furtherment of knowledge.

How much support would there be for this sort of proposal?

It depends, but I wouldn't consider this forum to be a good indictator of the overall UN membership. It only takes two players to get into a mudslinging contest to really put a damper on a productive attempt to get constructive comments.

But that said, would you consider the task of archiving and recording languages something worthy of the recently passed Global Library? This is just a thought, but I think that establishing a continuity in UN resolutions is extremely important in making the UN a credible body.

If you want to get technical, that applies to everything about NS, including your nation. It's all a bunch of worthless electrons being disturbed to create something and us deciding the meaning of what is created. The difference is that there is a general agreement among forum users as to the standard interpretation.

Just to back up DemonLordEnigma here OOCly, it's not outside of the relam of possibility for humans to come across a highly intelligent alien species that would be incapable of rendering any human vocals. We don't know everything that's out there nor do I think we ever will.

OOC: It shows by the quality of the post. :) What is your work?

Thanks again. I'm a student of linguistics and foreign languages, language change being a particular interest.

But that said, would you consider the task of archiving and recording languages something worthy of the recently passed Global Library? This is just a thought, but I think that establishing a continuity in UN resolutions is extremely important in making the UN a credible body.

Well I actually voted aginst the library, mainly on the grounds that it would be too expensive and not really practicable. Now that it has been passed, though, it would be the ideal place to store this kind of data. Wouldn't really need a new resolution though, would it?

Just to back up DemonLordEnigma here OOCly, it's not outside of the relam of possibility for humans to come across a highly intelligent alien species that would be incapable of rendering any human vocals. We don't know everything that's out there nor do I think we ever will.

Well, it's only a very large number of unlikely coincidences that have lead to the development of human language in the form we know it. Only slight differences in the configuration of the vocal tract would lead to impossible problems of reproduction both ways. And then there's all the other modes of communication; just look at the animal kingdom (almost any method could be adapted to create languages as complex as the ones we see/hear today).

What does OOC mean?

OOC means "out of character."

Yes. I have planned how I'm going to meet them, what contacts are going to be made, their reactions, etc. I've been working on this for a month, after all.



If you want to get technical, that applies to everything about NS, including your nation. It's all a bunch of worthless electrons being disturbed to create something and us deciding the meaning of what is created. The difference is that there is a general agreement among forum users as to the standard interpretation.

Your the kind of player that drives people away from games.

Thanks again. I'm a student of linguistics and foreign languages, language change being a particular interest.


Cool! Do you focus on a particular region?


Well I actually voted aginst the library, mainly on the grounds that it would be too expensive and not really practicable. Now that it has been passed, though, it would be the ideal place to store this kind of data. Wouldn't really need a new resolution though, would it?

What does OOC mean?

OOC: Out of Character. It is typically used to differentiate a roleplayed statement, though this is more of something done in the International Incidents forum.

As for the library, I wouldn't advocate creating a different institution, but the basic idea sounds like it could still be a new resolution.

Your the kind of player that drives people away from games.

I'm not the one calling it "made up bullshit," but the one pointing out a technicality that makes the whole claim of it being "made up bullshit" be a case of it extending much farther.

You'll also note my comment about the fact we have official interpretations of what our "made up bullshit" actually means and how to use our "made up bullshit" properly. You can find those in the stickies scattered around the site.

Oh, the comment in quotation marks was taken from your post, where you used it twice. Calling it such is generally, I have found, counterproductive and not inducive to general gaming.

It doesn't matter how much bullshit you type to reinforce it.

it's still made up bullshit.

And? Since this is a game the history, law, culture and everything else of every nation is made up. But if we are going to be true to the way we run our nations we have to be true to the history of the country we have made up. Otherwise why would I support the rights of terrorists?

The point was if you can make up whatever history you want then why can't we make up a language anything can speak.

The point was if you can make up whatever history you want then why can't we make up a language anything can speak.

Because you can't actually make up whatever history you want if you want it to be accepted. There are certain practical limitations based on your chosen technology period and your chosen species.