[ABANDONED] Universal Database of Languages and Dialects

[Jocospor]

What some might call a somewhat...fresher idea of ours:

Noting that this World Assembly is comprised of many member nations with differing languages and dialects (for the purposes of this resolution, defining “language” as a spoken and written act of communication and “dialect” as only a spoken act of communication);

Furthermore, of the understanding that this World Assembly truly regulates many worlds, not just one, and that these worlds too brim with many languages and dialects;

Believing that the languages and dialects of member nations should be made readily available to other member nations;

Convinced that in so doing universal stability would improve, along with scholarship and the cultural relationships between member nations;

Hereby this World Assembly:

1. Establishes the Universal Database of Languages and Dialects (herein “ UDLD”);
   
2. Charges the UDLD to amass all languages and dialects of all member nations of this World Assembly and make these readily available to other member nations, either through government or civil institutions:
   
   
   1. in the case of a language, the UDLD shall provide a written dictionary of that language, along with appropriate audio and phonetic support;
      
   2. in the case of a dialect, the UDLD shall provide an audible dictionary of that dialect, with incorporated phonetic support;
3. Clarifies for the benefit of the reader that indigenous languages and dialects, along with cultural variations on languages and dialects, will be included within the UDLD;
   
4. Demands member nations accessing the UDLD do not distribute its contents to non-member nations, so as to present the UDLD as a privilege rather than a necessity;
   
5. Encourages member nations accessing the UDLD to use its contents with diplomatic and scholarly intentions;
   
6. Reminds member nations that this World Assembly shall not tolerate “misuse” of the UDLD, whether such misuse be criminal or otherwise:
   
   
   1. insists that the UDLD is issued to member nations with very clear inbuilt terms and conditions of what would be considered misuse by this World Assembly; and
      
   2. establishes a prosecutorial council which shall pursue via the appropriate legal channels and in accordance with GA#374 member nations found to be misusing the UDLD.

Noting that this World Assembly is comprised of many member nations with differing languages and dialects (for the purposes of this resolution, defining “language” as a spoken and written act of communication and “dialect” as only a spoken act of communication);

Furthermore, of the understanding that this World Assembly truly regulates many worlds, not just one, and that these worlds too brim with many languages and dialects;

Believing that the languages and dialects of member nations should be made readily available to other member nations;

Convinced that in so doing universal stability would improve, along with scholarship and the cultural relationships between member nations;

Hereby this World Assembly:

1. Establishes the Universal Database of Languages and Dialects (herein “ UDLD”);
   
   
2. Charges the UDLD to amass all languages and dialects of all member nations of this World Assembly and make these readily available to other member nations, either through government or civil institutions:
   
   
   1. in the case of a language, the UDLD shall provide a written dictionary of that language, along with appropriate audio and phonetic support;
      
      
   2. in the case of a dialect, the UDLD shall provide an audible dictionary of that dialect, with incorporated phonetic support;
   
   
3. Clarifies for the benefit of the reader that indigenous languages and dialects, along with cultural variations on languages and dialects, will be included within the UDLD;
   
   
4. Demands member nations accessing the UDLD do not distribute its contents to non-member nations, so as to present the UDLD as a privilege rather than a necessity;
   
   
5. Encourages member nations accessing the UDLD to use its contents with diplomatic and scholarly intentions;
   
   
6. Reminds member nations that this World Assembly shall not tolerate “misuse” of the UDLD, whether such misuse be criminal or otherwise:
   
   
   1. Insists that the UDLD is issued to member nations with very clear inbuilt terms and conditions of what would be considered misuse by this World Assembly; and
      
      
   2. Establishes a prosecutorial council which shall pursue via the appropriate legal channels and in accordance with GA#374 member nations found to be misusing the UDLD.

