[Draft] Endangered Language Preservation

[Jarish Inyo]

Not another one of these need to save dead or dying languages proposals. The government of Jaresh Inyo will not publicize ELPC data or permit ELPC into our nation. Nor will we contribute to it in any way. Languages evolve and die out. There is no reason to mandate that nations publicize data that no one but the researchers give a damn about.

[Humans Are People Too]

Not another one of these need to save dead or dying languages proposals. The government of Jaresh Inyo will not publicize ELPC data or permit ELPC into our nation. Nor will we contribute to it in any way. Languages evolve and die out. There is no reason to mandate that nations publicize data that no one but the researchers give a damn about.

This is not an attempt to stop language death. It is just another part of life that we can't prevent really, rather than document their characteristics and impacts they've had on their respective native populations.

[Perotasoa]

Not another one of these need to save dead or dying languages proposals. The government of Jaresh Inyo will not publicize ELPC data or permit ELPC into our nation. Nor will we contribute to it in any way. Languages evolve and die out. There is no reason to mandate that nations publicize data that no one but the researchers give a damn about.

Each language presents a unique way of saying things and referring to concepts. If you know two languages fluently, you are doubly as able to communicate what you want to say. While you find you have no way to express what you are thinking in one language, you will find it is possible to say it in another.

By the way, this may be your opinion, but many others will disagree, so I do see a valid reason for this being proposed.

[Jarish Inyo]

Then it should be up to the so called natives to document their characteristics and impacts they've had on their populations. Not the WA's.

Why should any nation allow WA officials to harass their citizens because those officials feel that they need to preserve something that those citizens do not wish to preserve themselves?

[Perotasoa]

Then it should be up to the so called natives to document their characteristics and impacts they've had on their populations. Not the WA's.

Why should any nation allow WA officials to harass their citizens because those officials feel that they need to preserve something that those citizens do not wish to preserve themselves?

If you took the liberty to actually read the whole thread you will see that we decided that natives unwilling to help for the cause will not be obligated to help.

[Jarish Inyo]

You should have actually read it. Natives unwilling to help for the cause are obligated to help. They are only exempt from helping the cause for religious, cultural, or political reasons. Not because they simply do not want to help or care not to preserve the language.

So again, why should any nation allow WA officials to harass their citizens because those officials feel that they need to preserve something that those citizens do not wish to preserve themselves?

[Perotasoa]

You should have actually read it. Natives unwilling to help for the cause are obligated to help. They are only exempt from helping the cause for religious, cultural, or political reasons. Not because they simply do not want to help or care not to preserve the language.

So again, why should any nation allow WA officials to harass their citizens because those officials feel that they need to preserve something that those citizens do not wish to preserve themselves?

Firstly, it won't be obligated at an individual level, but for the government level to ensure that the language stays alive. And also, what do you mean by harassment? We're not going to make speakers sit in a cell and record every word of the language. It will involve research by academics and programmes in the communities to encourage the use of these endangered languages. No torture here, buddy.

[Separatist Peoples]

You should have actually read it. Natives unwilling to help for the cause are obligated to help. They are only exempt from helping the cause for religious, cultural, or political reasons. Not because they simply do not want to help or care not to preserve the language.

So again, why should any nation allow WA officials to harass their citizens because those officials feel that they need to preserve something that those citizens do not wish to preserve themselves?

"Seems easy enough to simply make up a political reason, all things considered."

[Jarish Inyo]

Why should the government keep a live a dying language when the people are not using? And those academics encouraging people to use a language they no longer wish to use is harassment. How is forcing the few remaining speakers to record the language not harassment?

[Perotasoa]

Why should the government keep a live a dying language when the people are not using? And those academics encouraging people to use a language they no longer wish to use is harassment. How is forcing the few remaining speakers to record the language not harassment?

It is not forcing them to speak it!! Small languages don't die because people want them to, but because people learn bigger languages to get along in the globalised world. This program will encourage people to retain their unique language with their culture.

