[PASSED] Language Preservation

[Ossitania]

Yet what is so important about the language itself? We can translate knowledge into different languages, but what is so important about the language? Dead languages should be discarded.

What's important is that many, perhaps most, if not all, languages contain concepts unique to that language that cannot be translated or through their particular syntactical construction operate from viewpoints incompatible with other languages. You also need to understand the freaking language in order to translate it anyway, which is why this resolution is only concerned with preserving academic knowledge of languages. The very premise of your own counterargument is an example of one of the reasons why this resolution is warranted.

You people speak about preserving "culture." Please, enlighten the delegation of Mengsk. Why is it worth preserving a dead culture?

Again, ambassador, the resolution-at-vote is not about preserving culture it is about preserving knowledge of culture. That this simple fact seems to have escaped the attention of so many people is mindboggling.

[Flibbleites]

Yet what is so important about the language itself? We can translate knowledge into different languages, but what is so important about the language? Dead languages should be discarded.

What's important is that many, perhaps most, if not all, languages contain concepts unique to that language that cannot be translated or through their particular syntactical construction operate from viewpoints incompatible with other languages.

If those concepts are so vital, then they tend to get absorbed into other languages. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a language that hasn't "borrowed" from other languages.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Mengsk]

Yet what is so important about the language itself? We can translate knowledge into different languages, but what is so important about the language? Dead languages should be discarded.

What's important is that many, perhaps most, if not all, languages contain concepts unique to that language that cannot be translated or through their particular syntactical construction operate from viewpoints incompatible with other languages. You also need to understand the freaking language in order to translate it anyway, which is why this resolution is only concerned with preserving academic knowledge of languages. The very premise of your own counterargument is an example of one of the reasons why this resolution is warranted.

You people speak about preserving "culture." Please, enlighten the delegation of Mengsk. Why is it worth preserving a dead culture?

Again, ambassador, the resolution-at-vote is not about preserving culture it is about preserving knowledge of culture. That this simple fact seems to have escaped the attention of so many people is mindboggling.

And what knowledge do these ancient languages provide? Do the ancients know more than we do? What is so important about concepts in language? So one language describes time with the person facing towards the past while walking backwards towards the future. I'm intrigued. But how is this going to help civilization progress?

Do not make me conduct surveys to save anthropologists the trouble of studying how ancient civilizations' people took baths. And how are we going to fund these endeavors? Money doesn't appear out of thin air.

[Aglasias]

"Just because a culture is dead, that does not mean that the information found by that culture is useless. We cannot afford to take steps back when in comes to scientific and technological advancement. Even if the advancement isn't perfect, that does not make it irrelevant and unworthy of study. "

[Ummagumma]

"Just because a culture is dead, that does not mean that the information found by that culture is useless. We cannot afford to take steps back when in comes to scientific and technological advancement. Even if the advancement isn't perfect, that does not make it irrelevant and unworthy of study. "

Agreed. We can hardly be in a position of studying history if we extinguish our ability to understand it.

[Mengsk]

"Just because a culture is dead, that does not mean that the information found by that culture is useless. We cannot afford to take steps back when in comes to scientific and technological advancement. Even if the advancement isn't perfect, that does not make it irrelevant and unworthy of study. "

As stated before, the only part of the resolution Mengsk agrees with is the translation of texts of a certain language. Everything else is, in the opinion of Mengsk, pointless. Conducting surveys of language? A waste of WA funds.

Speaking of funds, how is this resolution, if passed, going to be funded? Money does not come from thin air.

[Araraukar]

Speaking of funds, how is this resolution, if passed, going to be funded? Money does not come from thin air.

WA General Fund. And that money ultimately comes from the WA member nations' pockets.

[New Tarajan]

The Kingdom of New Tarajan VOTE FOR this resolution.
The protection of the cultural heritage pass throughout the protection of language, and we are always committed to the protection and promotion of cultural.
We have learnt from our past of racism, intolerance and apartheid that all cultures need to be respected, and to study and preserve them is the most high form of respect.

[Ossitania]

What's important is that many, perhaps most, if not all, languages contain concepts unique to that language that cannot be translated or through their particular syntactical construction operate from viewpoints incompatible with other languages.

