[PASSED] Repeal GA#243 "Language Preservation"

[The Last Homely House]

Comrades!

The preservation of archaic dialects harms communication between the masses and supports the feudal order of oppression. The People's Tongue promotes the mass line and the raising of class consciousness, therefore, the preservation of unnecessary dialects is the preservation of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

All cadres must support efforts to break down the so-called "Language Preservation" laws of the imperialist World Assembly, and so eradicate the incorrect use of dialect and Old Thought. Strive diligently to promote the People's Tongue and endeavor passionately to promote the mobilization of the masses!

This kid knows that he is talking about!

[Araraukar]

*snip*

This kid knows that he is talking about!

OOC: Barely, and that's been done so many times it's merely annoying by now.

[The Great Leap Forward]

This kid knows that he is talking about!

OOC: Barely, and that's been done so many times it's merely annoying by now.

If you cannot understand the Party Line, you must be re-educated. If you do not support the People's War, you are a class enemy.

[Araraukar]

If you cannot understand the Party Line, you must be re-educated. If you do not support the People's War, you are a class enemy.

OOC: And it seems you need to learn the difference between an OOC and an IC comment. But no more of that. You're just running a risk of getting mentally ignored, if you continue with the shouting of propagandist messages.

[Saveyou Island]

Bumping this.
Ready to submit by midnight tonight. (EST)

[Araraukar]

FURTHER CONVINCED that nations with no ability to speak whatsoever would be unable to meet the requirements of this resolution, for valid reasons,

Actually, that's more of a case of "doesn't apply". Like anything legislating schools - if there are no schools in your nation, it doesn't apply to you.

[Saveyou Island]

FURTHER CONVINCED that nations with no ability to speak whatsoever would be unable to meet the requirements of this resolution, for valid reasons,

Actually, that's more of a case of "doesn't apply". Like anything legislating schools - if there are no schools in your nation, it doesn't apply to you.

I see your point there. Edited.

[Araraukar]

ACKNOWLEDGING that some languages have an overwhelming amount of notable works of literature which have yet to be recorded, and recording these works is a task which may take many years of research,

This is still oddly phrased. If something is literature it is by the very definition already recorded.

[Discoveria]

My thoughts, FWIW.

Description: WA General Assembly resolution #243: "Language Preservation" shall be struck out and rendered null and void

Argument
The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the goal of resolution #243, which is to preserve languages,

NOTING that nations may have a large quantity of languages,

REALIZING such nations may be unable to record all languages,

SADDENED nations are required to interfere with languages lacking an alphabet, which may alter the language But there is no reason to think that creating an alphabet (or some other recording system) would necessarily alter a language. Languages are not like quantum particles which are altered when they are observed. This concern is overstated.

CONVINCED that some cultures would not like their languages to be recorded, for it is sacred to them and any interference made by the government would go against their beliefs, This is indeed something that the target resolution could have considered but it is a minor flaw and not particularly worth a repeal, IMO.

ACKNOWLEDGING that some languages have an overwhelming amount of notable works of literature which have yet to be recorded, and recording these works is a task which may take many years of research, Unpersuasive. Since when does the WA avoid doing things that are merely difficult?

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the term "notable works" used in the resolution is a vague term, as the resolution does not clearly state what makes a work of literature "notable", Not a big concern. Nations are free to interpret the resolution and set their own standard.

REALIZING that there are billions of languages used throughout all nations, and recording data for each one would be far too time-consuming and overwhelming for nations, and the International Language Research Center, You used this argument already.

BELIEVING the International Language Research Center is not needed to record the billions of languages, This clause implies that it is possible to record the billions of languages. But your other arguments suggest that you think it is actually impossible. So it seems to be an internal contradiction.

HEREBY repeals GA #243

Co-Authored by The Last Homely House

[Saveyou Island]

Submitted.

[Iron Confederation]

I always thought Language Preservation was a stupid resolution.

APPROVED.

[Araraukar]

Submitted.

ACKNOWLEDGING that some languages have an overwhelming amount of notable works of literature which have yet to be recorded, and recording these works is a task which may take many years of research,

This is still oddly phrased. If something is literature it is by the very definition already recorded.

[Dellin]

Submitted.

This is still oddly phrased. If something is literature it is by the very definition already recorded.

While that's disputable, since "oral narratives" are often called "oral literature," it's ambiguous at best. However, I'd say the intent of the resolution was to include oral literature:

record all notable works of fiction and non-fiction in the language if not otherwise recorded

The important part is "if not otherwise recorded." That also begs the question of what "notable works" are, since anyone can be sitting on a great story idea.

Edit: It would have made more sense to say "oral narratives" in the resolution, but, based on "not otherwise recorded," it seems that's what it's referring to, and since "oral literature" is an alternative way to say oral narratives, I'd say that it was putting non-written works in its scope.

All in all, though, I don't see much need for this repeal, so will vote against if it comes up.

[Saveyou Island]

Bump.
It seems like we're nearing quorum here!

[Slafstopia]

Against.

Firstly, you can simply use the International Phonetic Alphabet for languages without an alphabet.

Secondly, I thought the gnomes who run the committees were omnipotent? Was I mistaken? If so, my childlike sense of wonder and enchantment in the GA is gone.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom requests a source for the claim that there are billions of languages spoken natively in the 17,000 member states", demanded Lord Raekevik. "We seriously doubt that. One billion languages would mean that an average of around 58,800 languages would be spoken in a single member state. While there are some incredibly vast and populous member states that may include astronomical numbers of languages, we would assert that the vast majority of member states have much fewer languages spoken natively."

