Two Proposals advocating for a international language

[NewYorkState]

Can we just take a second to discuss the fact that there are currently 2 proposals in the general assembly to implement an international language that can be used by everyone?

the two proposals are:
-A east international language (NewYorkState's, mine)
-Eliminate language barriers

I strongly believe that the great regional delegates of the World Assembly should approve "a east international language" over the other option for many reasons. For example, "Eliminate language barriers" is badly structured. In the first proposal, I asked for the international language of esperanto to be adopted into the schooling system of all members of the world assembly. in the second proposal, the creator did not state a specific language to be adopted, I believe that this would end disastrously should it be passed in a vote, for without a a suggested language the member nations would not be able to pick a new created language to adopt.

What do you all think?

NOTICE- The first proposal(Mine), A east international language, no longer is up for approval

[Separatist Peoples]

Can we just take a second to discuss the fact that there are currently 2 proposals in the general assembly to implement an international language that can be used by everyone?

the two proposals are:
-A east international language (NewYorkState's, mine)
-Eliminate language barriers

I strongly believe that the great regional delegates of the World Assembly should approve "a east international language" over the other option for many reasons. For example, "Eliminate language barriers" is badly structured. In the first proposal, I asked for the international language of esperanto to be adopted into the schooling system of all members of the world assembly. in the second proposal, the creator did not state a specific language to be adopted, I believe that this would end disastrously should it be passed in a vote, for without a a suggested language the member nations would not be able to pick a new created language to adopt.

What do you all think?

"I, for one, think international languages would have detrimental impacts on the current translator market, and refuse to put so many hardworking people out of work by establishing a shoddy universal replacement."

This response was paid for by the International Translator Full Employment Guild.

[NewYorkState]

What do you all think?[/quote]
"I, for one, think international languages would have detrimental impacts on the current translator market, and refuse to put so many hardworking people out of work by establishing a shoddy universal replacement."

This response was paid for by the International Translator Full Employment Guild.[/quote]

I would argue that having an international language would not affect the amount of translators that are needed. with the adoption of, let's say esperanto, we may not need translators for the purpose of person to person translation, but we will most certainly need translators to translate written or historical documents such as books. Furthermore, esperanto would just be a second language, education and day to day conversing would be done in the first language of people involved. Let's say, as an example, that a book just came out in England, in english, and became a best seller. now we would need translators to translate that book into many of the other languages of the world. Remember that esperanto would be just a common second language of humanity that would help people when traveling or for international diplomats.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would argue that having an international language would not affect the amount of translators that are needed. with the adoption of, let's say esperanto, we may not need translators for the purpose of person to person translation, but we will most certainly need translators to translate written or historical documents such as books. Furthermore, esperanto would just be a second language, education and day to day conversing would be done in the first language of people involved. Let's say, as an example, that a book just came out in England, in english, and became a best seller. now we would need translators to translate that book into many of the other languages of the world. Remember that esperanto would be just a common second language of humanity that would help people when traveling or for international diplomats.

"Which would require retraining current translators, a huge expense. No, thank you, ambassador. There is nothing wrong with our current system."

[NewYorkState]

I would argue that having an international language would not affect the amount of translators that are needed. with the adoption of, let's say esperanto, we may not need translators for the purpose of person to person translation, but we will most certainly need translators to translate written or historical documents such as books. Furthermore, esperanto would just be a second language, education and day to day conversing would be done in the first language of people involved. Let's say, as an example, that a book just came out in England, in english, and became a best seller. now we would need translators to translate that book into many of the other languages of the world. Remember that esperanto would be just a common second language of humanity that would help people when traveling or for international diplomats.

"Which would require retraining current translators, a huge expense. No, thank you, ambassador. There is nothing wrong with our current system."

Actually, any retraining would take like a month to complete as esperanto is literally the easiest language in the world. And furthermore, as I said before, a translator might not even need to know esperanto. like in a situation where they are translating a book produced in japan, for example, into english so that people in america would be able to read it in their first language.

I strongly believe that the teaching of esperanto as a second language in all the schools of the world assembly would have either a minimal or no effect at all on the translator market.