If those concepts are so vital, then they tend to get absorbed into other languages. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a language that hasn't "borrowed" from other languages.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This is a very simplified view of linguistics. Languages to not exist in a vacuum where they compete in perfect systems of memetics or Hegelian dialectics, succeeding or failing purely based on their merit, with the victorious languages absorbing the valuable parts of the losers. Languages are actively destroyed by hostile cultural rivals and colonial powers who see no value at all in what they're destroying due to existing in a false civilisation vs savage narrative they've created in their own heads (OOC: dozens of American Indian and African languages at the hands of recent colonialism, dozens of Iberian and Tartessian languages at the hands of the Roman Empire). Other languages die not because of any lack of value as languages but because of economic inutility (OOC: Irish came very close to this and was barely saved, not because it was a poor language but because English was the language of economic prosperity). And sometimes languages just die or survive without much interaction with the languages around it (OOC: Basque is a language isolate that has absorbed a handful of Romance words but is otherwise completely unlike any language on the Earth today).

And anyway, as I indicated, many of these concepts are incompatible with other languages. This is why untranslatable words (OOC: such as gezelligheid) exist.

And what knowledge do these ancient languages provide? Do the ancients know more than we do? What is so important about concepts in language? So one language describes time with the person facing towards the past while walking backwards towards the future. I'm intrigued. But how is this going to help civilization progress?

If you think civilisation just progresses always in one upward/forward direction, you're a fool. It may not be true of all past civilisations that they held some knowledge we do now, but the fact that they might and that at least some probably do is reason enough to preserve knowledge of these civilisations (OOC: think about how long it took for us to reach the same level of sophistication in mathematics and engineering as the ancient Greeks after the many disruptions to European progress caused in the post-Roman period).

Second of all, many languages are rich with philosophical concepts that can assist us in developing socially, morally and politically (OOC: German is absolutely rife with metaphysical concepts that cannot be translated to English). Allowing these concepts to simply disappear from our collective knowledge would be foolish in the extreme.

Do not make me conduct surveys to save anthropologists the trouble of studying how ancient civilizations' people took baths. And how are we going to fund these endeavors? Money doesn't appear out of thin air.

Understanding the geographic context of languages is important to understanding them as languages. And, as has already been pointed out in the debate, member-states are not forced to adopt any particular means of carrying out what the resolution requires of them. As long as your government takes ultimate responsibility for the resolution's requirements being carried out, you can delegate it to NGOs or universities in your nation, with or without providing them with funding. Even so, I don't feel the costs that will be associated with this are so extreme that the benefits are unjustified.

[Linkiton]

Linkiton might, when the time has come. Our delegation sees this resolution as harmful to certain cultures and languages. We are familiar with certain peoples who consider their language as sacred and who would refuse to have it collected or recorded by outsiders, be they government officials or others. Considering languages as items to be systematically recorded and studied, on a worldwide scale, is very dangerous in our opinion. The approval of the people speaking the language should be found on a specific, case-by-case basis. The WA is NOT a place where one can treat such an issue without harming certain traditional cultures.

"Hello, I'm Chuck Frestrain and I'm temporary ambassador-general since John Nickelson made inappropriate comments about non-humans. So anyway, I would like to ask you: How is recording languages dangerous?"

I thank the temporary ambassador-general for this very interesting question.

I would argue that how people view their language is also part of their specific culture. Most members of the WA, included yours truly, come from cultures where languages are considered as TOOLS to convey cultural information. It would then be interesting, indeed, to safeguard as many languages, as many tools, as possible. It would help us understand our own world and our different cultures.

However, in some cultures, language is not a tool but something SACRED, which has a value and a power IN ITSELF, and that value and power partly come from the fact that the language is preserved WITHIN the specific culture of the people who use it.

What I find dangerous with this resolution, is that it takes away the agency of the people who speak such a language. What if they consider that their language is a present, a treasure, handed down by their ancestors and by their Gods? A treasure that is intended to them specifically? This resolution, by compelling governments to go and record ALL languages, goes against the beliefs and cultural organisation of such a people. It is a violation of the cultural rights of certain peoples. Should a people consider that their language is to be preserved within their own community and NOT recorded and analyzed as some strange artefact by strangers who are not familiar with their own culture and beliefs, they would not be protected by the WA.