[Jarish Inyo]

It is forcing them to record the language. Again, read the proposal. Two of the goals are to record characteristics of said languages, including phonetics, alphabets, dialects, and signs and to undertake research into the grammatical structure and syntactical nature of said languages. You can't do either if the speaker of said languages don't wish to help. And they are obligated to help with the research. After all, it's not them or the national government trying to save the language, it's the WA.

And again, why should the government keep a live a dying language when the people are not using? Why should the WA decide that the language is worth saving and not the speakers of said language?

[Perotasoa]

It is forcing them to record the language. Again, read the proposal. Two of the goals are to record characteristics of said languages, including phonetics, alphabets, dialects, and signs and to undertake research into the grammatical structure and syntactical nature of said languages. You can't do either if the speaker of said languages don't wish to help. And they are obligated to help with the research. After all, it's not them or the national government trying to save the language, it's the WA.

And again, why should the government keep a live a dying language when the people are not using? Why should the WA decide that the language is worth saving and not the speakers of said language?

You are repeating yourself. I said: each language presents a unique way of expressing concepts so it is a good thing to keep languages, not a bad thing. When you speak Language A from birth, you will not see it as valuable unless you learn more languages and see how things are said in different ways. I speak three languages, and sometimes I end up saying a word of one language while I'm speaking in another simply because there is no equivalent in that language.

And about what you first said, I do agree that it should be made explicit that the research can only be carried out with willing volunteers who speak the language. You know it is practical to say that some speakers will be perfectly willing to help the research.

[Jarish Inyo]

I've repeated myself because you haven't answered any questions. Language presenting a unique way of expressing concepts is a good reason to keep a dying languages. If the language no longer spoken by anyone or by just a few people, it is no longer a viable language. It has no concepts to it. There is no reason to encourage people to speak it or to mandate nations to publicize data no one cares about outside of the WA committee forcing nations to do so.

And no I don't know that it is practical to say that there will be speakers willing to help the research.

[Caracasus]

It is forcing them to record the language. Again, read the proposal. Two of the goals are to record characteristics of said languages, including phonetics, alphabets, dialects, and signs and to undertake research into the grammatical structure and syntactical nature of said languages. You can't do either if the speaker of said languages don't wish to help. And they are obligated to help with the research. After all, it's not them or the national government trying to save the language, it's the WA.

And again, why should the government keep a live a dying language when the people are not using? Why should the WA decide that the language is worth saving and not the speakers of said language?

One of the possible amendments would mean that speakers of a certain language (a tribe, religion or region) would have to give consent for the recording of their language where reasonably possible. I should imagine this would mean making contact with a group, and asking if they would mind recording it. The group then decides whether or not to allow WA academics to record the language.

As for the question about keeping alive a dying language, this resolution has never set out to do this (from what I can see). It is merely preserving existing knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, grammar and syntax of a particular language) for academic purposes. It is not about saving a language in the same way that storing the last remaining samples of a particularly virulent virus is about saving the virus. It is about preserving it for academic study. A lot can be learnt from linguistics - common root words can help us place together movement of various groups in areas of antiquity that we know little else about for example. Some nations have even used languages no longer spoken as a sort of military code.

[Perotasoa]

I've repeated myself because you haven't answered any questions. Language presenting a unique way of expressing concepts is a good reason to keep a dying languages. If the language no longer spoken by anyone or by just a few people, it is no longer a viable language. It has no concepts to it. There is no reason to encourage people to speak it or to mandate nations to publicize data no one cares about outside of the WA committee forcing nations to do so.

And no I don't know that it is practical to say that there will be speakers willing to help the research.

One of the possible amendments would mean that speakers of a certain language (a tribe, religion or region) would have to give consent for the recording of their language where reasonably possible. I should imagine this would mean making contact with a group, and asking if they would mind recording it. The group then decides whether or not to allow WA academics to record the language. <br abp="670"><br abp="671">As for the question about keeping alive a dying language, this resolution has never set out to do this (from what I can see). It is merely preserving existing knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, grammar and syntax of a particular language) for academic purposes. It is not about saving a language in the same way that storing the last remaining samples of a particularly virulent virus is about saving the virus. It is about preserving it for academic study. A lot can be learnt from linguistics - common root words can help us place together movement of various groups in areas of antiquity that we know little else about for example. Some nations have even used languages no longer spoken as a sort of military code.

