NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that there is no international standard for sign languages or even there be a requirement that there be one in each nation. As a result I have now Submitted a proposal to the UN. I'd like to thank all those that had a hand in this... A copy of the proposal is included.

Yours Sincerly, John McKay
Ambassador to the UN

Name: International Sign Language
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits of an international visual or sign language for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to learn a language that allows them to communicate effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired person's quality of life, by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

The UN hereby

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a) 'word' as a movement or gesture that is used within a sign language framework to convey a meaning to others under the same sign language framework,

b) 'dictionary' as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

c) 'verbally-impaired' as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impediment;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language and Verbal Communication Research Organisation(ISLVCRO), mandated to:

a) create an International Sign Language (ISL), harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into a standard ISL dictionary, and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations,

b) provide a mechanism for nations to propose additional words to the standard ISL dictionary,

c) coordinate international research into technologies that allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication;

3. MANDATES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations are given free access to training in the ISL;

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available at no cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency services professionals;

5. ALLOWS member nations to add regional-specific words to the standard ISL dictionary to create regional dictionaries;

The only trouble with this might come from those who would oppose a UN wide one language for all. As this is a step toward that in that it would be one SIGN for all.

Also many nations are more advanced than others so devices may well be in place to allow all to speak and hear what others might say. As feel it would be much better to find medical means to correct the problem than teach them to live with it, or develope devices that allow them to function like normal when it comes to speaking and hearing things. As how do we teach birds to sign or pianos to sign. Give these people a full life where they can hear and speak like normal.. Don't force nations to divert funds from finding ways to correct these defects to training to be different from normal people, thus making their defect stand out when it can be corrected with the proper procedure to do so.

Interesting. What about people who are deaf and have already learnt Rukialkotta [Gruenberg's national language, with 57 different ways to say "argh it burns"!]? Will they be forced to learn a new language? It seems likely to me that rather than no sign languages existing, there will exist many, and that some harmonisation would be required.

You could also consider extending this to deal with deaf people more generally: for example, you could encourage international cooperation in researching technological and medical aids and cures.

OOC: I was thinking of defining deaf and/or dumb, maybe replace "deaf and/or dumb" with "verbally-impaired" and then defining that term.

On the issue of research (with things like Cochlear Implaints etc...) maybe we could also make this into a scientific collaboration as well... under the UN. I'll see what I come up with.

EDIT: Second Draft below

EDIT2: Harmonisation of any existing sign languages will be the Job of the ISLO when they create the ISL... Hmm maybe I should explicitly state that.. *puts up the sign... "Gone to edit the 2nd Draft... Back in 5 minutes."

Second Draft. Added or edited words are in Italics

Name: International Sign Language
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild


DEFINES 'word' for the purposes of this resolution, as a movement or gesture that conveys a specfic idea within the International Sign Language,

DEFINES a 'verbally-impaired' person for the purposes of this resolution as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication with others due to a severe hearing or speech impediment,

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits that an international visual, or sign, language could provide for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to be taught a language that allows them to communicate with others effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired persons quality of life by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

HEREBY

1. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an International Sign Language, harmonising any existing sign languages into one standard sign language, and to keep it continuely updated by the addition of new words;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute(ISHRI) to co-ordinate international research efforts to discover technologies that will allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication.;

3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are verbally-impaired are to be taught the International Sign Language;

4. ENCOURAGES UN Member nations to make the teaching of International Sign Language available to Citizens who are not verbally-impaired;

5. FORBIDS UN Member nations adding their own words, and thus making the International Sign Language non-standard;

6. ENCOURAGES Nations that feel that the International Sign Language does not meet their language requirements may make a written submission to the ISLO for them to add a word to the International Sign Language;

Firstly, I repeat that I like this idea. It's something new. However, I don't think it's Social Justice - seems to me more like Human Rights. I think for SJ, it would have to focus much more on the healthcare side...something I'm not keen on, necessarily.

DEFINES a 'verbally-impaired' person for the purposes of this resolution as any person who is not able to participate in two-way verbal communication with others due to a severe hearing of speech impediment
Should be or.

BELEIVING communication both within any UN member nation and in-between UN member nations is vital.
Should be 'BELIEVING'. As a whole, I think this has slightly the wrong emphasis: I would concentrate more on the fact that communication between people is important.

APPALLED that there is the potential for there to be nations that there are no opportunities for the verbally-impaired to communicate
This is quite an awkward sentence. May I suggest a rewrite?

"CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,"

UNDERSTANDING the benefits that an international visual, or sign, language for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad
Again, doesn't quite make sense, because there's nothing closing 'that'. It should perhaps be "...language could provide for verbally-impaired citizens..."

More thoughts in a bit, after I've had lunch.

Also, the punctuation is a little iffy. I think the best approach is to put commas (,) at the end of each introductory line, and semi-colons (;) at the end of each operative clause. I also suggest you number the operative clauses (everything from HEREBY onwards).

