NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: A while ago I was wanting to do a poll on this but forgot about it. I was just reminded of it, so here goes.

I would like a sample of opinions on...which is better for resolutions, formal or casual language? It seems to me that it looks better and more accurate if you use formal language, but it's also hard for players to understand in many cases, whereas more casual language is more easily understandable and would probably receive more votes. Could we strike a balance between the two means of expressing ourselves so that we wouldn't lose votes and still have language that's clear and looks good?

I believe a balance is needed. Formality forces you to think about what it is you're asking the U.N. to do, but the word count makes it hard to do anything of a sweeping nature if you stay formal throughout.

Personally, I'm still finding my style. Eradicate Smallpox was less formal; I was seeking a style similar to the one found in the Bill of Rights (plain, direct, and yet still lofty) and ended up getting stung because people nit picked (I remember spending a lot of time arguing that, no, you didn't have to sterilize every square foot of earth to eradicate variola, and that it was senseless to assume that we'd have to kill the cultures we would need to continue developing vaccines). More formalism would have helped.

BTW, for a counterexample, go look at my Common Market proposal if you haven't already. That one is probably excessively formal (I may have overreacted from my last experience). Somewhere in between, but maybe leaning more towards the smallpox resolution seems right.

But the topic will also affect it. It was easier to be less formal with smallpox; few nations were going to try to circumvent the purpose of the resolution, which was to protect their populations (win-win all around). With the Common Market, people will try to game the system, which means more effort put into stopping them.

I perfer formal, opposed to informal. Formal doesn't mean the language needs to be sophisticated, it just doesn't assume a familiarity that may not exist.

The best example would be the German language uses "polite" and "familiar" words for talking to / with people:

What are you doing?

Was machen Sie? (polite)
Was machen du? (familiar)

I really like that part of the German language, though I don't know if other languages also make this sort of distinction. When traveling I try to stick to the formal, though I've noticed that when at a concert or club, other people (women) will jump very quickly to the familiar. *snicker* :)

However, in NationStates we are Roleplaying diplomats from nations. Our opinions represent the position of an entire nation, and resolutions are a very formal statement. I favor structure and politeness in the resolutions.

As for the discussions and debates ... that is a matter best left up to the individual.

I really like that part of the German language, though I don't know if other languages also make this sort of distinction.
I'm fairly sure Dutch does. Spanish, too.

I have to agree with Allemande: You need a balance. If you're too casual, you get proposals like "Ban all chavs" which just looks like some teenager with only a half-assed idea of what he's doing trying to post a proposal. On the other hand, you get too formal, and well, I'll fall asleep before I finish reading it.

BTW - on that note - UNSA was written in such a manner (though I think the extensive spacing significantly helped) that it made you INSTANTLY want to read it through - rather than the thoughts "How much longer do I have to go on?" or "What age are you?" popping into my head.

Your leeway on the balance is fairly significant IMO - extremes are not favorable.

I'm fairly sure Dutch does. Spanish, too.

I know in Spanish the 'formal' object/subjects are essentially third person, much like a waiter or butler in English: "What does sir want, today?"; or "?Que quiere hoy, Usted?" ("?/What/ /he wants/ /today/, /you, formal/?") (Also, Japanese has a fairly rigid distinction between formal and familiar modes)

I've always thought the English Thee's, Thou's, and Thine's were the formal or polite forms of the second person, though archaic as they are. Even if that isn't correct, I think English has a formal and familiar mode--besides the already pointed out third-person address of "what would sir like?" or the archaic thee's and thou's (which, if I remember German grammar correctly, are a lot like how its formal and familiar are formed). Pragmatics are English's differentiators of class.

There's an economy in language. When there's no need to be formal or to give a large amount of context, the speaker won't. This is shown through more commonly used phrases being shortened or abbreviated (the, a, you, I, he, can't, won't, etc. are all as short as possible because we say them the most often--"often" being yet another example through its abbreviation 'oft') as well as the content of speech. That is to say that the following styles of speech are pretty much directly related to how well acquainted or familiar one is with the other, and the increasing formality of the situation: "wuzzup dawg?" Hi there? Hello, my name is Mr. Brown, and who might you be?While this is only a function of pragmatics in English (rather than an encoded difference in who one is addressing in tense or subject/object), it is still present. If un-romantic.


Anyway, I prefer generally more formal speech, as I'm temprered, in this television age to demand visual information in combination with language input (whether printed or auditory). Since there are no visuals in NS, I have to have a certain higher level of background and context in order to interpret the writings of others. Tone, without the voice or a visual representation, can be very hard to discern. I prefer too much information to too little in that sense.

I'm not sure 'Formal' and 'Informal' are quite the right words. Standard or Received English works better, compared to Colloquial, Idiomatic, Slang and other forms of the language. [/random aside, courtesy of my HSC English teacher]

Formal but understandable.

Formal but understandable.
Agreed.

On English... thee, thine, etc are the informal terms and are still used in some areas of northern England, as Bahgum would no doubt testify to..

On English... thee, thine, etc are the informal terms and are still used in some areas of northern England, as Bahgum would no doubt testify to..

