Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Serious Topic or GIT (part 2)

Hmm Alrik, I seem to remember some philosopher saying that once "what is Truth?"
and so far no one has had a logical answer for that.

Tsel, if I dig deep down, I would say I would be very upset, to find my significant other in bed with someone beside me.

Never mind the fact that I would/ could/ had done it too, that only throws the whole ugly thing back in my face and considering that I probably already felt guilty about doing it myself, this would only mean that the partner, who was still "the Home" and a stable rock to rely on, became as bad as I was.

Conclusion: Yes I would be very upset.

Another point: I would never hold it against him unless he was a personal friend of mine. She's the one who cheated on me, not him. He has no reason to be loyal or respectful to me. I may tell him to get out rather quickly and use what ever physical force necessary to speed up his removal, but ultimately, she has done the crime.

[color:"pink"]How would you feel if you came home and found your significant other in bed with another person?[/color]

Shocked. Hurt. Betrayed and decieved, too. I don't know what my reaction would be once the shock would have passed...

[color:"pink"] Why would it bother you so much if you are just as guilty? [/color]

That second question is hard for me to answer, since I just couldn't do that. Cheating in a love relationship is as much a disrespect and betrayal of the significant other than of ourselves, by doing what we engaged ourselves not to do. I understand that each case is unique, but I just can't imagine any situation that would push me, get me stuck to the point that I would end up cheating on my loved-one...

When people are cheating on their beloved, it is because there is something lacking for them in the relationship. Love, passion and desire are not things that last by themselves, so in love relationships it has to be worked for, and for that there has to be a lot of communication between the two. When you are cheating on your significant one, there are serious problems in those two points, and you're probably not willing/able/up to to do what it could take for your relationship to fulfill you again.

So why does that bother so much people that are just as guilty (and especially those who suffer from their guilty feeling)? Because they were assuming that the significant one was still faithful to them. By discovering that their significant other is cheating on them, they discover that there was something that they did/could not provide to fulfill her/him, and that is something that can be hard on the conscience and ego. Because being betrayed and facing disrespect from someone you have such bonds with always hurt in some way. That's as Plowking said, you remain emotionally bond to the ones you loved, and that makes you more vulnerable to the pain disrespect may cause, even if the love between the two is drowning and that you already know it's over.

Well, that's all I had in mind for now... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

Me to pick a topic of relevance for a global community - not the thing I have proven to be best at in the past... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

I had a discussion with a friend not so long ago, on the development of a universal language - and since language and communication is something affecting all of us, I am going to 'steal' the topic and request your global views and visions.

*****
The European Union now has 25 countries with about 20 official languages. No agreement could ever be reached (not for lack of trying) to define one official common language to facilitate the communication in this economic union. On a larger scale, the problems of international communication affect any non-isolated society.

The lack of political consensus does not rescind the actual and factual need for a global or universal communication tool - international industry and economy speak => English.

So there are those who postulate that regardless of political discussions, and the fierce tenacity to defend 'own culture' by nurturing languages at an unreasonable low regional scale (think of Switzerland = 4 official languages in a rather small country) English will evolve into THE universal language, as

- one of the biggest economic entities, the North American continent, does already speak it;
- in Europe, the second big economic entity, it's the most spread second language
- in upcoming economies, like China, South-Est Asia, it's the language of international economics simply because the other major economies already speak it;
- it's relatively easy to learn and handle (at least compared to Chinese, for example).

So:

- Do you think that English will evolve in a universal language, that ultimately will be recognized as such and its teaching be made mandatory?

- Or do you think another language will make that evolution?

- Will non-universal languages die in a distant future? If so, should they be preserved? What would be lost to humanity, as a whole, if and when languages die? Is language the (only) key to cultural identity?

- Or do you envision other universal communication forms in the future (who knows, someone may find the Babelfish <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)?

Diffucult question.

FGor me, very personally, language is culture. I mean the huge cultural backdrop - every word evolved in a certain cultural background. That's why Tolkien invented a world for his favourite language, Quenya.

You can't really see it, until you dig deep enough, because it's somewhere buried deep in the hill on which were're living - and that hill is just a collapsed bunch of other hills of people living before us.

So, with every dying language, culture dies, too, from my very personal point of view.

With English taking over, culture is taking over. Not everything, but the hill of the English language overlaps and eventually suffocated the other hill lying beneath it.