Current:

Noting that this World Assembly is comprised of many member nations with differing languages and dialects (for the purposes of this resolution, defining “language” as a spoken and written act of communication and “dialect” as only a spoken act of communication);

Furthermore, of the understanding that this World Assembly truly regulates many worlds, not just one, and that these worlds too brim with many languages and dialects;

Believing that the languages and dialects of member nations are integral to their culture and very being and should be made readily available to other member nations;

Convinced that in so doing universal stability would improve, along with quality of scholarship and cultural relationships between member nations;

Hereby this World Assembly:

1. Establishes the Universal Database of Languages and Dialects (herein “ UDLD”);
   
   
2. Charges the UDLD to amass all languages and dialects of all member nations of this World Assembly and make these readily available to other member nations, either through government or civil institutions:
   
   
   1. in the case of a language, the UDLD shall provide a written dictionary of that language, along with appropriate audio and phonetic support;
      
      
   2. in the case of a dialect, the UDLD shall provide an audible dictionary of that dialect, with incorporated phonetic support;
   
   
3. Clarifies for the benefit of the reader that indigenous languages and dialects, along with cultural variations on languages and dialects, will be included within the UDLD;
   
   
4. Demands member nations accessing the UDLD do not distribute its contents to non-member nations, so as to present the UDLD as a privilege rather than a necessity;
   
   
5. Encourages member nations accessing the UDLD to use its contents with diplomatic and scholarly intentions;
   
   
6. Reminds member nations that this World Assembly shall not tolerate “misuse” of the UDLD, whether such misuse be criminal or otherwise:
   
   
   1. Insists that the UDLD is issued to member nations with very clear inbuilt terms and conditions of what would be considered misuse by this World Assembly; and
      
      
   2. Establishes a prosecutorial council which shall pursue via the appropriate legal channels and in accordance with GA#374 member nations found to be misusing the UDLD.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

What some might call a somewhat...fresher idea of mine:

Noting that this World Assembly is comprised of many member nations with differing languages and dialects (for the purposes of this resolution, defining “language” as a spoken and written act of communication and “dialect” as only a spoken act of communication);

Furthermore, of the understanding that this World Assembly truly regulates many worlds, not just one, and that these worlds too brim with many languages and dialects;

Believing that the languages and dialects of member nations should be made readily available to other member nations;

Convinced that in so doing universal stability would improve, along with scholarship and the cultural relationships between member nations;

Hereby this World Assembly:

1. Establishes the Universal Database of Languages and Dialects (herein “ UDLD”);
   
   
2. Charges the UDLD to amass all languages and dialects of all member nations of this World Assembly and make these readily available to other member nations, either through government or civil institutions:
   
   
   1. in the case of a language, the UDLD shall provide a written dictionary of that language, along with appropriate audio and phonetic support;
      
      
   2. in the case of a dialect, the UDLD shall provide an audible dictionary of that dialect, with incorporated phonetic support;
   
   
3. Clarifies for the benefit of the reader that indigenous languages and dialects, along with cultural variations on languages and dialects, will be included within the UDLD;
   
   
4. Demands member nations accessing the UDLD do not distribute its contents to non-member nations, so as to present the UDLD as a privilege rather than a necessity;
   
   
5. Encourages member nations accessing the UDLD to use its contents with diplomatic and scholarly intentions;
   
   
6. Reminds member nations that this World Assembly shall not tolerate “misuse” of the UDLD, whether such misuse be criminal or otherwise:
   
   
   1. Insists that the UDLD is issued to member nations with very clear inbuilt terms and conditions of what would be considered misuse by this World Assembly; and
      
      
   2. Establishes a prosecutorial council which shall pursue via the appropriate legal channels and in accordance with GA#374 member nations found to be misusing the UDLD.

Two things - firstly, I thought this was going to be another self commend attempt , but it wasn't!

Secondly, it seems like a fairly good idea. I would just recommend fixing the spacing. I did it for you in the quote.

I also fixed capitalization, and am currently scanning grammar.

EDIT: How about adding a clause "Acknowledging languages as integral to the culture of many WA Member Nations," after the 'Noting' clause?

[Jocospor]

Two things - firstly, I thought this was going to be another self commend attempt , but it wasn't!

Secondly, it seems like a fairly good idea. I would just recommend fixing the spacing. I did it for you in the quote.

I also fixed capitalization, and am currently scanning grammar.

EDIT: How about adding a clause "Acknowledging languages as integral to the culture of many WA Member Nations," after the 'Noting' clause?

Look, we can't blame you for thinking that really, can we.