[Calladan]

"Which would require retraining current translators, a huge expense. No, thank you, ambassador. There is nothing wrong with our current system."

Actually, any retraining would take like a month to complete as esperanto is literally the easiest language in the world. And furthermore, as I said before, a translator might not even need to know esperanto. like in a situation where they are translating a book produced in japan, for example, into english so that people in america would be able to read it in their first language.

I strongly believe that the teaching of esperanto as a second language in all the schools of the world assembly would have either a minimal or no effect at all on the translator market.

But look at it the other way - Calladan's government currently employs several hundred translators to translate French, German, Spanish, Italian, Cantonese, Chinese, Japanese, Mandarin, Urdu and a plethora of other languages. They all make a good living, and take a good wage home to their families. If suddenly this proposal removed the need for all of that by only having one other language in the world, I would have to fire all but one of them (well - not me personally because I am the Ambassador at Large and not the Head of Personnel, but you get the idea) and then they would - obviously - lose their jobs and not have a good wage to take home to their families.

Plus - if I may - if I have someone who can speak all these languages (which clearly I do) then why would there be a need for someone in Japan to translate a book into a third language? Or to translate their speech into a third language? I don't speak it myself (because I have never taken the time to learn it) but I understand Japanese is a beautiful language, and if it has to be translated into a third "standard" language before being translated back to English then surely it will lose a lot of the beauty and wonder and all languages across the world will become flat and (if you will excuse the phrase) a bit blaaaaaah.

I would much prefer to hear a direct translation of a Japanese poem, or a Chinese book, or a French play, than have it filtered through a third language that has the potential to strip all the beauty and idioms and so forth out of the original (because if a language is going to encompass ALL of the other languages in the world, then there is, quite frankly, NO WAY it can retain the beauty and wonder of all of them - I just don't see it happening).

And finally - if we create a universal standard for languages then aren't we just dumbing future generations down? Aren't we telling them that you don't have to stretch your mind and learn something useful, because you can just learn this one thing and it will do. Aren't we teaching them to settle for mediocrity, instead of reaching for the stars?

On a purely practical level, I can't see any reason to oppose either of the proposals on this matter, but I think even if either of them pass I would still encourage my children - if they were to travel abroad - to learn the language of the country they are visiting. And I would encourage My Tri-Arch to continue language lessons for all the "primary" languages in the schools.

[Tahkranul]

Ambassador Este Vendecor ruffles one side of her blue hair, her protruding grey eyes momentarily closing with a meditative look before inhaling sharply and smiling.

"Darling, if I might share a few observations? Besides the issue of translation employment for more day to day business and personal concerns, there is the matter of 'Universal Translator' devices used by the World Assembly for our political discussions. After all, without them, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation, dear. I represent a nation on a far removed world lacking your dirt-based languages, and your Planet Earth has no knowledge of our lifebearing spirit languages. We're hardly the only World Assembly nation not from your dirt, either. How exactly then, would your proposal better facilitate communication than the combination of universal translation devices and the linguistic expertise of professional translators?
"A further thought on the matter, dear, on a more philosophical note, is how will forcing every member world and nation to speak the same language reduce barriers between them? Hear me out, darling! By mandating the same words, you are attempting to mandate the same thoughts, are you not? When we go to the effort to learn another language, we must make the effort to understand how these other words are formed. We therefore make the effort to understand another perspective from the one we are used to. That is of great benefit to a body representing a multidimensional interstellar community, is it not?
"Now, my one point may seem to undermine the other, but the universal translator serves merely as an immediate shorthand between diplomats while professional translators and linguistic studies serve the long term efforts of the people."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium sees no reason to teach foreign languages within our borders, nor would we allow such a thing to take place were there reason. This proposal that you seek to garner support for, provides no justification whatsoever for its mandates, and fails to explain why this 'Esperanto' nonsense is chosen above... whatever this language the World Assembly mandates is called; 'Inglish', or somesuch gibbering. In any case, the Imperium will not see the language of our people displaced by some foreign nonsense."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"Which would require retraining current translators, a huge expense. No, thank you, ambassador. There is nothing wrong with our current system."