The resolution should have acknowledged the right of those peoples to decide whether they want their stories and languages recorded. The danger in this resolution comes from the fact that it makes the culture of such people a simple artefact for analysis. Cultures and languages are alive: they evolve, they are spoken, felt and lived by actual people. And these people should have the right to decide whether they want the world to learn about their culture and language, or whether they consider that this should be a priviledge for those who actually provide the necessary effort to become part of their community.

I have one RL example in mind, but I am sure that there are many others.

Te reo māori, in New Zealand, is considered sacred: it is a taonga, a present from the ancestors and from the Gods. The stories of those ancestors and Gods are also sacred: pronouncing the name of an ancestor or of a God must be done with respect. Yet, some non-Maori have felt that they had the right to record, study and use that language for unworthy goals. The Lego company used Maori mythology to release a new range of toys, for example, without asking the Maori communities if they were ok with their language and their religion becoming toys. A German brand of diswashers put a copyright on the Maori word for "ocean" and then sued one Maori singer whose name was "Ocean".

My point is, if we start considering languages as only tools or curious artefacts which are there for the taking, we take something away from certain cultures. The result of mandating governments to record all languages could make some peoples feel like their control over their own language is being taken away.

Although I acknowledge that the resolution was drawn in good faith and with good intentions, I feel that its wording does not acknowledge enough the right of the peoples to have a say in what is done with their stories and with their language, thereby endangering, in the long term, the survival of certain cultures (which would go completely against what I understand to be the main purpose of this resolution).

I thank you for your attention,

Yours truly,
Esteban Smith, representing Linkiton's Department of Foreign Affairs before the election of our Ambassador to the WA.

[Bears Armed]

And anyway, as I indicated, many of these concepts are incompatible with other languages. This is why untranslatable words (OOC: such as gezelligheid) exist.

That looks as though the Ursine word 'Urrfroom' would be a fairly accurate translation...
^_^

[Retired WerePenguins]

If those concepts are so vital, then they tend to get absorbed into other languages. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a language that hasn't "borrowed" from other languages.

Borrowing doesn't always translate the exact meaning down the line; this is true even when the original language exists as an evolved language and other languages have "borrowed" from it. I recently had a very annoying debate with regards to an old language. They insisted that a word that might translate as "circle" meant "equator" when others were insisting that "circle" meant "horizon." Now that's a bid difference. One person was using this to insist that these people thought the earth was a sphere and the other that it was flat. This is how complex languages can get; words have complex integrated meanings and relationships that are a part of the language itself. I have even heard in one language the concept of zero is also known as "the egg." I can't even understand why someone would think an egg is nothing, but that is that particular culture and language.

[Araraukar]

I can't even understand why someone would think an egg is nothing, but that is that particular culture and language.

...I can think of three possible meanings off the top of my head. Is that good or bad?

[Discoveria]

"I am currently inclined to abstain on this resolution, and therefore be entirely guided by the votes of my region," said Matthew.

Our reasons are threefold, the first, as we have already outlined, is when a culture is dying not because "history is taking the most likely course" but due to active attempts to obliterate a culture. This is not a complete solution, but it is a measure that can provide some help as part of what we hope will be wider efforts by the international community to prevent such things.

"Then we should ban genocide (already done) and encourage international military intervention to prevent such atrocities. There is a difference between actively killing a language and letting a language die. We may have a duty to prevent the former but that does not imply a duty to prevent the latter."

Our second reason pertains to the fact that languages are not mere methods of communication, that within many of them them exist unique and untranslatable concepts, ideas which should be preserved because any idea may yet be utile and allowing an idea to cease to exist damages discourse and knowledge.

"I find this unconvincing. One can think and have ideas prior to having to express those ideas in words. It is not the words that hold the idea; the idea is represented by one set of words in one language, and a different set of words in another. Though languages may die, the ideas they communicate will simply find equivalent expression in surviving and new languages."