Thanks for the spacing fixes. I'll get the aesthetics right when I go to submit. Although (if we treat grammar as aesthetic!) is it really necessary to capitalise sub-clauses? Can see why you would in this cases, as the sub-clauses are complete clauses rather than fragmented clauses - in that case, having reasoned it out like that, we'll change the capitalisation. Thank you!

Would there be a need to add that clause? That sounds a little inward for this proposal...?

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Two things - firstly, I thought this was going to be another self commend attempt , but it wasn't!

Secondly, it seems like a fairly good idea. I would just recommend fixing the spacing. I did it for you in the quote.

I also fixed capitalization, and am currently scanning grammar.

EDIT: How about adding a clause "Acknowledging languages as integral to the culture of many WA Member Nations," after the 'Noting' clause?

Look, we can't blame you for thinking that really, can we.

Thanks for the spacing fixes. I'll get the aesthetics right when I go to submit. Although (if we treat grammar as aesthetic!) is it really necessary to capitalise sub-clauses? Can see why you would in this cases, as the sub-clauses are complete clauses rather than fragmented clauses - in that case, having reasoned it out like that, we'll change the capitalisation. Thank you!

Would there be a need to add that clause? That sounds a little inward for this proposal...?

It (the addition of the clause) gives a level of justification to the proposal. Your choice to credit me as a coauthor if you choose to include it (don't get me wrong, I would love to be credited as a coauthor), but I think it would give justification to the proposal, and look better to the WA.

Also, to be honest, I like how blatantly you guys just admit you are trying to commend yourself, and how you also acknowledge it is wrong.

[Jocospor]

Look, we can't blame you for thinking that really, can we.

Thanks for the spacing fixes. I'll get the aesthetics right when I go to submit. Although (if we treat grammar as aesthetic!) is it really necessary to capitalise sub-clauses? Can see why you would in this cases, as the sub-clauses are complete clauses rather than fragmented clauses - in that case, having reasoned it out like that, we'll change the capitalisation. Thank you!

Would there be a need to add that clause? That sounds a little inward for this proposal...?

It (the addition of the clause) gives a level of justification to the proposal. Your choice to credit me as a coauthor if you choose to include it (don't get me wrong, I would love to be credited as a coauthor), but I think it would give justification to the proposal, and look better to the WA.

Also, to be honest, I like how blatantly you guys just admit you are trying to commend yourself, and how you also acknowledge it is wrong.

Wooooaaaaaaahhhhhhh we didn't admit anything we did was wrong. We just said we weren't surprised by your thoughts. Let's not jump the gun here.

If we deconstruct your suggested addition: you saying language is integral to the culture of many WA member nations implies that other member nations should make attempts to understand or at least appreciate this culture (as this resolution, figuratively speaking, doesn't deal in singularities but rather plurals). That, we would argue, is hinted at in the fourth clause, where we suggest that this resolution and implementation of the UDLD would improve cultural relationships between member nations. Thus, your suggestion seems somewhat moot. Correct us if we're wrong.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

It (the addition of the clause) gives a level of justification to the proposal. Your choice to credit me as a coauthor if you choose to include it (don't get me wrong, I would love to be credited as a coauthor), but I think it would give justification to the proposal, and look better to the WA.

Also, to be honest, I like how blatantly you guys just admit you are trying to commend yourself, and how you also acknowledge it is wrong.

Wooooaaaaaaahhhhhhh we didn't admit anything we did was wrong. We just said we weren't surprised by your thoughts. Let's not jump the gun here.

Its not important anyway. Lets stick to the topic!

If we deconstruct your suggested addition: you saying language is integral to the culture of many WA member nations implies that other member nations should make attempts to understand or at least appreciate this culture (as this resolution, figuratively speaking, doesn't deal in singularities but rather plurals). That, we would argue, is hinted at in the fourth clause, where we suggest that this resolution and implementation of the UDLD would improve cultural relationships between member nations. Thus, your suggestion seems somewhat moot. Correct us if we're wrong.

I would argue that it gives more meaning to it. If you establish that language is an integral part of culture, it strengthens the link between a resolution about preserving language increasing cultural ties. I would, in fact, say it would give it more meaning. "Cultural relationships" would mean more if you established the tie between culture and language as suggested

In the end though its your call! Props on a promising resolution.