As I said before, the reasons why a small language dies is not because the speakers want to discard it, but because they end up doing so in favour of a bigger language. This programme may help others come to hold their langage in higher esteem. And also, I agree that maybe this should be more academic as opposed to working on keeping the language in use. It would help academics, so maybe we should restrict the programmes that aspire to keep the language being fully used for languages where the speakers want such a programme. This would be the best of both worlds.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In all the hubbub that various ambassadors have been flailing around in trying to assuage the concerns of Ambassador Nameless, who as far as I've seen never read a resolution proposal he didn't want to whack with a crowbar, bind & gag, and throw overboard at sea, my concerns appear to have been missed.

Is there a reason why the Universal Library Coalition (ULC) couldn't handle the duties you're assigning to the new ELPC? Many nations are more likely to support using an existing committee if its original mandate is close enough to what you're trying to do; and I think the ULC fits that bill.

Also, we're unclear what you mean by the phrase "languages which the native population would not preference interference in."

[Humans Are People Too]

In all the hubbub that various ambassadors have been flailing around in trying to assuage the concerns of Ambassador Nameless, who as far as I've seen never read a resolution proposal he didn't want to whack with a crowbar, bind & gag, and throw overboard at sea, my concerns appear to have been missed.

Is there a reason why the Universal Library Coalition (ULC) couldn't handle the duties you're assigning to the new ELPC? Many nations are more likely to support using an existing committee if its original mandate is close enough to what you're trying to do; and I think the ULC fits that bill.

Also, we're unclear what you mean by the phrase "languages which the native population would not preference interference in."

I think a new committee would be needed for researching the languages simply because it requires more than could be asked from the ULC, but I originally planned on making it where all research was documented by it. I may revisit that, since I believe it is something the original resolution did correctly.

Also, the word I had meant to use was prefer, not preference. Hopefully that clear up any confusion.

I've repeated myself because you haven't answered any questions. Language presenting a unique way of expressing concepts is a good reason to keep a dying languages. If the language no longer spoken by anyone or by just a few people, it is no longer a viable language. It has no concepts to it. There is no reason to encourage people to speak it or to mandate nations to publicize data no one cares about outside of the WA committee forcing nations to do so.

And no I don't know that it is practical to say that there will be speakers willing to help the research.

As said by another ambassador, this is not an attempt to save a language rather than research ts characteristics and impacts, and make them public to scholars, researchers, and others who in the future may want to study it and the cultures of its native speakers, as has happened in the past.

[Mousebumples]

Re: Clause 4, you reference "ELPC Data" ... but you don't mention "data" anywhere else in the proposal text. You're not running long, in terms of character count, so you may want to be more explicit in what you want to be published/disseminated.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it is an attempt to save the language. As stated "promote programmes to encourage members and children of the native population to preserve their language as well, through education and native acquisition." How can you preserve the language through education without having it taught to the children? Especially, if it isn't being used by their parents?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Actually, it is an attempt to save the language. As stated "promote programmes to encourage members and children of the native population to preserve their language as well, through education and native acquisition." How can you preserve the language through education without having it taught to the children? Especially, if it isn't being used by their parents?

'Ambassador Nameless, I would argue that the promotion of such programmes does not mean that they must be taught. I see this as a cultural heritage idea pure and simple. If we can read Old Bigtopian today, we write it down in multiple different languages, Rosetta Stone that thing, and put it in a library someplace. Now, if everyone forgets about Old Bigtopian and we discover some ruin with some interesting carvings on it, pull out the archives'.