OOC: It's really good to see a novel and worthy proposal like this. I'll likely support.

The goals of this proposal are worthy enough, but I am uneasy about the idea that a language is a static, bureaucratically instituted thing. Spoken languages develop and branch on their own; the variety of different languages from common roots proves that this is a natural process. The esperanto project seems to be a miserable failure.

So, please persuade me that this idea is different. ;)

The goals of this proposal are worthy enough, but I am uneasy about the idea that a language is a static, bureaucratically instituted thing. Spoken languages develop and branch on their own; the variety of different languages from common roots proves that this is a natural process. The esperanto project seems to be a miserable failure.

So, please persuade me that this idea is different.
My thought would be that this would act as 'best fit' language. It would establish a common language for a number of basic words, concepts, and things, but wouldn't necessarily seek to completely supercede languages as a whole. Of course there would be regional variations: those wouldn't need to be accounted for, because the focus of this is on international implementation.

So, when are we making Dzongkha the One World Spoken Language?

Name: Internationally Spoken Language [ISL]
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild


DEFINES 'word' for the purposes of this resolution, as a sound that conveys a specfic idea within the ISL,

DEFINES a 'ISL-impaired' person for the purposes of this resolution as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication with others due to not knowing ISL,

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the ISL-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits that an ISL-language could provide for ISL-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that ISL-impaired people need to be taught a language that allows them to communicate with others effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase an ISL-impaired persons quality of life by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

HEREBY

1. ESTABLISHES the Internationally Sspoken Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an Internationally Spoken Language, harmonising any existing spoken languages into one standard spoken language, and to keep it continuely updated by the addition of new words;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute(ISHRI) to co-ordinate international research efforts to discover technologies that will allow the ISL-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication.;

3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are ISL-impaired are to be taught the Internationally Spoken Language;

4. ENCOURAGES UN Member nations to make the teaching of Internationally Spoken Language available to Citizens who are not ISL-impaired;

5. FORBIDS UN Member nations adding their own words, and thus making the Internationally Spoken Language non-standard;

6. ENCOURAGES Nations that feel that the Internationally Spoken Language does not meet their language requirements may make a written submission to the ISLO for them to add a word to the International Sign Language;


Fake McCoy
Observer to the UN
Non-member State SocialDemocracy

Nicely done Bazalonia, a good start to resolution writing.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/apprentice8py.jpg

5. FORBIDS UN Member nations adding their own words, and thus making the International Sign Language non-standard;

In which case the language would almost certainly need to include a way of spelling out other words letter-by-letter or sound-by-sound, for handling terms (such as personal names, place-names, trade-names & cultural references) that would only be used within particular nations... or would you expect the ISLO to include local terms such as [for example] 'Wenaism' in its standardised vocabulary?

Ouch, I didn't see that line. Yeah, I think there needs to be allowance for the addition of words to the lexicon: the problem only really concerns changing existing words.

Ouch, I didn't see that line. Yeah, I think there needs to be allowance for the addition of words to the lexicon: the problem only really concerns changing existing words.

And that is exactly my problem. If a new sign word develops in some nation, presumably:
1. A few sign-litterate people petition the government
2. The government petitions the ISLO
3. The ISLO gathers their sages and muses
4. If accepted, the new word is sent to the governments, with a professional trainer to explain how it is signed
5. The governments re-train all the sign language teachers
6. The teachers teach

How long do you think this process takes, compared to word of mouth, sign of hand, or whatever you want to call it? How realistic is it for people to keep updated on the language, if they have to attend training courses every year?

Hmmm, I have been looking at RL for some of the answers to concerns raised thus far.

In RL there is a international sign language, but it's not exactly a developed language - there are about 1500 words borrowed from the national sign languages, and thus some argue it's better defined as a vocabulary rather than a complete language. Signers may use the ISL signs with the grammar of their own native sign language; what grammatical conventions exist naturally have to be very flexible.

People communicating in International Sign also tend to make heavy use of mime and gesture, as well as a feature common to all signed languages: an extensive formal system of classifiers. Classifiers are used to describe things, and they transfer well across linguistic barriers. It has been noted that signers are generally better at interlingual communication than non-signers, even without a lingua franca. Perhaps, along with Deaf people's experience with bridging communication barriers, the use of classifiers is a key reason.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestuno_language

What I am pointing out:

A) is there a need for a fully developed language when it's noted that that signers are generally better at interlingual communication than non-signers (even without a lingua franca),

B) is all an ISL requires is a set of conventions on certain specific words as a starting point for people to reach a dialogue.

So whilst the idea is still excellent and should be legislated by the UN, I'm not sure we need to micromanage it to the point I previously thought.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
Author of the indigenous peoples resolution
I love individual soverignty

After some consideration, I will remove clause 5 and change clause 6 to support nations adding words.