It's not common but the older generation still gets up to it. Mainly in Yorkshire, I believe, so don't blame all of the north. Although I'm not Bahgum.

Formal, in my mind. less room for confusion when it comes to interpretation. I believe a great deal of the UN votes on the title anyway, so the language of the proposal is unimportant. But I'm a cynic.

On the thee and thine, it is still used a fair bit, but with our thick accents, it can often end up sounding like tha' and theh'* and so they don't sound as ye olde Englishe as you might expect.

*Phonetic spelling is a bitch.

*Phonetic spelling is a bitch.

Just try using the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ipa.htm).

Once you know it, it's a great tool. But until then, using it's one constant loop of "er, I think that sound is the squiggly line over there. No, not that one, the other squiggly line..."

Great, tha' gurt blaggard', naw tha's made mi 'ead 'urt. :D

I think a mixture of both formal and casual. This is because different people talk in different ways, so you can communicate with both.

Tex, have you looked at my wording in "Ban Bayonets"? :)

I've always thought the English Thee's, Thou's, and Thine's were the formal or polite forms of the second person, though archaic as they are.

It's a common mistake, but thee, thou, and thine are actually familiar not formal. Webster says "used especially in ecclesiastical or literary language and by Friends especially among themselves ..." which would imply a more familiar mode than formar, although ecclesiastical could be considered formal to some extent.

I think That formalitys don't help much at all, i think that we should use a mixture and use each when it is needed, because sometimes i am sure people are intimidated of writing a proposal because of the way they speak/type.

Thankyou,
Aeuqitas

UN resolutions don't require formal English so much as they require precise English. Each word and phrase should mean exactly what the drafter intends, nothing more nor less. Casual speech leads to ambiguity, which leads to nations not being sure exactly what they're voting for. (Of course, sometimes ambiguity is useful, but one must be able to get the words right first before playing with them.)

Tex, have you looked at my wording in "Ban Bayonets"? :)

I just did. The wording looks fine.

Casual. Duh.

I think That formalitys don't help much at all, i think that we should use a mixture and use each when it is needed, because sometimes i am sure people are intimidated of writing a proposal because of the way they speak/type.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are quite encouraged that you have seen the point. If any Dom, Dick or Derry felt sufficiently confident to churn out a proposal without considering the weight of their words (as is already the case, we sometimes feel), we would be inundated by proposals not worth the electrons expended in their construction and dissemination (as we also already sometimes are).

In fact, we would go so far as to recommend the striking down of any proposal found to have a bona fide spelling or grammatical error in it. This would eliminate a large part of the case load presented to most conscientious delegates.

This striking-down, of course, is not a proposed resolution; it is merely our call for concerted action by those who genuinely believe that words have power and so should be treated with dignity.

My opinion is that the submitted resolution remain completely formal and completely consice, clearly laying out exactly what it means, and the people who understand that sort of language can go purely off that if they feel they don't need to debate it.

Then, for those people who struggle reading formal language, the submitter of the resolution could begin a discussion here which would include the formal language, an exact copy of the resolution if you will, then a toned down explanation in lay terms of what it does.

All of the discussion about the resolutions happens here after all.

Go casuality!

My opinion is that the submitted resolution remain completely formal and completely consice, clearly laying out exactly what it means, and the people who understand that sort of language can go purely off that if they feel they don't need to debate it.

Then, for those people who struggle reading formal language, the submitter of the resolution could begin a discussion here which would include the formal language, an exact copy of the resolution if you will, then a toned down explanation in lay terms of what it does.

All of the discussion about the resolutions happens here after all.

We At the land of Aeuqitas agree to a certain extent, but we need to realise if we want it to be the united Nations and not the United High Class people we need to realise that people with ideas arent always the best writers to use a far out example of a Parallel Universe Albert Einstien was thought to be retarded when he was young because it took him a long time to learn to speak,

OOC: Sorry if i have broken any forum rules :headbang:

We At the land of Aeuqitas agree to a certain extent, but we need to realise if we want it to be the united Nations and not the United High Class people we need to realise that people with ideas arent always the best writers to use a far out example of a Parallel Universe Albert Einstien was thought to be retarded when he was young because it took him a long time to learn to speak
Greetings.

We of Roathin note that it is not a question of class or level of language, but of clarity. Legal documents use formal speech so that they are unambiguous in their distinct context. That is why they are called 'formal' - i.e. they are according to a certain (in two senses) recognized form - as opposed to 'casual' which can have different meanings on a case-by-case basis.

The use of formal speech leads to greater certitude and reduces ambiguity. That is always a good thing to have in an organisation whose main purpose is to legislate.

OOC: Sorry if i have broken any forum rules :headbang:
Surely not. I thought it was a good post. :)

What rules did you think you'd broken?

OOC: i dont know, i thought i might have offended someone with my saying about rich people or something :S lol

thanks for saying it was a good post :D

IC: I think, after careful consideration, that Formal language should be used in most cases, but we should not punish those that don't for people cant be good at everything, and that it is not the words that count, it is the meaning behind them, but the words should clearly state what the meaning is, otherwise we are left to guess, and that is never good