Actually, any retraining would take like a month to complete as esperanto is literally the easiest language in the world. And furthermore, as I said before, a translator might not even need to know esperanto. like in a situation where they are translating a book produced in japan, for example, into english so that people in america would be able to read it in their first language.

I strongly believe that the teaching of esperanto as a second language in all the schools of the world assembly would have either a minimal or no effect at all on the translator market.

Teran Saber: "And I strongly believe that Formal Unified Siriusian should be the language of choice, as it is simple enough to be easily taught in the course of an average school year and doesn't require any specialized sounds that some species may not be able to pronounce, unlike Traditional Western Siriusian or some human languages. But you don't see me pestering the World Assembly about it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Madsons: What is this Esperanto bullshit? Never heard of it. It's patently obvious to me that anyone who doesn't speak Latin is a barbarian.

[Ithreland]

Ithreland officially objects to an international/universal language on these grounds:
A) An old language would show favoritism and a new one would take too long to create, with no guarantee of an end in sight.

B) A new language would have no flavor or substance in terms of idioms and phrases, because it would have to be noninflammatory, and some concepts wouldn't carry over to every nation.

C) There is no guarantee every nation currently in the World Assembly has the technology or funds to implement the new language, and there is similarly no guarantee for any new incoming nations. Ithreland sees this as a waste of money when translators do the job just fine now.

D) If the new language becomes the only way to do business, translators would, however briefly, control the world, and as such could possibly arrange staying in power.

E) Any languages that are old but revered become even less efficient and could become a dead language such as Latin.

F) Any international language supersedes individual languages in matters of practicality and could deprive nations of culture and flavor, similar to point B, and if only some nations become dependent on it but not all, then those nations would be directly controlled by World Assembly rulings on change of language.

G) Which written alphabet would it be in, a la point A?

H) Non-WA nations don't have to know the language, and translators would still be needed for them anyway.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Madsons: What is this Esperanto bullshit? Never heard of it. It's patently obvious to me that anyone who doesn't speak Latin is a barbarian.

ARI: Oo-yay ed-say it-ay, Adsons-may.

AHUME: That's not Latin.

ARI: Shh. Anyway, we are against any type of universal language. Firstly, the WA only affects member nations; we could not force the use of a single language on non-WA nations, which means, we'd still need to know a multitude of languages to effectively communicate. Secondly, language goes hand-in-hand with culture. For many, language is more than just a way to communicate; for some societies having their own language gives them an identity, or a name, or a way to pass down ancient history and folklore. Forcing such societies to work with a universal language could have a long-term effect of killing off their culture, so to speak. And the WA should be embracing multiculturalism, not abating it.

[Calladan]

Also - just on a national basis - we HAVE an official primary and secondary language, and if we were required to designate a new one to take the place of either of those, there would potentially be riots in the streets from the speakers of tikkiana and akkiana (the two official second languages of Calladan - with English being the primary language).

So while we could agree to make any common "WA" language a tertiary one, we could not support it replacing the primary or secondary, because seeing Calladan in flames is not something we look forward to.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Look, we have enough words flying around, we don't need to learn an entirely new language of legal sesquipedalia verba, dammit. Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Look, we have enough words flying around, we don't need to learn an entirely new language of legal sesquipedalia verba, dammit. Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."

"Yeah. The WA's current lingua franca is working just fine, thanks. Whatever efficiency would be gained, would be outweighed by the cost of switching everything over to whatever context-free soulless tongue the eggheads came up with; and honestly, we'd lose the human touches - uh, and the ursine, and equestrian, and all the other little foibles and passions that make our nations who they are. Even if you limited this to the WA grounds and diplomatic conferences and stuff, you'd still be trying to leach the soul out of nations' written work. We are opposed."

One of my high school teachers had a poster of John Wayne with that motto drawn on it as a speech bubble

...and meanwhile in a parallel, crappier RP universe where I ignore the fact that Steph only speaks English and a smattering of the mongrel pidgin françpanglish used in neighboring Española Quebécistan:

'Esperanto,' you say?" Steph puts on a pair of sunglasses, and says, "Ego spero non!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Look, we have enough words flying around, we don't need to learn an entirely new language of legal sesquipedalia verba, dammit. Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."