Also.. it was always my intention for the ISLO to deal with words only.... I will make changes to make the role of the ISLO clearer

Draft #3

Name: International Sign Language
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild


DEFINES 'word' for the purposes of this resolution, as a movement or gesture that conveys a specfic idea within the International Sign Language,

DEFINES 'dictionary' for the purposes of this resolution as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

DEFINES a 'verbally-impaired' person for the purposes of this resolution as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication with others due to a severe hearing or speech impediment,

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits that an international visual, or sign, language could provide for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to be taught a language that allows them to communicate with others effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired persons quality of life by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

HEREBY

1. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an International Sign Language, harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into one standard dictionary and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations.

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute(ISHRI) to co-ordinate international research efforts to discover technologies that will allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication.;

3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are verbally-impaired are to be taught the International Sign Language;

4. ENCOURAGES UN Member nations to make the teaching of International Sign Language available to Citizens who are not verbally-impaired;

5. ALLOWS UN Member nations only to add regional-specific words to the words of the dictionary standardised by the ISLO.

This is an excellent initiative, and one we fully support. We do have comments and concerns.

We suggest that "hearing/speech-impaired" be substituted for "verbally-impaired". Those are common and easily understood terms.

We agree with those who have suggested that there should be no attempt to limit the growth of the vocabulary of signing, but we would view things a bit differently. All languages are social phenomena. They're going to grow as people use them, whether some legislating body likes it or not. The ISL developed by the ISLO should be seen as the common core of sign language, with an alphabet for fingerspelling and a vocabulary of word/concept signs. It should be mandated that this core language be taught by all nations to those in need of it. An exception should be allowed in the case of hearing/speech-impaired persons who are otherwise disabled to the degree that they could not use the language.

The ISLO should be a standing body, charged not only with developing the ISL, but also with maintaining it. Governmental and private organizations concerned with the issue should be encouraged to recommend changes/additions to the ISLO as the need for them is identified.

The clause encouraging nations to make education in the ISL available to the broader population is an excellent idea. We'd like to suggest strengthening it to:

STRONGLY URGES nations to develop and implement programs to make training in ISL available at no cost to persons who are not hearing- or speech-impaired, with particular emphasis on persons in the health care, law enforcement, and emergency services fields.

We look forward to watching the continued development of this proposal and to supporting it when it is brought to a vote.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

While an honourable cause, I believe devices have been invented that allow people to hear and speak.

Bazalonia']FORBIDS UN Member nations adding their own words, and thus making the International Sign Language non-standard
This is ridiculous. You could never imposed a single unchanging constructed language on the speaking world - why do you expect it to be any different for the signing world?

This is ridiculous. You could never imposed a single unchanging constructed language on the speaking world - why do you expect it to be any different for the signing world?

I think whether this is ridiculous or not depends on what your understanding of the ISL is to be. We see it as a standard finger-spelling alphabet and a core vocabulary of commonly-used words. This core could and must be standard internationally if it is to be effectively used internationally.

The core certainly would not be all there is to sign language. Users in various nations, in various lines of work and even individual users would certainly use more and different signs for additional words. Educators within nations would be free to include these words in training programs.

If the concept of ISL as a standard core is clearly stated in the proposal, we would agree that the clause to which the representative from Salafra objects would be unneeded and should be removed. There's still a good bit of work to be done on the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is ridiculous. You could never imposed a single unchanging constructed language on the speaking world - why do you expect it to be any different for the signing world?

While I share your objection, the author has already accepted to modify it. Quoting a great philosopher,

Don't kick the baby!
~ Ike

EDIT: Bazalonia, maybe you could update the draft in the first post, instead of spreading new ones across the thread. It would prevent this sort of misunderstanding.

:upyours: Good idea. :upyours:

Even though there are high tech nations out there, don't forget that some times low tech helps, and not all medical cures can be afforded by everyone or sometimes can't be performed on certain people.

:upyours: Good idea. :upyours:

Even though there are high tech nations out there, don't forget that some times low tech helps, and not all medical cures can be afforded by everyone or sometimes can't be performed on certain people.

Um.. thanks I think.... Um... Why did you choose that smilie... thats the dreaded 'finger'.

The comments you had made are what lead to the use of the term "verbally-impaired" and then defining it the way I did, allowing people that can communicate verbally even though they may be deaf to do so without being required to learn the ISL.

Bazalonia']Um.. thanks I think.... Um... Why did you choose that smilie... thats the dreaded 'finger'.
Well I'm sure that it is an internationally recognized sign.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

i've got a question.

would an international sign language be based on English or be a totally unique language?

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are ISL-impaired are to be taught the Internationally Spoken Language;

4. ENCOURAGES UN Member nations to make the teaching of Internationally Spoken Language available to Citizens who are not ISL-impaired;



In these I see a problem as you MANDATE we teach those who need it due to their being impaied but you only ENCOURAGE all others to learn it. Thus how does this even out things as if those not impaired simply refuse to learn then those impaired have not gained a thing. They can sign to each other but the rest of them will ignore then because they don't understand them nor want to.