[Jocospor]

I would argue that it gives more meaning to it. If you establish that language is an integral part of culture, it strengthens the link between a resolution about preserving language increasing cultural ties. I would, in fact, say it would give it more meaning. "Cultural relationships" would mean more if you established the tie between culture and language as suggested

In the end though its your call! Props on a promising resolution.

You're right. We've thus decided to add in the basics of what you mean. Proposal has been updated.

If it's okay, and though we are indebted to you for your help, we won't accredit you as co-author of this resolution. To us, a co-author is someone who worked on the resolution through its earliest stages with the author, and might even have helped the author conceptualise the very nature of the resolution. One suggestion, and the subsequent application of that suggestion by the author, during the drafting process doesn't quite cut it for us. Then one might argue that every nation that participates during drafting should be accredited co-author to the respective resolution.

Hope there are no hard feelings. Have some complementary champagne as compensation! *chink*

[Kenmoria]

“I like this idea, and am quite surprised it hasn’t already been done. Some comments have been left by me in red on the proposal.”

Noting that this World Assembly is comprised of many member nations with differing languages and dialects (for the purposes of this resolution, defining “language” as a spoken and written act of communication and “dialect” as only a spoken act of communication); I’ve noticed that you do not have a category and strength/area of effect anywhere on your proposal. This is vital to have so other ambassadors can comment on whether they believe it is the correct choice of them. I recommend that ‘Education and Creativity - Cultural Heritage’ seems the perfect for this proposal.

Also, something strikes me as odd about having the definition held in the first preambulatory clause. Although these is no rule mandating this, it is a commonly held practice to put definitions with the active clauses, as what is defined and how this is done has an effect on member nations, like the rest of your active clauses.

Furthermore, of the understanding that this World Assembly truly regulates many worlds, not just one, and that these worlds too brim with many languages and dialects; The word ‘truly’ is unneeded here, but this clause looks otherwise fine.

Believing that the languages and dialects of member nations are integral to their culture and very being and should be made readily available to other member nations;

Convinced that in so doing universal stability would improve, along with quality of scholarship and cultural relationships between member nations; ‘Universal stability’ sounds like something a politician says when they can’t find a justification for an idea. I think something more concrete, like increased quality of scholarship, would be better beginning this clause.

Hereby this World Assembly:

1. Establishes the Universal Database of Languages and Dialects (herein “ UDLD”); There’s a strange space before ‘UDLD’ that would be better were it to be removed.
   
   
2. Charges the UDLD to amass all languages and dialects of all member nations of this World Assembly and make these readily available to other member nations, either through government or civil institutions: Including dead ones? Why should the UDLD be charged with amassing a language that only one speaker speaks, and not very well? Also, what about constructed languages, that may grow to a popularity rivalling natural ones, but may also merely be curiosity spoken by a handful.
   
   
   1. in the case of a language, the UDLD shall provide a written dictionary of that language, along with appropriate audio and phonetic support; What about sign languages? Or what about those with no written form? Phonetic and audio support would be... strange to have for a sign language, and a dictionary would be a nightmare to create if the language had no written form.
      
      
   2. in the case of a dialect, the UDLD shall provide an audible dictionary of that dialect, with incorporated phonetic support;
   
   
   
3. Clarifies for the benefit of the reader that indigenous languages and dialects, along with cultural variations on languages and dialects, will be included within the UDLD; ‘Clarifies for the reader’, I assume, refers to whomever reads this proposal. That is not a needed phrase, just put ‘Clarifies’ instead. If you mean to say that the UDLD is doing the clarification to readers of its dictionary, then this needs some tightening up to remove ambiguity.
   
   
4. Demands member nations accessing the UDLD do not distribute its contents to non-member nations, so as to present the UDLD as a privilege rather than a necessity; This is a rather silly requirement, and could have some disastrous diplomatic consequences. Suppose a member nation wishes to establish diplomatic relationships with non-member nations, but none of them speak the language - it seems odd to ban the member nation from distributing what should be a high-quality dictionary to resident ambassadors.
   