I take a look at south america. The language there is the Spanish language, or the Portugues one. But the culture has more or less survived - at least to soime extend (look at the Maya etc. ... but they are partially still speaking their own languages).

English in all of it's Grammar etc. is to me a "reduced" language. The more simple, the better to learn, the more "reduced" in Grammar etc. .

I'm very, VERY concerned about English spreading so much and forcing more and more languages to die out. Language as a form of Imperialism ?

Alrik.


P.S. : And when I read topics like this one, I simply get sick.

Here in Quebec, that question about language is really one of actuality and is at the heart of the politic scene. For a background overview of the linguistic aspects/issues here: languages in use and language policy in Canada.
And that question applies to everywhere in the world; in North America as a whole, especially with the Native languages, they begin to realise how important and rich of knowledge a language can be and what is lost when one disappears. Anthropologists were the firsts to be directly concerned by the effects the disappearance of a language bring, and now lots of efforts (but probably not enough) are made to promote original languages education and to at least keep/archive the knowledge of the already/soon to be lost language.

When is a language “dead” or “disappeared”? I think it is when it isn’t spoken/written anymore in common life; it would be endangered when it is no longer being spoken by the chilrden. And I’d definite a language as “lost” when it can’t be understood with enough certitude, even after very specialised and deep researches (like it is for some ancient Egyptian, on wich they can only roughly speculate).

I’m not up to do any prediction about how things would evolve in the future; but like Alrik, I think that languages disappearing because of English (or any other language it would be)’s spreading is not a good thing. But at the same time, the need to find a way to communicate with the world is real and funded.

A language is the expression of the history, context, color, culture, knowledge and wisdom of a people; through the etymology of each word, through every sens they may carry, though every proverbs and expressions, every dialect. That’s what a language is the key to, and if it is lost, then a lot of these aspects might disappear to the profit of common ones too.
Why are these aspects so important, and what would be negative if there came to be a common language/culture to everyone? It would be a lost of diversity; and diversity is a kind of “bumper” that keeps things balanced and moderate, that brings on more different points of view and ressources, wisdoms and knowledge. Differences are a richness.

Now what could be a solution? Imho, that passes by education. In peoples where English is not the natural language, the natural language has to be taught, promoted and valorised. English (or whatever language would be used as the “universal one”) should be taught too, but as a second language, a mean to communicate; not as an end as is the teaching of the natural language. That requires much efforts and means, though...

Here there are some means that were set in place in order to preserve & promote the French language, that conciliate with the “reality that english is needed to be known in order to be opened to the world” at this time. Laws in Quebec oblige products (at least the tags, instructions and manuals) sold here to be available in French (if not they can’t be sold at all), radios are obliged to play at least 60% (if not more) songs in French, on bilingual adds and signs French has to be written bigger (don’t remember the percentage) than english, essentisal services have to be offered in both languages and several ressources try to prevail immigrants in Quebec to learn and use French, etc.; in counterpart, as long as you are studying in French schools you have courses of English as a second language, including english course(s) related to the field of study you’re in after the general school levels. And in general French school levels (or as long as they are required in the different study programs), French courses are much more emphasized on, are bigger and absolutely have to be succeeded in order to obtain a diploma. All this may seem a bit fanatic to some, but it is something that was wanted by many people here in general and it seems to help the purpose it was created for. There are no such measures in place for the First Nation's languages but they're fighting for it.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

I have some thoughts myself here on this topic Glance, but my time is limited at the moment. I'll jump in with those comments in the area of about 24 hours.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

I am all for a universal language.
What that language is I could care less.
It could be Klingon as far as I care.
The main point is to finally get the world to recognize one language as the common tongue, then mandate its requirement to be taught and learned in all schools, and grasp of the language is as important as the individual countries language.

I would not want to see any countries language die or pass away.
Look at the language Sanskrit.
It is one of the most breath taking languages sung.
To me all languages have a beauty about them when sung.
For example the German language; when it comes to power, no other language expresses the feel of power better than the German language in music.
French is attributed as a very romantic language.
I could go on and on with these types of examples.
I can only hope that if and when we do come to a universal language that we do not lose the others to the universal.
We should preserve heritage.

I realize my comments are not logically deep, but like I said previously, I tend to take more of a personal moralistic approach to things.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

There's already a language like that.