The first and primary solution is to bring those impaired up to normal standards with medical procedures of devices to do so. Thus it would be more practical to make available such to all who may need it rather than just pass on this and teach them to sign between each other. The funds spent on this matter would be best used providing medical solutions or devices than teaching just those who may need it or want it. Here the impaired will become near normal and not be seen as odd trying to sign to somebody that the boat is sinking....

i've got a question.

would an international sign language be based on English or be a totally unique language?

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

As we see it, the ISL would be composed of two parts.

There would be a standard alphabet for finger-spelling. That's when the person spells out words letter-by-letter. Naturally, to understand what the word means, you have to understand the language it comes from.

The second part would be a vocabulary of word/concept signs. This is where a particular hand sign stands for a complete word or concept. This wouldn't require knowledge of any particular language. The same sign would be used for the idea expressed in different languages as "and", "und", "et", "en" and "to". No matter what his or her native language is, a person who knows ISL would know what the sign means.

OOC: An example from RL.... There's a young couple in my neighborhood. He's American, not hearing- or speech-impaired, speaks only English, and knows American Sign Language because it's needed in his work. She's Romanian, hearing-impaired, speaks only Romanian, and knows Romanian Sign Language. When they met, they found that there was enough similarity in the signs for common words in both sign languages that they could communicate.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As i see it, what you have here is another resolution that is far outside the bounds of the UN. National sovereignty aside, it would be impossible enforce IRL, and is only possible because the system here automatically forces compliance. My only option is to quit the UN, rather than to simply ignore it.

More simply put, there is no point to this resolution. It encourages rather than diminishes a victim culture that could be more easily dealt with via better health care and/or other national-level programming. Thirty years from now, we'll have and international organization of cripples who cannot speak to anyone who does not know ISL because they have to "represent their roots." Utterly ridiculous.

--dunerat

As i see it, what you have here is another resolution that is far outside the bounds of the UN. National sovereignty aside, it would be impossible enforce IRL, and is only possible because the system here automatically forces compliance. My only option is to quit the UN, rather than to simply ignore it.Except, it does happen in real-life. I’ve made an earlier post in this topic about the subject. Read that (especially the wikipedia links) and see for yourself :)

And if you are going to pretend that a the creation of an international sign language is somehow subject to the national sovereignty mandate, then we might as well pack our bags and go back home. This idea is exactly what the UN was made for – it’s international in nature, it covers a broad international demographic, and it promotes collaboration.

It’s people like you who give national sovereignists a bad name. Especially when you can’t spell diminishes and ridiculous, and think just because you say “national sovereignty” that the objection is illegitimate – especially when you don’t appear to have the faintest idea what national sovereignty actually means.

Actually, it would seem that i have a far better grasp of what NatSov is than you do, sir. ISL is not an international issue for the UN anymore than International Shoe Design. This resolution specifically creates and enforces a domestic policy which rightfully belongs in the domains of member nations. A better solution would be to create an International Standards Organization and have them develop a language that would then be the "standard" ISL, but not one that is unlawfully forced upon anyone, much as the RL ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage) does with programming languages (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=&scopelist=) and such (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList).

If all you have is insults about spelling errors, perhaps you should indeed pack you bags and go home.

This resolution specifically creates and enforces a domestic policy which rightfully belongs in the domains of member nations. A better solution would be to create an International Standards Organization and have them develop a language that would then be the "standard" ISL, but not one that is unlawfully forced upon anyon

So if it only 'STRONGLY URGES' the teaching of ISL to the "verbally-impaired", instead of MANDATES this, then that would make it okay? H'mm, actually I think that I would prefer that wording too...

Actually, it would seem that i have a far better grasp of what NatSov is than you do, sir. ISL is not an international issue for the UN anymore than International Shoe Design. This resolution specifically creates and enforces a domestic policy which rightfully belongs in the domains of member nations. A better solution would be to create an International Standards Organization and have them develop a language that would then be the "standard" ISL, but not one that is unlawfully forced upon anyone, much as the RL ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage) does with programming languages (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=&scopelist=) and such (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList).

If all you have is insults about spelling errors, perhaps you should indeed pack you bags and go home.

We must respectfully disagree with the representative of Dunerat that this proposal is an unacceptable intrusion upon national sovereignty. We believe that the ability to communicate across national borders is an international issue, perfectly within the proper sphere of NSUN concern. And we do not believe the proposal's goal would be effectively attained if left up to individual nations to implement.

Ausserland is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization (NSO). We believe in due consideration of national sovereignty in weighing proposals. We simply do not think it is a convincing argument against this proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We must respectfully disagree with the representative of Dunerat that this proposal is an unacceptable intrusion upon national sovereignty. We believe that the ability to communicate across national borders is an international issue, perfectly within the proper sphere of NSUN concern. And we do not believe the proposal's goal would be effectively attained if left up to individual nations to implement.

