NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:

The Narnian Council wrote:"Question: would my government's failure to include all minority language-learning classes in our standard school curriculum be considered a breach of this resolution? Our state-sponsored schools could not practically offer a class for every language, considering the amount of language diversity in our country."

"No, it would not. The only thing the resolution forces you to do is to (not) take direct action against a language. There is only one clause that actually does something."

This is correct, in regards to the intention of my proposal.

"Clause 2 should end with a colon rather than a semi-colon."

Stoskavanya wrote:Prohibits a member nation from purposely enacting measures through law which aim to deliberately eradicate a living minority language, or endorse any other efforts to shatter active discourse in the language with the intention of causing language death in its borders

Please could you clarify the difference between the the two parts of this prohibition? If a nation cannot enact measures through law which aim to eradicate a language then what might fall under "any other efforts... with the intention of causing language death"? There seems to be some redundancy here.

"Shatter active discourse" is a rather awkward phrase. Would you consider an alternative?

Additionally, the second part specifies "in its borders" while the first does not. Is this significant? It's important to be clear whether the protection applies to languages that are widely spoken in other countries and so cannot suffer language death because of the actions of one government, or only to languages used in just one nation. The preamble would suggest your concern is only with the latter, yet the next clause...

Stoskavanya wrote:Again confirms an individual's right to learn and write, emphasizing for the purpose of this resolution an individual’s right to learn and practice whatever language they please

... also deals with the former. Some clarity would be appreciated as to whether your intention is to protect the right of all people to use their native language in general or only to do so when there is a threat of language death.

Thanks for the insightful comments.

Mazemba wrote:

Stoskavanya wrote:Prohibits a member nation from purposely enacting measures through law which aim to deliberately eradicate a living minority language, or endorse any other efforts to shatter active discourse in the language with the intention of causing language death in its borders

Please could you clarify the difference between the the two parts of this prohibition? If a nation cannot enact measures through law which aim to eradicate a language then what might fall under "any other efforts... with the intention of causing language death"? There seems to be some redundancy here.

The redundancy is purposeful; the point of it being to protect against a loophole where nations don't technically use 'law' but clearly endorse alternative methods to target a language.

Mazemba wrote:"Shatter active discourse" is a rather awkward phrase. Would you consider an alternative?

Maybe, "shatter active practice' of language?"

Mazemba wrote:Additionally, the second part specifies "in its borders" while the first does not. Is this significant? It's important to be clear whether the protection applies to languages that are widely spoken in other countries and so cannot suffer language death because of the actions of one government, or only to languages used in just one nation. The preamble would suggest your concern is only with the latter, yet the next clause...

Stoskavanya wrote:Again confirms an individual's right to learn and write, emphasizing for the purpose of this resolution an individual’s right to learn and practice whatever language they please

... also deals with the former. Some clarity would be appreciated as to whether your intention is to protect the right of all people to use their native language in general or only to do so when there is a threat of language death.

First of all, I intended the "with the intention of causing language death in its borders" to apply to both the first part and second part of the sentence. I added a comma to clarify in the proposal.

With this definition you cannot cause a minority language to go extinct in your nation. This means you can't eradicate a minority language and claim "its still being spoken in the next nation over, so we didn't kill it". This is to prevent the obvious loophole.

The reason for the high standard of "with the intention of causing language death." has more to do with the motivation of member government and rather than the result; there are possibly plenty of scenarios where a nation can forbid the practice of a language in certain places/institutions, without necessary intending the language to be subject to language death, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't overreaching in that regard. However, aiming to eradicate 50% of a minority language means you are still enacting "language death" for its own sake, and is thus prohibited, even though the language may still be spoken afterward by the remaining 50%.

The "again confirms" clause, thus indeed, is an affirmation of right of all people to use their native language in general.

"In the encourages clause, I would remove the “a” and turn the “member nation” to “member nations” to talk about all multilingual countries in the World Assembly."

Stoskavanya wrote:Maybe, "shatter active practice' of language?"

I'd suggest something less poetic such as "prevent the use of a minority language."

Since the active clauses promote language diversity as well as the prevention of language death it might be wise to include something about diversity in the preamble - it would prevent the confusion I initially had when I read the draft.

All things considered this is a thoroughly drafted and solid piece of legislation and I support it.

Mazemba wrote:

Stoskavanya wrote:Maybe, "shatter active practice' of language?"

I'd suggest something less poetic such as "prevent the use of a minority language."