Esperanto <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I hope English does not become the universal language. It has been bastardised enough by those who speak it most. It's all well and good if you speak it daily and understand the language, but you cannot learn a language when people keep leaving all those gaps in it.

allow me to tell u my as** i mean opinion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

English has been prominent in many countries especially in those that used to be colonies of the British Empire. even if it is not the first language, except in UK, US & Canada (of course the colonies too), it is almost always the second formal language spoken in many many countries, especially in Asia.

knowing the economic advantages in speaking English has spurred & maintained its importance in all levels; education, work, media etc. of course nowadays, in Asia it is challenged subtly by Mandarin (the main/formal dialect for China & chinese all around). although English is still an important factor in employment, Mandarin is slowly but surely rising in importance as well. all thanks to the rising economic power of China.

other 'minor' languages, if unchecked & unheeded, will definitely disappear. i don't have to look far into other parts of the world to see this as it already is happening in my place. Kuching is one of the biggest city (personally it's just a big town) in Malaysia & urban youths can be seen speaking English & Mandarin. there are those of ethnic race that are already affected & may speaking basic or very little of their own language. sadly i am one of them (though i am trying hard to learn my father's tongue). even those who can speak their 'father' tongue do so with mixed words from other languages (malay, chinese, english).

the boon of multiracial communication is also the bane of it. it depends, i guess, on how much do we want to keep to ourselves (racially) & how much do we want to assimilate or be assimilated.

Esperanto - I was expecting it to be brought up...
and it's probably a serious alternative, IF it were discussed unbiased.

So you seem to agree that language is the expression of cultural identity, and efforts must be made to preserve local language(s).

Language is the EXPRESSION of cultural identity - not cultural identity in itself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" /> Or would anybody deny that there are 'cultural differences' (however they may be defined - that was another thread) between, let's say, Americans (US), British, Australians, Canadians (except Quebecois? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />); or French and Quebecois, for that matter; or Germans, Austrians and Swiss (German speaking); or Spanish, Middle and South Americans - and that's only the European origin side of it.

So would cultural identity really be lost, if expressed in another language? Mind you, I am not advocating to abolish all languages safe one! But languages are a living and evolving matter. None of our languages - I really postulate NONE - is the same as 500 years ago (or 300, or even 100 years ago). Languages have become extinct (some forcibly through oppression), and languages have changed and are changing. So do cultures.

I speak three languages and a handful of German dialects rather fluently - none of which is my Mother's tongue (That would be Czeck) - all of them for coincidentally having lived in the respective areas. And I ask myself - and you - why is it OK to be taught second languages in school like English, French, Spanish, German, Russian - but no effort is made to globally agree on a common second language? Esperanto, if nobody wants to concede a 'winner', which is a stupid chauvinistic attitude anyway IMO. Why is it impossible to agree on a single official language in the European Union (The USA had solved the question at one time, it being a close call between English andf German at the time). Pragmatically it would appear logic, so the offense taken and the resistance is emotional?

What would be the loss in a compulsory universal language, as second language? And why are the arguments always on the losses, and not on the benefits?

Because we live in a world wrapped in a package of negatives.
I fully and wholeheartedly admit I am a very negative person; although I see myself more as a realist, but society has labeled me negative; so be it.

I asked a few people, in person that I know, this same question about being required to learn a different language in school as a child growing up; I was surprised to hear their answer.
All of them said the same thing, note these are adults in the age group of 30's and 40's, they said that it is Bull Sh*t. Reason, they didn't want to have to be forced to learn anything extra in school. I was surprised to hear that answer from adults. I guess many adults still carry a childlike mentality to disliking school.

Tsel

[color:"orange"] ...they said that it is Bull Sh*t. Reason, they didn't want to have to be forced to learn anything extra in school [/color]
I am apalled.

That attitude leads to Why should I learn anything "EXTRA"?. So after finishing school the average American knows everything needed for life???

I mean, I learnt a lot in school, that I did not need - and a lot more I needed, I did not learn there.

They obviously haven't thought through their answer - otherwise they would - at least - not have voiced it openly, otherwise the answer is plain ... - no, I am not going to say something offensive about lazyness and intelectual capability.