Our third reason pertains to the fact that the study of certain subjects, such as history, sociology and literature, will be unnecessarily impeded if a language is allowed to disappear completely from the world, which is bad because these subjects are important to informing the moral, social and political discourse that changes societies and political destinies.

"I would argue that this has been a historical concern, [OOC: for example with regard to the rediscovery of Greek philosophy after the Dark Ages]. It seems less likely in the modern age that significant contributions to our understanding could be hiding within languages that are about to die. I remain reluctant to support the resolution on the off chance that it will yield significant benefits in these areas."

And even did we not think all of these things, we think it is just generally absurd to assume that because a language is dying out, it therefore has no use, or that is somehow deserves to die. Perhaps in a world of fair competition, that would hold true, but languages often die due to cultural hostility, due to economic inutility and other practical factors that can disincentivise speakers of a language from continuing to do so even when that language actually has great worth and beauty that is being lost as a result.

"I do not think the WA should consider the aesthetics of languages to be a reason to pass this resolution."

Perhaps I can convince you. When languages become extinct, culture is lost. Otherwise important artifacts will become useless scribbles. Take the Umminite language. There are only 1,000 speakers, including me, that speak the language. Now, outside of Xerntevis, a city on the Southern Coast region of Kidlantis, there is a giant 40-story statue. Xerntevis was the center of Umminite civilization, by the way. So, this statue is called Mucga Mucga, and is made out of something like iron. Now, because of recent metal analysis, some archaeologists back home have discovered that it is not iron, but some other metal that was previously unknown. Because of its strange shape, there has been speculation that it is a giant alien robot that froze a few thousand years ago that attacked the Umminites. But there are no texts to prove it! If they are found that proves that it is a giant alien robot, they may have a date that tells us when and if these aliens return. But if there are no speakers left, we will understand them. I would rather not get attacked by aliens. Is this enough to convince you, ambassador, other then the lost cultural heritage?

"This is a highly contrived scenario that assumes that the alien threat to your nation is a real threat. Under these circumstances, naturally a society would support any measure that helped to guarantee its survival. I suspect the vast majority of the WA's existence does not depend on discovering and interpreting some alien texts."

Hector rose from his seat.

"Scientific knowledge is a priority among the international community. When languages die, all written record of that language stands a chance of being lost forever, and loosing information that may never be found again. To prevent this, we shall support this resolution. There should be no cost on knowledge."

I am not sure how I shall vote on this, but I would like to address the delegates point.

To proclaim language preservation irrelevant is also to proclaim history irrelevant. There are many works that civilizations lost on my world because the languages have faded. We have a wealth of writing left by the Etruscans we can't decipher. Writings in the proto-Dravidian script Indus. The list goes on. What survives an era is happenstance. Perhaps a great library survives. Perhaps the writing carved on the side of the tomb. On my world we can only understand the history of Egypt because a leader, Ptolemy the...something or other... happened to write a decree in multiple languages. Because of that stone monument, a world of history opened up to us.

How about from a practical standpoint? We have another script on my world. It's called linear B. It's from an ancient civilization known as the Mycenaean Greeks. Now, the writing we have stems from the late Bronze Age. There was a complete collapse of multiple civilizations across the globe at this time. Could it have been climate related? Impact of a celestial body? Super volcano? Are there lessons that science can learn if we could read the writings of these people? I doubt it, but the field of archaeology can yield surprisingly relevant information at times.

Language is a valid field, and each year there are languages which go extinct. If we don't preserve them, than any knowledge they offer is lost. Any insight into the culture from which the language developed is lost.

I may quibble with the validity of it being a WA issue, but I will defend the intention and utility of the goals.

"There is no contradiction between valuing history and not valuing the preservation of every single language. I would argue also that the languages with the most knowledge to offer are precisely those languages which are more likely to have a robust preservation system and least likely to become extinct without the WA's assistance. A language with a million speakers will likely have more stored information within it than one with only a hundred speakers."

we still believe this resolution has value for the reasons we have already outlined to exactly NO meaningful response from any of the other delegations who are so content to mouth off on this resolution without actually saying anything.