Parsons: Is it not 'linguam mortuam'? If the language is the subject of the sentence, it should be in the accusative form.

[Noahs Second Country]

People keep telling me the WA is very opposed to this concept, I see why.

[Noahs Second Country]

Can we just take a second to discuss the fact that there are currently 2 proposals in the general assembly to implement an international language that can be used by everyone?

the two proposals are:
-A east international language (NewYorkState's, mine)
-Eliminate language barriers

I strongly believe that the great regional delegates of the World Assembly should approve "a east international language" over the other option for many reasons. For example, "Eliminate language barriers" is badly structured. In the first proposal, I asked for the international language of esperanto to be adopted into the schooling system of all members of the world assembly. in the second proposal, the creator did not state a specific language to be adopted, I believe that this would end disastrously should it be passed in a vote, for without a a suggested language the member nations would not be able to pick a new created language to adopt.

What do you all think?

A committee was tasked with the creation of a new language.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Look, we have enough words flying around, we don't need to learn an entirely new language of legal sesquipedalia verba, dammit. Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."

Parsons: Is it not 'linguam mortuam'? If the language is the subject of the sentence, it should be in the accusative form.

The intern at the Lyrical desk mutters something under his breath. Steph looks at him, and jerks her head toward Parsons.

"Go ahead, tell him! He's a landed aristocrat, not a bear - he won't bite, promise!"

The young man stands and faces Parsons. "Uh, 'scuse me, sir - the other gent was correct. Predicate statement takes the nominative." He sits back down, face slightly flushed. Steph claps him on the shoulder and says, "Thanks, George. Make a diplomat o' you yet!"

[Kryozerkia]

Looks like the universal translators are working beautiful today.

[Tzorsland]

I have one and only one question for anyone who wants to propose an international language.

"Why?"

Now I don't mean why propose an international language, but why do you want to propose an international language. Once you have an idea of your answer, the proposal is not only easier to write but actually makes an argument for itself. To often we tend to think of "how" and "what." Doing something for the sake of doing something tends to fall flat. Doing something as a result of a specific problem brings the attention to the specific problem.

So let me propose a "why" as an example. I did a quick check of the "Civilian Aircraft Accord" and noticed it did not include language. The accord does mandate, "Tracking and communication of any civilian aircraft within the detection and communication range of that nation," so communication is a big thing. The real world has an "international" language for international airplane communications which, ironically, is English, "The International Civil Aviation Organisation has decreed that from 1 January 2008 all Air Traffic Controllers and Flight Crew Members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium and not simply have a proficiency in standard ICAO Radio Telephony Phraseology."

Now this isn't going to annoy the translator's union since having a translator in the cockpit is a waste of precious cockpit space and having multiple translators in the tower is also not practical. This requires a one on one communications channel. Delays in translating can mean accidents. Looking at proposals from the "why" instead of the "what" often makes them a better sale because who wants to see accidents? It's not as classic as "think of the children" but it is close.

[Noahs Second Country]

MOD EDIT -- The text of the proposal has been removed. This is a discussion thread, not a promote your proposal.

[Tinfect]

[Snip]

Do not use this thread to advertise your drafts.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Look, we have enough words flying around, we don't need to learn an entirely new language of legal sesquipedalia verba, dammit. Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."

Parsons: Is it not 'linguam mortuam'? If the language is the subject of the sentence, it should be in the accusative form.

Fairburn: I do believe that you're right for the wrong reasons, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly. It should be in the accusative form, but on the basis that it is the object of the sentence, not that it is the subject.

[Separatist Peoples]

Parsons: Is it not 'linguam mortuam'? If the language is the subject of the sentence, it should be in the accusative form.

Fairburn: I do believe that you're right for the wrong reasons, Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly. It should be in the accusative form, but on the basis that it is the object of the sentence, not that it is the subject.

"Ambassadors, it belongs to the Nominative case, being the agent of the finite word "solum", and, being of the female gender in that it relates to lingua, a feminine word, would receive the singular ending -a."