OOC: The fact that we cannot read so many ancient languages from the Near East before the Late Bronze Age Collapse is destructive to our system of analysing the past. Today, even after reconstructing Egyptian, Sumerian, and Akkadian, we still cannot read Indus, Elamite, Cretan, or Olmec, which prevents us from analysing the past to a more accurate degree. Honestly, I don't give a crap about the 'culture' of those dead ancients, but I sure care about what they accomplished, their history, their anthropology, their development, and their legacy. Keeping records of those languages would have solved that issue — but unfortunately, there was nobody to do it or the records never survived.

Imagine if we lost all knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek. We would lose the connection back to the soul of modern civilisation. Our base philosophies, our knowledge of the past, their thoughts, and their worldviews (which shape our modern day). If we lost the writings of Cicero and Aristotle, the two great political scientists of the ancient era, we would lose their thoughts on the governance of their states, the place of the government, the role of the state, the powers it should have, the morality of its actions. That loss would be immense, not just to our understanding of the ancient world, but to our understanding of our own condition and the seeds of our modern society.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

'Ambassador Nameless, I would argue that the promotion of such programmes does not mean that they must be taught. I see this as a cultural heritage idea pure and simple. If we can read Old Bigtopian today, we write it down in multiple different languages, Rosetta Stone that thing, and put it in a library someplace. Now, if everyone forgets about Old Bigtopian and we discover some ruin with some interesting carvings on it, pull out the archives'.

OOC: The fact that we cannot read so many ancient languages from the Near East before the Late Bronze Age Collapse is destructive to our system of analysing the past. Today, even after reconstructing Egyptian, Sumerian, and Akkadian, we still cannot read Indus, Elamite, Cretan, or Olmec, which prevents us from analysing the past to a more accurate degree. Honestly, I don't give a crap about the 'culture' of those dead ancients, but I sure care about what they accomplished, their history, their anthropology, their development, and their legacy. Keeping records of those languages would have solved that issue — but unfortunately, there was nobody to do it or the records never survived.

Imagine if we lost all knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek. We would lose the connection back to the soul of modern civilisation. Our base philosophies, our knowledge of the past, their thoughts, and their worldviews (which shape our modern day). If we lost the writings of Cicero and Aristotle, the two great political scientists of the ancient era, we would lose their thoughts on the governance of their states, the place of the government, the role of the state, the powers it should have, the morality of its actions. That loss would be immense, not just to our understanding of the ancient world, but to our understanding of our own condition and the seeds of our modern society.

<slow clap>

[Jarish Inyo]

Modern society has nothing to do with ancient Greek and Roman society. They are not the soul of modern society. Our base philosophies are not theirs. Our knowledge of the past, their thoughts, and their worldviews do not shape the modern day. The so called philosophers thoughts and teaching do not shape anything in the modern world. The lost of ancient Greek and Latin would not be a great lost. Ancient Greek and Latin was basically lost to the average person before. Even today, neither plays any real role in society. Both are only of interest to academics. Academics do not need governments to publicize data or to create programs to force adult and children to save their 'language or culture' if they are already giving it up.

[Caracasus]

Modern society has nothing to do with ancient Greek and Roman society. They are not the soul of modern society. Our base philosophies are not theirs. Our knowledge of the past, their thoughts, and their worldviews do not shape the modern day. The so called philosophers thoughts and teaching do not shape anything in the modern world. The lost of ancient Greek and Latin would not be a great lost. Ancient Greek and Latin was basically lost to the average person before. Even today, neither plays any real role in society. Both are only of interest to academics. Academics do not need governments to publicize data or to create programs to force adult and children to save their 'language or culture' if they are already giving it up.

In Europe and a lot of the west our legal system, scientific language, actual languages, political and social philosophies all trace their roots back to Ancient Greek and Latin. You've made a ridiculous statement to be fair.

[Democratic Koyro]

Against.

[Humans Are People Too]

Re: Clause 4, you reference "ELPC Data" ... but you don't mention "data" anywhere else in the proposal text. You're not running long, in terms of character count, so you may want to be more explicit in what you want to be published/disseminated.

I changed "data" to "research"