(OOC: If we estimate that there are about 6,000 languages spoken in the around 200 nations on Earth, that's an average of 30 languages per nation. For 17,000 nations, that would be a total of 510,000 languages. Since NS isn't RL, the 17,000 member states could have people native in a lot more languages, but going from half a million to billions looks like a gross exaggeration.)

[Slafstopia]

"The Queendom requests a source for the claim that there are billions of languages spoken natively in the 17,000 member states", demanded Lord Raekevik. "We seriously doubt that. One billion languages would mean that an average of around 58,800 languages would be spoken in a single member state. While there are some incredibly vast and populous member states that may include astronomical numbers of languages, we would assert that the vast majority of member states have much fewer languages spoken natively."

(OOC: If we estimate that there are about 6,000 languages spoken in the around 200 nations on Earth, that's an average of 30 languages per nation. For 17,000 nations, that would be a total of 510,000 languages. Since NS isn't RL, the 17,000 member states could have people native in a lot more languages, but going from half a million to billions looks like a gross exaggeration.)

To be fair, Alq, he might have judged his maths by the screen when you're logged out that says there's about 3,300,000 million nations, even though 17,000 is the correct number.

[Alqania]

To be fair, Alq, he might have judged his maths by the screen when you're logged out that says there's about 3,300,000 million nations, even though 17,000 is the correct number.

OOC: 3.3 million, you mean, but it's more 3.5 now. Given Earth conditions, that would make the number of languages somewhere around 100 million, which still isn't billions. In any case, I quoted myself because he hasn't responded to this.

[The Last Homely House]

SADDENED nations are required to interfere with languages lacking an alphabet, which may alter the language But there is no reason to think that creating an alphabet (or some other recording system) would necessarily alter a language. Languages are not like quantum particles which are altered when they are observed. This concern is overstated.

This would actually have to change the language. Because if there is an alphabet, then there has to be some sort of rules for grammer. If there are rules from grammer, then the language would be altered. (OOC EXAMPLE: Its not okay in Enlgish to have a double negative, but people still talk like that. Now, that is shunned cause of grammer)

CONVINCED that some cultures would not like their languages to be recorded, for it is sacred to them and any interference made by the government would go against their beliefs, This is indeed something that the target resolution could have considered but it is a minor flaw and not particularly worth a repeal, IMO.

I am glad you do see some point to this!

ACKNOWLEDGING that some languages have an overwhelming amount of notable works of literature which have yet to be recorded, and recording these works is a task which may take many years of research, Unpersuasive. Since when does the WA avoid doing things that are merely difficult?

Since when was spending one's entire LIFE recording other people's language fair to those who now have to?

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that the term "notable works" used in the resolution is a vague term, as the resolution does not clearly state what makes a work of literature "notable", Not a big concern. Nations are free to interpret the resolution and set their own standard.

So, some nations may give you 5 notable works and others may give you thousands. Yes, yes, that is a good idea? You will definatly be able to get just the notable ones.

REALIZING that there are billions of languages used throughout all nations, and recording data for each one would be far too time-consuming and overwhelming for nations, and the International Language Research Center, You used this argument already.

No, we have not. We did say that we noted that there are a large quantity, but did not expand on this idea. Now we are.

BELIEVING the International Language Research Center is not needed to record the billions of languages, This clause implies that it is possible to record the billions of languages. But your other arguments suggest that you think it is actually impossible. So it seems to be an internal contradiction.

This is saying that we don't need someone to record the languages for us. If a nation wishes it's language to be recorded so that it may be studied for future generations, they can. But nations do not need some corporation (that, I am sorry, is probably not run by gnomes) knocking on its door step to do this. And I do see your point. But the idea is that you just don't need the research center to try to do this.

[Dellin]

This would actually have to change the language. Because if there is an alphabet, then there has to be some sort of rules for grammer. If there are rules from grammer, then the language would be altered. (OOC EXAMPLE: Its not okay in Enlgish to have a double negative, but people still talk like that. Now, that is shunned cause of grammer)

It depends on what you mean by "change the language." Your example, about double negatives, directly enters into this: the peoples can still speak the language the way they always have; if they personally have no interest in written language, they can ignore such grammar rules. (Though, the assumption that grammar rules don't exist if a language is only oral is false.) It's not altering the language at all, it's creating a written system where one didn't exist; how people use that written system is up to them, but it's certainly not mandating people to suddenly speak in "proper" ways.

Since when was spending one's entire LIFE recording other people's language fair to those who now have to?

Ever heard of linguistics?

This is saying that we don't need someone to record the languages for us. If a nation wishes it's language to be recorded so that it may be studied for future generations, they can. But nations do not need some corporation (that, I am sorry, is probably not run by gnomes) knocking on its door step to do this. And I do see your point. But the idea is that you just don't need the research center to try to do this.

NatSovy. Also, corporation? The WA is a corporation now?

[The Last Homely House]

Corporation was the wrong choice of word. I apologize.

[Iron Confederation]

cor·po·ra·tion
[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn]

noun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.

2.
( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.

3.
any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

His use of the word fits definiton three.

It might not be the best word to use, but it's technically correct.

[Saveyou Island]

It reached quorum!

[The Akashic Records]

It reached quorum!

"Bloody rubber stampers with no love for understanding." Coleman muttered under his breath.

"We're not quite sure why making things easy to find and study is a Bad Thing^TM, but we'll be voting against this, or any rendition thereof. As the delegate of Dellin said, linguists are interested in the research, but linguists are not the only ones who benefits from the preservation of language. Language is the means by which we communicate, and communication is the first step to understanding others. Or is bettering the world exclusive of understanding?"

[Iron Confederation]

But is it the role of the World Assembly to preserve language? I don't believe it is.