Since the active clauses promote language diversity as well as the prevention of language death it might be wise to include something about diversity in the preamble - it would prevent the confusion I initially had when I read the draft.

Great suggestions; slightly updated the 2nd preamble clause and revised that section of the prohibits clause.

Mazemba wrote:All things considered this is a thoroughly drafted and solid piece of legislation and I support it.

Thank you, constructive criticism such as yours is like gold and I can't tell you how satisfactory its been to see my draft evolve throughout these three months.

---

To all others,

I am officially scheduling the submission of this proposal for Saturday, March 10th. Final comments and notes are appreciated as always.

"The Kenmorian delegation has full support for this draft,"

Could we get definitions of "living minority language" and "living native language"? The meaning of those terms and what they constitute seem quite open to interpretation.

Stoskavanya wrote:iii.) Promulgating suggested guidelines on methods for nations to practice linguistic diversity.

Before you submit it, what are these suggested guidelines?

Stoskavanya wrote:Prohibits a member nation from purposely enacting measures through law or administrative rule which aim to deliberately eradicate a living minority language, or endorse any other efforts to suppress the active use of a minority language, with the intention of causing language death in its borders,

"Ambassador, we suggest this addition, which would extend these protections to children who may have no other choice than to enroll in assimilatory schools whose purpose is precisely this kind of eradication, but which carry it out more subtly and under the guise of 'voluntary' enrollment."

Wallenburg wrote:Could we get definitions of "living minority language" and "living native language"? The meaning of those terms and what they constitute seem quite open to interpretation.

I purposely tried not to include a definition of those two terms, as I feel that if I do, it will lose the spirit of the word, if that makes any sense.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages defines 'Minority language' as:

"(a language) traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population;" and
"different from the official language(s) of that State"

And so, literally a language spoken by a group smaller than the rest of the population is the legal definition used for the sake of this proposal. Of course one can imagine strange hypothetical scenarios where a language spoken by 49% of the population is protected, while a language spoken by 51% has no legal sanctuary. Being realistic however, with the intention and spirit of this proposal being to protect vulnerable languages whose numbers are in decline, this definition is suitable.

'Native language' is synonymous with 'First language', so the Again Confirms clause gives persons a right to speak their first language, while the first task in the committee will be to discover all first languages in the world, and not, say, artificial languages such as Esperanto or that Dragon language from Skyrim. (Unless persons start speaking them from birth).

Masurbia wrote:

Stoskavanya wrote:iii.) Promulgating suggested guidelines on methods for nations to practice linguistic diversity.

Before you submit it, what are these suggested guidelines?

Well, that's to be determined by the committee. If you already know what lingusitic diversity means in my proposal, then it will just articulate methods to achieve that. In real life it would probably publish things like Anthropologist Akira Yamamoto's guideline on keeping languages alive:

I also imagined that it will also assist governments in transforming broad principles of linguistic diversity into technical law.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Stoskavanya wrote:Prohibits a member nation from purposely enacting measures through law or administrative rule which aim to deliberately eradicate a living minority language, or endorse any other efforts to suppress the active use of a minority language, with the intention of causing language death in its borders,

"Ambassador, we suggest this addition, which would extend these protections to children who may have no other choice than to enroll in assimilatory schools whose purpose is precisely this kind of eradication, but which carry it out more subtly and under the guise of 'voluntary' enrollment."

That's an insightful addition, ambassador. It was my hope that in the 'Prohibits' clause in where it prohibits "(states to) endorse any other efforts to suppress the active use of a minority language" would cover this sort of thing, but I see now that though my constant editting it might of lost that effect. Added.

"I would remove the word “general” from the recognising clause as narrow fields are not very general."

Stoskavanya wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Could we get definitions of "living minority language" and "living native language"? The meaning of those terms and what they constitute seem quite open to interpretation.

I purposely tried not to include a definition of those two terms, as I feel that if I do, it will lose the spirit of the word, if that makes any sense.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages defines 'Minority language' as:

"(a language) traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population;" and
"different from the official language(s) of that State"

And so, literally a language spoken by a group smaller than the rest of the population is the legal definition used for the sake of this proposal. Of course one can imagine strange hypothetical scenarios where a language spoken by 49% of the population is protected, while a language spoken by 51% has no legal sanctuary. Being realistic however, with the intention and spirit of this proposal being to protect vulnerable languages whose numbers are in decline, this definition is suitable.

OOC: Here's the thing. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not exist as far as the WA is concerned. I don't really understand how defining the terms will make them lose their "spirit", whatever that means, either.