It's in my experience an attitude more found with English speaking natives (Why should I learn a foreign language? Everybody speaks English) - and it's some proof for the thesis that English has a headstart for becoming 'universal'.

And it is a good argument as to why it should not! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

Also - I know quite a number of Americans who would be ashamed for this ego-centric, chauvinistic, disrespectful answer, though not necessarily surprised.

I've been to a handful of other countries and sadly I concede I have never seen more people who want something for nothing, expect the world owes them something, and lazy; more than anyone else here in my country.

Like you I was appalled.
I couldn't believe my ears, so rather than waste my breath; I fell silent, shook my head, and walked away.

That's why I really, really believe that a universal language needs to be a [color:"yellow"]required[/color] subject in all schools throughout the world and if that language comes to be Esperanto then so be it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I think it's time to 'pass the torch', as Tsel said and move to a new topic.

And - this is tough on Janggut, I know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />, but I simply cannot see this as a 'competition' with a 'winner' - I have decided to pass it to LaFille, because she has proven to be well spoken and made serious contributions, and being the youngest member in this circle has not had a chance to participate in the original thread. And a little female aspect in topic selection may not hurt either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Your call LaFille! or 'à vous', comme tu dirais

I'll have a few things to add about language before bringing subject on something else. Couldn't follow the latest posts since I was on/preparing for exams. Will come back with that tomorrow. Sorry to slow you all.
If anybody would have another question he/she'd want to submit, though, it's ok with me.
Fille <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepey.gif" alt="" />

Here are my few comments:

About what language to become the universal one, I think english could be a good one (I don’t know much about Esperanto, though). It would be practical because it is a fairly simple language, what makes his learning accessible to more people (I don't think a chinese language would be a good idea, since these are very complex and hard to learn...), and because its use & teaching is already widespread. The univeral language doesn't need to be a "rich" language, imo; the goal here is for the different peoples of the world to be able to communicate, not to create a universal culture.

The "dialects" (or bastardised languages <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ) and the evolution of languages are a product of culture, though. No language remains the same over time; and to what I know of the world (wich is not much, so I may be wrong), languages most always evolve on a divergent way; that is the birth of dialects, wich might become completely different languages after lots of time has passed (if the people remains pretty isolated). The different dialects are a product of the culture and thus, imo, are not something that should be so disparaged, to a certain point (as long as the peoples can find a "grey zone," a way to understand each other). The best example I know is French: France French speaking people and Quebec French speaking people talking together, having the goodwill to use the "correct French," wich is common to both, will understand each other very well; but if they both use their respective familiar language, wich is full of regionalisms and have very pronounced accents, they won't understand more than the half of what each other say. It seems to be the same with the different English dialects.

As for people not wanting to learn more than what they’re forced/obliged to, I’m afraid that it’s but one of the many points that reflect the mentality of the capitalist society of these times (at least it is here in North America): consume more, and do all you can to “ease your life,” to have the less efforts to make. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

I’ll come back with a new question a bit later if nobody has anything else to add.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

i have no idea about esperanto so i cannot place preference either to it or against it.

however Fille brought up a great point (she's quite an incredible researcher <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> ) on the ease of use as well as simplicity in the universal language, should there be one.

[color:"pink"] Language is the EXPRESSION of cultural identity - not cultural identity in itself [/color] Glance

that's right. when u're stripped of everything physical that can tie u to who u are, your spoken language will be THE identity. language in itself isn't much other than a mode of communication. but couple that to mannerism, terms, idioms, sayings, inflections, subtleties etc language is one of the components that make a culture. well i am no linguistic expert so i can be very very wrong.

[color:"pink"] And why are the arguments always on the losses, and not on the benefits? [/color] Glance

yet again u are right in that this is beside the main point but it's a very interesting one. my answer to this is defensiveness or built-in defense mechanism that's present in everyone of us. also resistance to change. we may not like what we have now but we dislike even more on changes that may bring more of what we may not like. going out of the comfort zone is too much of a hassle, i guess. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

[color:"pink"] And - this is tough on Janggut, I know , but .. [/color] Glance

& u have to ask why people are negative! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> it's because i can't even win a simple argument! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> *janggut snaps* <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/XmasEek.gif" alt="" />

What if we resurrected Latan? It is an existing language, is already used to form other languages, and is too strict to be bastardised. By adding words to incorporate new ideas such as technology it may become a viable alternative.