OOC: Some of us get busy in RL, as you know. The debate is not over.

[Ossitania]

"Then we should ban genocide (already done) and encourage international military intervention to prevent such atrocities. There is a difference between actively killing a language and letting a language die. We may have a duty to prevent the former but that does not imply a duty to prevent the latter."

If you think genocide is the only way to destroy a culture, then you are indeed naive. Also, I'd like to repeat this small point that everyone seems to be forgetting - this is not a resolution to prevent languages from dying. This is a resolution to preserve academic knowledge of languages so that even if they die, we may still read texts written in those languages.

"I find this unconvincing. One can think and have ideas prior to having to express those ideas in words. It is not the words that hold the idea; the idea is represented by one set of words in one language, and a different set of words in another. Though languages may die, the ideas they communicate will simply find equivalent expression in surviving and new languages."

You may assert this if you wish and remain unconvinced, but that doesn't make what I've said any less true. It is a simple fact that untranslatable words exist. This is not up for debate.

"I would argue that this has been a historical concern, [OOC: for example with regard to the rediscovery of Greek philosophy after the Dark Ages]. It seems less likely in the modern age that significant contributions to our understanding could be hiding within languages that are about to die. I remain reluctant to support the resolution on the off chance that it will yield significant benefits in these areas."

I imagine that scholars who lived at the times you speak of thought the same thing. (OOC: a perfect example, given we only made such a "rediscovery" because the Islamic world preserved the philosophy we so callously discarded).

"I do not think the WA should consider the aesthetics of languages to be a reason to pass this resolution."

There is more to worth and beauty than aesthetics.

"There is no contradiction between valuing history and not valuing the preservation of every single language. I would argue also that the languages with the most knowledge to offer are precisely those languages which are more likely to have a robust preservation system and least likely to become extinct without the WA's assistance. A language with a million speakers will likely have more stored information within it than one with only a hundred speakers."

It may have more data, but that doesn't mean it has the same data. A language with only one hundred speakers may have a smaller quantity stored within it but that small quantity may contain information that others don't. There is also an absolutely clear contradiction between valuing history and not valuing the preservation of academic knowledge of every language since allowing historical texts in those languages which die to become unreadable kills a historical viewpoint that may be enlightening. This is of particular concern when the language is dead because it was murdered by a hostile rival culture.

OOC: Some of us get busy in RL, as you know. The debate is not over.

OOC: I do know this, which is why that comment was directed at those who have responded to others since I made my post without responding to mine. Be careful about making assumptions about other people, it doesn't behoove you.

[Discoveria]

If you think genocide is the only way to destroy a culture, then you are indeed naive. Also, I'd like to repeat this small point that everyone seems to be forgetting - this is not a resolution to prevent languages from dying. This is a resolution to preserve academic knowledge of languages so that even if they die, we may still read texts written in those languages.

Good thing I make no such claim about genocide then, eh?

"I find this unconvincing. One can think and have ideas prior to having to express those ideas in words. It is not the words that hold the idea; the idea is represented by one set of words in one language, and a different set of words in another. Though languages may die, the ideas they communicate will simply find equivalent expression in surviving and new languages."

You may assert this if you wish and remain unconvinced, but that doesn't make what I've said any less true. It is a simple fact that untranslatable words exist. This is not up for debate.

You haven't provided a reason to think that your account of the representation of ideas in language is true to begin with. We're both making bare assertions. My point is simply that we disagree. You can claim that you're right (as can I) but that doesn't mean you are.

You seem to think that ideas will simply disappear from the collective consciousness of the multiverse when the language that the ideas are expressed in dies. But that seems quite ridiculous to me. I am thinking about lolcats right now. If English dies out, does that mean the idea of a lolcat becomes inaccessible to thought? Of course not - the idea survives and can be expressed in whatever languages survive, even if the expression might be a little more awkward than in English. Maybe the word 'lolcat' isn't exactly translatable into a nice singular word in other languages, but it can still be described and expressed.

"I do not think the WA should consider the aesthetics of languages to be a reason to pass this resolution."

There is more to worth and beauty than aesthetics.