'Native language' is synonymous with 'First language', so the Again Confirms clause gives persons a right to speak their first language, while the first task in the committee will be to discover all first languages in the world, and not, say, artificial languages such as Esperanto or that Dragon language from Skyrim. (Unless persons start speaking them from birth).

OOC: And how do you distinguish between a "living" native language, and a non-"living" native language?

Is better is a proposal to protect the majorities. Protect the minorities, which are insignificant peoples on my Reich, is pure nonsense. Is better politcially protect the majorities, they can vote for you.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Here's the thing. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not exist as far as the WA is concerned. I don't really understand how defining the terms will make them lose their "spirit", whatever that means, either.

The ECRML doesn't, but its reasonable to believe that the definition they use is what is commonly understood to be a minority language in the NS universe.

Regarding the "spirit of the word", in my view, WA Resolutions aren't a technical legal code. They're proclaimed statements on official WA policy. Of course they have to be precise, and legally sound, but their primary purpose is to send a message to the world as much as one page of text can. As it currently exist in my proposal, when a common person sees the phrase 'minority languages', they probably process it to mean a language spoken by a small group of people whose language probably isn't favored, which coincidentally is the exact type of languages I am trying to protect. As soon as I define it, it is no longer means that, but "any language spoken by less than 50% of a population." In that sense is what I mean by losing its meaning.

Of course, even if you don't subscribe to that view, which I'm sure many of you don't, the working definition of minority language in this proposal is still defined by its intuitive literal meaning: "a language spoken by the minority of the population" and doesn't need its definition spilled out. Just my preference.

Wallenburg wrote:

'Native language' is synonymous with 'First language', so the Again Confirms clause gives persons a right to speak their first language, while the first task in the committee will be to discover all first languages in the world, and not, say, artificial languages such as Esperanto or that Dragon language from Skyrim. (Unless persons start speaking them from birth).

OOC: And how do you distinguish between a "living" native language, and a non-"living" native language?

A non-living native language is one that has gone extinct.

Stoskavanya wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Here's the thing. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not exist as far as the WA is concerned. I don't really understand how defining the terms will make them lose their "spirit", whatever that means, either.

The ECRML doesn't, but its reasonable to believe that the definition they use is what is commonly understood to be a minority language in the NS universe.

Regarding the "spirit of the word", in my view, WA Resolutions aren't a technical legal code. They're proclaimed statements on official WA policy. Of course they have to be precise, and legally sound, but their primary purpose is to send a message to the world as much as one page of text can. As it currently exist in my proposal, when a common person sees the phrase 'minority languages', they probably process it to mean a language spoken by a small group of people whose language probably isn't favored, which coincidentally is the exact type of languages I am trying to protect. As soon as I define it, it is no longer means that, but "any language spoken by less than 50% of a population." In that sense is what I mean by losing its meaning.

Of course, even if you don't subscribe to that view, which I'm sure many of you don't, the working definition of minority language in this proposal is still defined by its intuitive literal meaning: "a language spoken by the minority of the population" and doesn't need its definition spilled out. Just my preference.

OOC: So exactly which one is it? Are minority languages languages spoken by marginalized, small groups of people, or languages spoken by less than half the population? You can't have both.

Wallenburg wrote:
OOC: And how do you distinguish between a "living" native language, and a non-"living" native language?

A non-living native language is one that has gone extinct.

OOC: So non-living languages are extinct languages, but not dead languages? I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to imply that from the text.

Stoskavanya wrote:Hereby,

Prohibits a member nation from purposely enacting measures through law or administrative rule which aim to deliberately eradicate a living minority language, or endorse any other efforts to suppress the active use of a minority language, with the intention of causing language death in its borders,

Again confirms an individual's right to learn and write, emphasizing for the purpose of this resolution an individual's right to learn and practice their native language if they so please,

Encourages multilingual nations to foster healthy linguistic diversity within their borders as recommended from the following committee,

OOC: Since these are the only non-committee active clauses, I'm not really seeing them as being a good match with the Category-and-AoE. The first is anti-discriminatory, the second is most duplication of existing resolution, and the third is... actually, the third is directly related to the committee and probably shouldn't count as non-committee clause at all.

All in all, why are you giving the most important actions over to the committee?

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: So exactly which one is it? Are minority languages languages spoken by marginalized, small groups of people, or languages spoken by less than half the population? You can't have both.

Yes I can. The definition is "Languages spoken by less than half the population", which realistically will include my target marginalized, small group of people.