Ausserland is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization (NSO). We believe in due consideration of national sovereignty in weighing proposals. We simply do not think it is a convincing argument against this proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We commend Mr. Olembe for a thoughtful interpretation of national sovereignty. The concept is often used as an easy objection by those who lack better arguments. And by those who threaten to leave the UN if international sign language is introduced...

So if it only 'STRONGLY URGES' the teaching of ISL to the "verbally-impaired", instead of MANDATES this, then that would make it okay? H'mm, actually I think that I would prefer that wording too...
Yes, that would make it an acceptable resolution.

International communication is not actually an international issue except within the UN itself. If a nation, as a sovereign government, chooses to only use its own language(s), then that is how it will communicate anywhere it goes. Here at the UN itself it is different, because we all must speak a common language for the purpose of resolving international matters. But individuals have no such neccessity to bother with learning other languages (unless their government, like mine, has made it mandatory), nor is there any reason to force that upon them. To do so would infrigne on the individuals right to choose as well as the nation's.

--dunerat

I have strengthed Clause 4 in accordance with Ausserland's suggestion and also added a re-worded clause 6 back in.

As to the using of "STRONGLY URGES" over "MANDATES".... I am yet un-convinced that this change should occur. I am willing, however, to listen to any arguments that one might have in favour or against such change.

Okay, here's one potential problem with making the teaching of this sign language compulsory _
This resolution's author seems to assume that the "foreign" interactions of people from NSUN member-nations will mostly if not entirely be with people from other NSUN member-nations. However in the case of St Edmund most of our people's "foreign" interactions will be with people from the other member-nations of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, none of which are also within the NSUN, instead... This group of nations already uses a shared sign languge when necessary, namely the Godwinnian one, and this resolution would consequently require all of our verbally-impaired people to go to the effort of becoming bilingual even though the second language would be of little [or even "no"] use to most of them...
There are probably other nations within the NSUN whose verbally-impaired people currently use sign languages that are shared with neighbouring &/or allied nations which are outside of the NSUN, too. (OOC: Isn't it likely that boht NSUN & non-NSUN nations within 'America'-themed regions use ASL, for example?)

I would see it as much more likely that non-members would be interested in learning a language used in 1/3 of the world, thereby making this universal.

I would see it as much more likely that non-members would be interested in learning a language used in 1/3 of the world, thereby making this universal.

Why? Most of their citizens' foreign contacts are with people from other Godwinnian Commonwealth nations too, and in fact there aren't any other NSUN members on most of the Earths where those nations have lands...

Whatever. If you think it harms your citizens to implement this, vote against. Arguing about dreamed up RP examples is not for my taste.

I really like the idea that there be an international sign language. but I have some disagreements with some of the execution.


DEFINES 'word' for the purposes of this resolution, as a movement or gesture that conveys a specfic idea within the International Sign Language,I think you should use the term 'meaning', 'audience' and 'intended' as in ...that is intended to convey a specific meaning (or meanings) to an audience. As it is now, the measurement of whether a word is a 'word' or not is whether the audience understands it (if the audience doesn't know the word, it doesn't 'convey' a specific idea--thus the misunderstood word isn't a 'word'). And 'idea' is just too likely to create confusion; 'meaning' covers communication much more generally.

1. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an International Sign Language, harmonising any existing sign languages into one standard sign language, and to keep it continually updated by the addition of new words;'Harmonising'? Does this mean the ISL will remove my native Powerhungry Chipmunkian tribe's traditional Sign Language and implant in it this new one? Or do you mean harmonising as more of "using precedents from current Sign Languages"?

I mean, this ISL should be an additional tool for the verbally impaired, not a stand-alone, be-all, end-all, in whose presence we don't have need for any other Sign Language.

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute(ISHRI) to co-ordinate international research efforts to discover technologies that will allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication.;I really like this. :) though I might worry that "co-ordinate" could be misconstrued as giving the ISHRI some sort of control over the research efforts, rather than just providing a voluntary network/forum/whatever to help their work.
3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are verbally-impaired are to be taught the International Sign Language;I think it shouldn't be "mandated that all are taught", but rather "mandated that all are given the opportunity to be taught". the current clause gives my government the right to drag the verbally-impaired people from bed to teach them an ISL they don't want to learn (so as to fulfill my mandate).

5. FORBIDS UN Member nations adding their own words, and thus making the International Sign Language non-standard;What do you mean "member nations adding their own words"? the formal, standard lexicon of the ISL will be entirely controlled by the ISLO. I wasn't aware the national governmetns had anything to do with what was part of the "official version" of the ISL. And any local idioms, slangs, changes and such are uncontrollable, and can't be stopped. And shouldn't be stopped.

Actually, this brings up a very interesting point. Languages--English, for example--aren't very standardized. I mean, there are dictionaries and lexicon-makers who establish various standards for English usage, so there is some measurability along a standard (mainly in formal writing, like MLA format, etc). But in an informal sense, there's no governing authority on English. Whatever you can say, to communicate understandably, is viable. That's how dialects, slangs, colloquisims, et al, arise. And that’s the way it should be.