   
5. Encourages member nations accessing the UDLD to use its contents with diplomatic and scholarly intentions; These scholarly intentions could be greatly harmed if the majority of scholars, who live in non-member nations, cannot access the langauge’s official dictionary.
   
   
6. Reminds member nations that this World Assembly shall not tolerate “misuse” of the UDLD, whether such misuse be criminal or otherwise: It is implicitly assumed that the WA won’t tolerate noncompliance, that’s why the ACA exists.
   
   
   1. Insists that the UDLD is issued to member nations with very clear inbuilt terms and conditions of what would be considered misuse by this World Assembly; and
      
      
   2. Establishes a prosecutorial council which shall pursue via the appropriate legal channels and in accordance with GA#374 member nations found to be misusing the UDLD. Such a council already exists in the form of the Compliance Commision which, according to ACA, will give out fines for deliberate noncompliance.

“To summarise, this is a good starting idea for a proposal, but a lot of the execution needs re-thinking and more conciseness.”

[Jocospor]

“I like this idea, and am quite surprised it hasn’t already been done. Some comments have been left by me in red on the proposal.”

This is really helpful, thanks.

A few questions. For the most part, we agree completely with your edits, as they're mainly just fiddly things that need a bit more fleshing out. The point about sign languages and dead languages was very clever, we'll definitely be making provisions for those in the resolution.

In the case of 4. (and then to an extent in 5. which you point out), we put that restriction in place so as to limit the possibility of cultural contamination and interference. It might be possible that nations have no joined the World Assembly for a reason and may wish to continue their isolation uninterrupted, particularly if they be of a more primitive nature. Thoughts?

In your opinion, would it be better to reference the Compliance Commission in 6., or completely remove the clause, seeing as its more or less a given?

[Araraukar]

It might be possible that nations have no joined the World Assembly for a reason and may wish to continue their isolation uninterrupted, particularly if they be of a more primitive nature. Thoughts?

OOC: I think that OOCly most nations haven't joined because of the "one WA nation per player, and no WA nations for shared computers" thing, and ICly because they don't want to be burdened by the WA banning whatever flavour their particular Will Not Budge From This issue is, whether it's slavery or use of bioweapons or wanting to restrict healthcare to paying customers only, or anything the WA mandates is done otherwise than they'd like.

[Kenmoria]

“I like this idea, and am quite surprised it hasn’t already been done. Some comments have been left by me in red on the proposal.”

This is really helpful, thanks.

A few questions. For the most part, we agree completely with your edits, as they're mainly just fiddly things that need a bit more fleshing out. The point about sign languages and dead languages was very clever, we'll definitely be making provisions for those in the resolution.

In the case of 4. (and then to an extent in 5. which you point out), we put that restriction in place so as to limit the possibility of cultural contamination and interference. It might be possible that nations have no joined the World Assembly for a reason and may wish to continue their isolation uninterrupted, particularly if they be of a more primitive nature. Thoughts?

In your opinion, would it be better to reference the Compliance Commission in 6., or completely remove the clause, seeing as its more or less a given?

With regards to your points on 4 and 5, I think the best option would be to say that these dictionaries may not be given unless non-member nations put forth a request with scholarly, diplomatic or otherwise valid intentions, that member states can deny at will. That way, a non-member nation won’t need to have contamination unless they specifically ask for such, and member nations are at liberty to refuse giving dictionaries to their enemies, who could misuse the information in some way.

Seeing as it is more or less a given, I don’t believe there is any real need to reference anything regarding noncompliance unless you want to have a specific penalty in place for violations that goes beyond a fine, for example removal of their language from the dictionary. However, I would say the provisions laid out by the Administrative Compliance Act, ACA, are enough to deal with noncompliance.

[Araraukar]

I would say the provisions laid out by the Administrative Compliance Act, ACA, are enough to deal with noncompliance.

OOC: And the kind of noncompliance that can't be dealt with (like, if you're simply going to just ignore something, you're likely going to also ignore whatever would force you to comply), just can't be dealt with, no matter what anyone writes in a proposal...

[Jocospor]

This is really helpful, thanks.

A few questions. For the most part, we agree completely with your edits, as they're mainly just fiddly things that need a bit more fleshing out. The point about sign languages and dead languages was very clever, we'll definitely be making provisions for those in the resolution.