Please elaborate...?

"There is no contradiction between valuing history and not valuing the preservation of every single language. I would argue also that the languages with the most knowledge to offer are precisely those languages which are more likely to have a robust preservation system and least likely to become extinct without the WA's assistance. A language with a million speakers will likely have more stored information within it than one with only a hundred speakers."

It may have more data, but that doesn't mean it has the same data. A language with only one hundred speakers may have a smaller quantity stored within it but that small quantity may contain information that others don't. There is also an absolutely clear contradiction between valuing history and not valuing the preservation of academic knowledge of every language since allowing historical texts in those languages which die to become unreadable kills a historical viewpoint that may be enlightening. This is of particular concern when the language is dead because it was murdered by a hostile rival culture.

I shall concede this point.

[The Banjo Islands]

The Banjo Islands has voted against this Act, but it looks like it may be passed.

[Ossitania]

Good thing I make no such claim about genocide then, eh?

You made the claim implicitly by responding to a point about languages being destroyed by cultural attack rather than dying out by saying we should ban genocide. Don't play the "I didn't explicitly say X, therefore I didn't say X at all" game, it's embarrassing.

You haven't provided a reason to think that your account of the representation of ideas in language is true to begin with. We're both making bare assertions. My point is simply that we disagree. You can claim that you're right (as can I) but that doesn't mean you are.

You seem to think that ideas will simply disappear from the collective consciousness of the multiverse when the language that the ideas are expressed in dies. But that seems quite ridiculous to me. I am thinking about lolcats right now. If English dies out, does that mean the idea of a lolcat becomes inaccessible to thought? Of course not - the idea survives and can be expressed in whatever languages survive, even if the expression might be a little more awkward than in English. Maybe the word 'lolcat' isn't exactly translatable into a nice singular word in other languages, but it can still be described and expressed.

This is only true if the idea has moved from the dying language to another before it died. If English died before "lolcats" made it into another language, it is completely possible for that idea to never be found again. I'm not saying it is necessarily true that concepts unique to a language are rendered completely inaccessible if that language dies, however, it is nonetheless possible for such concepts to never independently arise in other languages and thereby be lost forever. I'm not saying that if a language dies and takes a concept with it, that concept is lost forever. What I am saying is that it can happen but needn't happen and one way to prevent it happening is for us to preserve academic knowledge of languages.

Please elaborate...?

German is a language that discusses metaphysics in a uniquely beautiful way. There is no language in existence that renders the meaning of metaphysical concepts as perfectly as German. If German died, metaphysics would be more difficult to discuss because the mechanics of German are uniquely predisposed to the discussion of metaphysics. Therefore, for non-aesthetic reasons, German has great worth and beauty that it would be a shame to lose.

[Araraukar]

Therefore, for non-aesthetic reasons, German has great worth and beauty that it would be a shame to lose.

It's also a great language to curse in. Doesn't make it unique.

Just because a language may have 50 different words for different types of snow, ice and snow formations (I can think of several Finnish ones alone that have no English equivalents) it doesn't mean that the same wintry items couldn't be discussed or described in English. Yes, you'd lack the preciseness of a singular word, having to use several words, maybe several sentences, to say the same thing. That doesn't mean that the disappearance of that language also made the knowledge of the solid water forms vanish.

Now, what's to keep this from being abused by pranksters? All they needed to do was to make up a language (or alter an existing language enough to count as its own variant), and teach it to some friends who lived in the same town. Then they could claim their language is age-old and has been passed from granpa to granson in secret, because the majority language has been trying to stomp it out. Then the WA has to pay for recording, cataloguing and writing down the language.

[Caposia]

To the resolution at hand, this act must be defeated. It is an affront to the identity of any Sovereign countries ruling class. Do we really want to remember the language of terrorists and such ilk. I say nay I demand this resolution be denied for the most basic of reasons: Security and Peace! For if we can not have those what need is there to remember any language as we are no better then dogs!

[Ossitania]

Therefore, for non-aesthetic reasons, German has great worth and beauty that it would be a shame to lose.

It's also a great language to curse in. Doesn't make it unique.

All languages are unique, if they weren't, there would only be one language.