And, if you look closely, it's the dictionary which is playing catch-up, having to add words that have become popular enough to be considered standard. That's the way language works, it's one giant free-market system. There are more-command-ish economies in certain areas (like in formal writing, or in technical writing about a certain topic), but even those have variation and diversity.

It is ignoring this fundamental variable nature of language to "enforce" it, or to "forbid" the addition of words. The ISLO should, instead, be scouring the countryside looking for how locals use the ISL, and figuring out what slangs and localisms deserve formal placement in the lexicon. It should take the lead from users, rather than (trying to) shepherd cats into a narrow system.

6. ENCOURAGES Nations that feel that the International Sign Language does not meet their language requirements may make a written submission to the ISLO for them to add a word to the International Sign Language;
I like this. I mean, like I just said, the ISLO is determining the central lexicon for the ISL, and it needs to discriminate between words that need to be formally accepted into the vocabulary, and those that aren't ready for it yet. A submission system could help with this, and save the ISLO time in scouring the countryside, looking for new ways the ISL is being used.


Other than that, I like it.

PC: Unfortunately, the author is not updating the first post. The most recent draft is this one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10423209&postcount=18)

We find it very commendable that most of our colleagues who have posted in this thread have chosen to make thoughtful and constructive comments on the draft. There is much valuable opinion and information which deserves careful consideration by the author. The draft is a good one and its aim is very worthwhile. But, as we have stated before, it needs additional work if it is to be technically accurate and practically effective.

To respond to some of the points raised by the distinguished representative of Powerhungry Chipmunks....

We agree that "conveys" is not the best choice of terms. We suggest "represents". And we'd also think "idea" should be replaced with a more linguistically accurate term. We'll try to find one.

We think the idea of providing an opportunity to be taught the ISL is a good one. There are verbally-impaired people who are also physically or mentally incapable of using sign language, and some others may not find it to their advantage.

The word "dictionary" should disappear from the proposal. The ISL should consist, as we have stated before, of a standard sign alphabet for finger-spelling and a standard vocabulary of signs representing commonly-used words. That is what the ISLO should develop and maintain. We'd think it would probably be best left to individual nations to develop whatever dictionaries or lexicons are necessary as they implement programs for teaching the ISL.

We look forward to the author's continued work on the proposal. As that work continues, we'll try to provide additional comments on specific provisions.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I hate to sound trollish, but this just came to me. How do people finger-spell in chinese? In general, how well can this suggestion accomodate a diversity of alphabets?

PC: Unfortunately, the author is not updating the first post. The most recent draft is this one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10423209&postcount=18)
Ah! That helps very much, thank you :) Actually, I think I quoted from the second draft, but it was still a lot different than the third one, so a lot of my recommendations have no bearing.

My only disagreements now are with the definition of 'word' and the wording of clause 3. Clause 5 is servicable enough, I think, in allowing local terms and acknowledging the natural variance in language. I like the addition of dictionaries to the proposal text.

Yay for things exceeding expectations!

Ah! That helps very much, thank you :) Actually, I think I quoted from the second draft, but it was still a lot different than the third one, so a lot of my recommendations have no bearing.

My only disagreements now are with the definition of 'word' and the wording of clause 3. Clause 5 is servicable enough, I think, in allowing local terms and acknowledging the natural variance in language. I like the addition of dictionaries to the proposal text.

Yay for things exceeding expectations!

We just read draft #3, and cannot agree that a lot of your recommendations have no bearing. What have we missed?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We just read draft #3, and cannot agree that a lot of your recommendations have no bearing. What have we missed?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well, the long rant against the old clause 5 is less relevant after it was dropped... ;)

Draft #4... Edit... current craft is also in the first post

Changes made:

Re-worded the definition of 'word'added the word 'able' in clause 3 to ensure that persons have choiceReplaced clause 4 with Ausserland's suggestion added a bit more text to clause 5
Re-worded original clause 6

Name: International Sign Language
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild


DEFINES 'word' for the purposes of this resolution, as a movement or gesture that is used within a sign language framework to convey a meaning to others under the same sign language framework,

DEFINES 'dictionary' for the purposes of this resolution as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

DEFINES a 'verbally-impaired' person for the purposes of this resolution as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication with others due to a severe hearing or speech impediment,

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits that an international visual, or sign, language could provide for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to be taught a language that allows them to communicate with others effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired persons quality of life by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

HEREBY

1. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an International Sign Language, harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into one standard dictionary and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations.

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute(ISHRI) to co-ordinate international research efforts to discover technologies that will allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication.;

3. MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations that are verbally-impaired are able to be taught the International Sign Language;

4. STRONGLY URGES nations to develop and implement programs to make training in ISL available at no cost to persons who are not hearing- or speech-impaired, with particular emphasis on persons in the health care, law enforcement, and emergency services fields;

5. ALLOWS UN Member nations only to add regional-specific words to the words of the dictionary standardised by the ISLO to create their own dictionary;

6. PROVIDES a mechanism, as defined by the ISLO, for nations to propose an additional word to the dictionary maintained by the ISLO;

First Fonzoland rewrite, with cosmetic changes. ;) A more substantial rewrite will follow.