Wallenburg wrote:

A non-living native language is one that has gone extinct.

OOC: So non-living languages are extinct languages, but not dead languages? I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to imply that from the text.

An extinct language is the same as a dead language for the most part. How one can conclude "living native language" includes dead languages is beyond me.

"If I may interject, there is a linguistic difference between extinct and dead languages. Extinct languages are no longer spoken at all, not even in the context of historical re-enactment or as a second language, whereas dead languages are no longer learned natively but are still spoken in historical contexts and as a second language."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Since these are the only non-committee active clauses, I'm not really seeing them as being a good match with the Category-and-AoE. The first is anti-discriminatory, the second is most duplication of existing resolution, and the third is... actually, the third is directly related to the committee and probably shouldn't count as non-committee clause at all.

All in all, why are you giving the most important actions over to the committee?

Yea, I pondered this for awhile but I think my proposal is better suited for Cultural Heritage.

One of the tasks of the committee is to promulgate guidelines on how to achieve linguistic diversity, but nations have free reign to determined and apply whatever other methods they see fit to achieve it. Since good-faith compliance would probably include funding for educational, creative, and cultural heritage components, I think it definitely applies to Education and Creativity.

Now, if I were to make this a human rights proposal, I would have tailor my proposal the declare that practice of a language is a human right. I make it clear in my proposal, however that the goal isn't to uphold human rights, but maintain cultural diversity. The "goal" of my prohibits clause isn't to uphold a human right, but support a people's cultural heritage. In fact, the whole reason I put the "Again confirms" clause in my proposal is to argue that the right for a person to speak their native language already exists, so I don't need to make one.

Now, I'm relatively new so I don't know how much a committee counts towards a Category or Area of Effect, but my committee it clearly fits Education/Creativity and Cultural Heritage. I can't see why not a committee couldn't push an 'on the fence' proposal like this certain side anyhow.

One couldn't even go deep enough to say that maintaining linguistic diversity directly supports creativity itself.

Kenmoria wrote:"If I may interject, there is a linguistic difference between extinct and dead languages. Extinct languages are no longer spoken at all, not even in the context of historical re-enactment or as a second language, whereas dead languages are no longer learned natively but are still spoken in historical contexts and as a second language."

That is true, which is why I said "for the most part" . However, neither dead languages or extinct languages are considered "living native languages".

---

EDIT: I will be on discord if anyone wants to take about the proposal in real time for quicker responses.

Stoskavanya wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: So exactly which one is it? Are minority languages languages spoken by marginalized, small groups of people, or languages spoken by less than half the population? You can't have both.

Yes I can. The definition is "Languages spoken by less than half the population", which realistically will include my target marginalized, small group of people.

OOC: As well as plenty of languages, including official languages, that are not marginalized or sparsely used at all.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: So non-living languages are extinct languages, but not dead languages? I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to imply that from the text.

An extinct language is the same as a dead language for the most part. How one can conclude "living native language" includes dead languages is beyond me.

OOC: I never said that living languages include dead languages. I specifically asked why you don't consider dead languages non living languages. You don't seem to be paying attention.

Wallenburg wrote:
OOC: As well as plenty of languages, including official languages, that are not marginalized or sparsely used at all.

Correct.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I never said that living languages include dead languages. I specifically asked why you don't consider dead languages non living languages. You don't seem to be paying attention.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are asking. The definition of a dead language is literally "one that is no longer the native language of any community" and therefore cannot be a living native language.

Stoskavanya wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:
OOC: As well as plenty of languages, including official languages, that are not marginalized or sparsely used at all.

Correct.

OOC: I question the need to protect official languages, which by their nature are highly promoted by their use in official and legal settings.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: I never said that living languages include dead languages. I specifically asked why you don't consider dead languages non living languages. You don't seem to be paying attention.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are asking. The definition of a dead language is literally "one that is no longer the native language of any community" and therefore cannot be a living native language.

OOC: Let me explain by giving you an example. Would Latin constitute a living language? Because the very definition of "dead language" picks out Latin as an example.

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Let me explain by giving you an example. Would Latin constitute a living language? Because the very definition of "dead language" picks out Latin as an example.

OOC: Technically, Latin hasn't been a living language since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, when it ceased to be formally taught to the masses. The descendants of its former speakers began to speak debased forms of it that later turned into Italian, Spanish, French, etc. It didn't go extinct because it was the language of the Church and of scholars, who used it as a secondary language for their respective professions. Liturgical/professional languages aren't really the subject of this proposal, as they're already being preserved.