In the case of 4. (and then to an extent in 5. which you point out), we put that restriction in place so as to limit the possibility of cultural contamination and interference. It might be possible that nations have no joined the World Assembly for a reason and may wish to continue their isolation uninterrupted, particularly if they be of a more primitive nature. Thoughts?

In your opinion, would it be better to reference the Compliance Commission in 6., or completely remove the clause, seeing as its more or less a given?

With regards to your points on 4 and 5, I think the best option would be to say that these dictionaries may not be given unless non-member nations put forth a request with scholarly, diplomatic or otherwise valid intentions, that member states can deny at will. That way, a non-member nation won’t need to have contamination unless they specifically ask for such, and member nations are at liberty to refuse giving dictionaries to their enemies, who could misuse the information in some way.

Seeing as it is more or less a given, I don’t believe there is any real need to reference anything regarding noncompliance unless you want to have a specific penalty in place for violations that goes beyond a fine, for example removal of their language from the dictionary. However, I would say the provisions laid out by the Administrative Compliance Act, ACA, are enough to deal with noncompliance.

That's great advice on both counts. Thanks very much.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Kenmoria, languages that have no written form can be recorded by assigning symbols to each phoneme. It is already done IRL, and oh goodness are some sounds hard to do/differentiate if you don't have it in your language/dialect.

Jocospor, why is the dictionary (twee-taalige worde-boek in Afrikaans, more descriptive as well even if the 'twee' should be tweaked for this specific one) limited to languages spoken in WA nations. At least allow for researches to also include the languages of non-WA nations. That should also help alleviate the issue with WA nations having trouble communicating with non-WA nations that do not speak any WA language.

---

"I am impressed, Arasi Luvasa will be voting in favor when this comes around. The only worry is the limit to WA nations."

[Kenmoria]

Kenmoria, languages that have no written form can be recorded by assigning symbols to each phoneme. It is already done IRL, and oh goodness are some sounds hard to do/differentiate if you don't have it in your language/dialect.

(OOC: I am aware of that, and the system the IPA uses to assign symbols to sounds works fine IRL, due to the fact that we are all human and can produce sounds in the human range. NationStates has languages that are transmitted telepathically without sound or vision, and I have seen at least one nation of sharks, which communicate through electrical buzzes.

Besides, IPA symbols are complex and not meant for communication through the written form, merely to aid pronunciation. Real-life conversion of spoken languages to written ones takes years in order to remain sympathetic to the language’s style, choosing between different scripts requires a lot of thought as to which one feels like the language, and I wouldn’t trust a bunch of WA gnomes to be able to do that.)

[Araraukar]

Kenmoria, languages that have no written form can be recorded by assigning symbols to each phoneme. It is already done IRL, and oh goodness are some sounds hard to do/differentiate if you don't have it in your language/dialect.

(OOC: I am aware of that, and the system the IPA uses to assign symbols to sounds works fine IRL, due to the fact that we are all human and can produce sounds in the human range. NationStates has languages that are transmitted telepathically without sound or vision, and I have seen at least one nation of sharks, which communicate through electrical buzzes.)

OOC: I'd throw in the Tikrr, for whom words can have different meanings depending on the frequency (they have over 100 kHz range for vocalizations - for reference, human species vocal range is a couple of hundred Hz) at which they're uttered...

[Bears Armed]

]OOC: I think that OOCly most nations haven't joined because of the "one WA nation per player, and no WA nations for shared computers" thing, and ICly because they don't want to be burdened by the WA banning whatever flavour their particular Will Not Budge From This issue is, whether it's slavery or use of bioweapons or wanting to restrict healthcare to paying customers only, or anything the WA mandates is done otherwise than they'd like.

OOC: Or because they have a firmly-established constitution under which the clans or other groups who originally combined to form the nation collectively delegated only some functions and legislative rights to the central government, so that many of the resolutions that require national governments to do things (or even that require national governments to tell sub-national governments to do things) clash with that constitution...