---

BELIEVING communication between individuals within any UN member nation or in-between UN member nations is vital,

CONCERNED that opportunities for the verbally-impaired may be limited in some nations,

UNDERSTANDING the benefits of an international visual or sign language for verbally-impaired citizens who wish to travel abroad,

BELIEVING that verbally-impaired people need to learn a language that allows them to communicate effectively,

UNDERSTANDING that the use of technology can dramatically increase a verbally-impaired person's quality of life, by opening up the channels for two-way verbal communication,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution:

a) 'word' as a movement or gesture that is used within a sign language framework to convey a meaning to others under the same sign language framework,

b) 'dictionary' as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

c) 'verbally-impaired' as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impediment,

The UN hereby

1. ESTABLISHES the International Sign Language Organisation (ISLO) to create an International Sign Language (ISL), harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into a standard ISL dictionary, and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Speech and Hearing Reseach Institute (ISHRI) to coordinate international research into technologies that allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication;

3. MANDATES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations are given free access to training in the ISL;

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available at no cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency services professionals;

5. ALLOWS member nations to add regional-specific words to the standard ISL dictionary to create regional dictionaries;

6. PROVIDES a mechanism, as defined by the ISLO, for nations to propose additional words to the standard ISL dictionary maintained by the ISLO.

---

Second rewrite, a substantial restructuring of operative part.

---

*preamble as before *

The UN hereby

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a) 'word' as a movement or gesture that is used within a sign language framework to convey a meaning to others under the same sign language framework,

b) 'dictionary' as a recognised organisation of words and the specific idea that they convey,

c) 'verbally-impaired' as any person who is not able to participate effectively in two-way verbal communication due to severe hearing or speech impediment;

2. ESTABLISHES the <insert catchy name for unified organisation>, mandated to:

a) create an International Sign Language (ISL), harmonising the various sign language dictionaries into a standard ISL dictionary, and to add words that affect a majority of UN member nations,

b) provide a mechanism for nations to propose additional words to the standard ISL dictionary,

c) coordinate international research into technologies that allow the verbally-impaired to participate in two-way verbal communication;

3. MANDATES that all verbally-impaired citizens of member nations are given free access to training in the ISL;

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to make training in the ISL available at no cost to persons who are not verbally-impaired, particularly health care, law enforcement, and emergency services professionals;

5. ALLOWS member nations to add regional-specific words to the standard ISL dictionary to create regional dictionaries;

---

Hope some of this helps...

See, now this is a version that i can support. Fonzoland's rewrite is similar to how we ourselves would do it. If this can be the finalised (or close to finalised) version, we will support this.

--dunerat

Dunerat... If you look back to draft #4 (the version Fonzoland, used to cosmetically and structurally change, you'd realise there is no difference to the wording for all clauses apart from clause 3, which is only a minor re-write.

Thank's Fonzoland... I'll update the first post

EDIT: The name of the combined ISLO & ISHRI UN agencies is.... the International Sign Language and Verbal Communication Research Organisation (ISLVCRO)

Bazalonia: You might want to incorporate some cosmetic changes I made to the preamble as well.

Whoops, sorry, my mistake.... updated

EDIT:

I think the proposal is at the stage ti be submitted.... though I'll leave it for a few more days befire actually submitting it.

I'd like to thank all of you that have contributed by raising issues, suggesting ammendments and re-writing, particular Ausserland and Fonzoland...

If anyone would like to help me with a TG campaign... please TG me.. Thank you.

Am I the only one thinking that this is on the same general theme as a universal language??? :)

THE AUTHOR ROCKS!

While I certainly commend the author of this proposal for making constructive and substantive efforts at improving international communication, I believe it would be more appropriate to take a broader approach as exemplified by the UNCoESB, an environmental resolution sponsored by the Venerable Libertarians.

Perhaps the general goal of improving international communication can be better served if we do something along these lines:


Title: International Communication Act

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Texan Hotrodders

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that improved communication benefits the international community by creating more effective means of distributing and/or sharing information, technological developments, goods and services, and other items that benefit nations and persons.

FURTHER NOTING that improved communication facilitates international cooperation and will help this body in promoting peace and prosperity for all of its membership.

RESOLVES that all member nations will take reasonable and practical measures to enhance the quality of international communication and to employ that communication in the interests of peace and prosperity, taking into account their biological, cultural, technological, political, and economic circumstances in order to more effectively communicate with their neighboring states and the wider international community.

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Communication Commission (UNCC) to accomplish the following:

1. Cooperate with all nations in improving international communication to the extent practical and appropriate.

2. Provide those nations that request it with reasonable aid in improving international communication.

3. Arbitrate those disputes between nations that consent to the help of the UNCC in resolving international communication crises and/or disagreements.