Just because a language may have 50 different words for different types of snow, ice and snow formations (I can think of several Finnish ones alone that have no English equivalents) it doesn't mean that the same wintry items couldn't be discussed or described in English. Yes, you'd lack the preciseness of a singular word, having to use several words, maybe several sentences, to say the same thing. That doesn't mean that the disappearance of that language also made the knowledge of the solid water forms vanish.

However, if the concepts contained uniquely within the language are intangible, it is entirely possible for knowledge of those concepts to disappear. Furthermore, objective knowledge of physical structures may not disappear. The subjective perception of those structures from the point of view of a particular language may, and those subjective perceptions can have worth in themselves due to potentially providing an insightful perspective on those things.

Now, what's to keep this from being abused by pranksters? All they needed to do was to make up a language (or alter an existing language enough to count as its own variant), and teach it to some friends who lived in the same town. Then they could claim their language is age-old and has been passed from granpa to granson in secret, because the majority language has been trying to stomp it out. Then the WA has to pay for recording, cataloguing and writing down the language.

Forgive me for assuming member-states will hire competent surveyors. I will never again assuming competency on the part of a member-state's government.

[Araraukar]

It's also a great language to curse in. Doesn't make it unique.

All languages are unique, if they weren't, there would only be one language.

I think you mean what I meant with that. German being a great language to curse in doesn't mean it was the only language that's great to curse in. Or talk of metaphysics. Unless you know all the languages in the world.

The subjective perception of those structures from the point of view of a particular language may, and those subjective perceptions can have worth in themselves due to potentially providing an insightful perspective on those things.

Just because there's no easy way in English to describe tykky, doesn't mean it couldn't be done. If Finnish (one of the smaller languages world-wide, but still a very viable one to survive) was to disappear, I'm sure other languages would suffice in trying to explain the same. Also, language is not always same as culture, or vice versa. I understand English quite well, most nuances too, but I often lack the cultural references that the native speakers have grown up with.

I will never again assuming competency on the part of a member-state's government.

Considering some of the resolution attempts, that should be a given.

[Ossitania]

I think you mean what I meant with that. German being a great language to curse in doesn't mean it was the only language that's great to curse in. Or talk of metaphysics. Unless you know all the languages in the world.

I'm not saying that it's the only language in which one can discuss metaphysics, I'm saying it's the best language in which one can discuss metaphysics. Losing out on that for no reason other than you don't want to do an anthropological survey is ridiculous.

Just because there's no easy way in English to describe tykky, doesn't mean it couldn't be done. If Finnish (one of the smaller languages world-wide, but still a very viable one to survive) was to disappear, I'm sure other languages would suffice in trying to explain the same. Also, language is not always same as culture, or vice versa. I understand English quite well, most nuances too, but I often lack the cultural references that the native speakers have grown up with.

This is not even a response to what I said. I wasn't conflating language and culture - the structure of a language or a word itself can contain a perspective.

[The Rusko Islands]

So if someone in my glorious nation spoke pig latin or made up a language, I would have to recognize and record it?

[Potted Plants United]

"We have discussed the concepts of language and culture with our humanoid allies, and have some concerns about this proposal."

Mandates that nations shall conduct regular surveys to ascertain what native languages are spoken within their borders

"Does this only apply to _spoken_ languages? As in, ones with native speakers? So that artificial languages are not included?"

[*]record the alphabet of the language, or, if no written form of the language exists, to work with native speakers to create a standard transcription of the language

"What if no spoken form of the language exists either? We are sure we are not the only nation able to communicate without spoken or written language. In fact, how would you even write down thought concepts, mental images and biochemical signals?"

[*]describe the linguistics of the language, so as to ensure it may be understood fully by anthropologists

"Which anthropologists? Some may be more capable of grasping difficult language concepts than others."

[*]deposit all information gathered with the Universal Library Coalition.

"Does this mean the information is copied, or that the ULC is the main owner of the data, rather than the nation of origin?"

Establishes the International Language Research Centre, the main aim of which is to process and conduct research on the data gathered through language surveys

OOC: Is this a gnome-populated institution?