_______________________________________________________________________

Will there be any guidelines included about how this committee is to decide what constitutes a language, what constitutes a dialect, and what is merely a locally-used term whose inclusion in speech or writing isn't enough to qualify defining the local speech/writing as a 'dialect' separate from the forms used in other communities? What about technical jargon?

What about languages or dialects whose speakers would, for one reason or another (e.g. religion, a formerly-persecuted group's tradition of using those languages/dialects for communications that they don't want outsiders to understand [and perhaps worries that they might need to do so again in future...], or just general isolationism), actually prefer to keep them private? What about languages or dialects whose only remaining speakers are too few in number for there to be any left with the time & willingness to provide this data?

Also, as currently written, this could be challenged as illegal for a 'Committee Only' violation.

[Stoskavanya]

How do you charge a database with undertaking a task?

[This City of Ours]

OOC: I'd throw in the Tikrr, for whom words can have different meanings depending on the frequency (they have over 100 kHz range for vocalizations - for reference, human species vocal range is a couple of hundred Hz) at which they're uttered...

((I’ve developed a sort of code system to transcript the language of my Northerner aliens, whose vocalizations have been described as sounding like a broken car engine. You need a chart and a whole lot of sound files to get from the code to the actual language and back, but something like that might still be able to work here?))

“The dialect vs language concern will be hard to settle without someone getting upset about it,” says Kasam. “Especially when you have a situation where one language seems to sort of merge into another one with distance. For example, Old District Cityspeak can be easily understood by those few people who remain of the Overpass cluster, and Overpass Cityspeak can be understood by the Bridgewheel cluster, but if a Bridgewheel native makes the trek all the way over to the Old District cluster, no one will be able to understand him.”

((She’s talking about dialect chains, though she doesn’t know that’s what they’re called.))

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I would argue that it gives more meaning to it. If you establish that language is an integral part of culture, it strengthens the link between a resolution about preserving language increasing cultural ties. I would, in fact, say it would give it more meaning. "Cultural relationships" would mean more if you established the tie between culture and language as suggested

In the end though its your call! Props on a promising resolution.

You're right. We've thus decided to add in the basics of what you mean. Proposal has been updated.

If it's okay, and though we are indebted to you for your help, we won't accredit you as co-author of this resolution. To us, a co-author is someone who worked on the resolution through its earliest stages with the author, and might even have helped the author conceptualise the very nature of the resolution. One suggestion, and the subsequent application of that suggestion by the author, during the drafting process doesn't quite cut it for us. Then one might argue that every nation that participates during drafting should be accredited co-author to the respective resolution.

Hope there are no hard feelings. Have some complementary champagne as compensation! *chink*

Champagne will do!

Glad to help.

[Snoburg]

While I do enjoy the subject of this proposal, eventually it would amass such a size to the point where it would be gigantic right? wouldn't that be hard to deal with

[Wallenburg]

As currently written, all this does is create a committee. Member states don't have to do anything in response to a proposal like this. That runs afoul of the committee rule.

[United Massachusetts]

As currently written, all this does is create a committee. Member states don't have to do anything in response to a proposal like this. That runs afoul of the committee rule.

I think this is correct. I love the idea, but it needs to be developed more.

[Kenmoria]

While I do enjoy the subject of this proposal, eventually it would amass such a size to the point where it would be gigantic right? wouldn't that be hard to deal with

(OOC: WA committee gnomes are assumed to be able to complete any tasks set to them by a WA resolution, and to be immune to corruption, bribery or inefficiency. Although a diplomat might have trouble finding a required language, a search bar would deal with that quite quickly, and I’m quite confident that it won’t be hard to find a language unless it has a ridiculously obscure name. Gnomes will complete their duties to the best standard plausible, so I don’t think this is an issue.

On the topic of the committee only rule, Joscopor, merely adding a clause such as ‘encourages member nations to take action to protect minority languages and start programs to stop their deaths,’ would be enough to make this legal by that count. A clause that suggests an action still works, so a simple encouragement at the end would easily fix a possible ‘committee only’ violation.)

[Jocospor]

As currently written, all this does is create a committee. Member states don't have to do anything in response to a proposal like this. That runs afoul of the committee rule.

Thanks for that Wallenburg, we see completely what you mean.

And thanks to everyone for their help. We'll get to work on a new draft soon.