4. By means of international communication, facilitate international cooperation and stability while refraining from acting in such a way as to harm international cooperation and stability.

ENCOURAGES all nations to cooperate with the UNCC to improve international communication in the interests of international peace and prosperity.


I suspect that this proposal would be more favorable to those nations that do not have sign language and/or would prefer to communicate by other means. Frankly, I see no need to address only one specific form of communication in a proposal when we can address them all in a constructive and helpful manner that does not require the sort of micromanagement that so many nations find upsetting.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Much as I like your proposals, Mr Smith, and those of your predecessor, Mr Jones, I don't especially see a need to generalise so much. Yes, sign language is a specific aspect of international communication. However, the draft the Bazalonian representative has presented describes a truly international issue. The aim of UNCoESB, the Education and Contract acts, and others, was perhaps to 'take out' a legislative section: in this particular case, we see no problem with repeated exploration of it.

While I certainly commend the author of this proposal for making constructive and substantive efforts at improving international communication, I believe it would be more appropriate to take a broader approach as exemplified by the UNCoESB, an environmental resolution sponsored by the Venerable Libertarians.

Perhaps the general goal of improving international communication can be better served if we do something along these lines:



I suspect that this proposal would be more favorable to those nations that do not have sign language and/or would prefer to communicate by other means. Frankly, I see no need to address only one specific form of communication in a proposal when we can address them all in a constructive and helpful manner that does not require the sort of micromanagement that so many nations find upsetting.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Hmmmm... Could you kindly point out how these two proposals are mutually exclusive? It seems that the Bazalonian representative is attempting to standardise sign language, while Mr. Smith is giving nations a vague pat in the shoulders.

Much as I like your proposals, Mr Smith, and those of your predecessor, Mr Jones, I don't especially see a need to generalise so much. Yes, sign language is a specific aspect of international communication. However, the draft the Bazalonian representative has presented describes a truly international issue. The aim of UNCoESB, the Education and Contract acts, and others, was perhaps to 'take out' a legislative section: in this particular case, we see no problem with repeated exploration of it.

I do see a problem with such repetition. I hardly agree that it is preferable to pass a resolution that benefits a relatively small portion of the membership when it is quite possible to benefit the entire membership with a single resolution.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I do see a problem with such repetition. I hardly agree that it is preferable to pass a resolution that benefits a relatively small portion of the membership when it is quite possible to benefit the entire membership with a single resolution.
Fair enough. Usually, I guess I'd be on the other side of this argument. I just disagree here, and support the original version.

Hmmmm... Could you kindly point out how these two proposals are mutually exclusive? It seems that the Bazalonian representative is attempting to standardise sign language, while Mr. Smith is giving nations a vague pat in the shoulders.

It is not a question of mutual exclusivity. It's a question of efficiency. Why waste the time and effort to delve into a single aspect of international communication when you can address all of it?

Frankly, your insinuation that the proposal simply gives nations a vague pat on the shoulders is disingenuous and hardly the sort of constructive commentary that is useful in these discussions.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

It is not a question of mutual exclusivity. It's a question of efficiency. Why waste the time and effort to delve into a single aspect of international communication when you can address all of it?

Perhaps because one of them is creating a unified standard, while the other isn't?

Frankly, your insinuation that the proposal simply gives nations a vague pat on the shoulders is disingenuous and hardly the sort of constructive commentary that is useful in these discussions.

You may be right. But we anxiously wait for Mr. Smith to persuade us that his text does something more than creating an official translation agency.

I would support a proposal to create an official translation agency. Doesn't deter me from supporting this proposal, though.

Perhaps because one of them is creating a unified standard, while the other isn't?

You may be right. But we anxiously wait for Mr. Smith to persuade us that his text does something more than creating an official translation agency.

Perhaps when you persuade me that it is practical to create a unified standard for international communication for the entire UN membership, I'll see that it's appropriate to do something more than "an official translation agency".

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Perhaps when you persuade me that it is practical to create a unified standard for international communication for the entire UN membership, I'll see that it's appropriate to do something more than "an official translation agency".

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

My point exactly. There are certain benefits from a very specific unified lexicon, in the case of sign language. Those benefits are hard to find when addressing communication in general.

It appears that your proposal does not address the problems the Bazalonian representative is attempting to tackle. As such, offering it as a replacement might dissuade the author from submitting legislation on what is essentially a separate issue. This is the source of my criticism - I would be likely to support both efforts independently.

I hope Mr. Smith did not take my expression "official translation agency" as derisive. I believe it is an adequate representation of the practical effects of his proposal, but am willing to retreat if shown otherwise.

I see little to no resason why if ISL or the proposal promoted by Texan
Hotrodders where to be passed, the other would not be able to also be enacted.

I'll leave it for 1 more day and then ... let the TG Campaign begin...

i must say that i found wuite a bit of difference between Draft#4 and Fonzoland's rewrite, but in any case, in the present form this resolution is one i can and will support (assuming i read the first post correctly as the current version).

--dunerat