From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 04:41:27 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id EAA17930; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:41:27 +1200 Received: from usenet.net.nz (root@usenet.net.nz [203.29.170.93]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id EAA17927 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:40:55 +1200 Received: from ismbc.com (roxy.ismbc.com [207.194.198.216]) by usenet.net.nz (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA28701 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:39:13 +1200 Received: from cricket.bcgas.com by ismbc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09886; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:33:30 -0700 Received: by cricket with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:36:48 -0700 Message-ID: <13526950162FD211A07F0001FA68BE8C01CA457E@orca> Subject: RE: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:32:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Parkinson [SMTP:M.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz] > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 11:56 AM > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? > > Dear all, > > Your reactions & thoughts please: > > It has been suggested to me that the *only* languages with exceedingly > complex grammar .... should go to rank 10 > ... > > Language going to Rank 9 would be those that support diverse > Civilizations .... ,... > > Languages going to Rank 8 would be "normal" human tongues... > [Martin Dickson] Hi Michael, We already have varying maximum ranks for individual tongues -- again setting languages a little apart rom other skills -- some NPC languages go as high as those of the PC races whilst others are very low suggesting simple languages for simple races. All that would seem to be implied by what you are suggesting is that PC languages would go to 8, and some would go to 9 or 10, although often these ranks would be reserved for ancient and complex tongues. I find this fits well with the idea of "standing on the shoulders of giants" -- that the ancient races were more cultured and possessed of great wisdom that has been lost in these later ages of the world. Even if Halfling does possess 500 different words for cream filled pastry it is hard to concieve of its total vocabularly and grammatical complexity approaching Elven... nor is it logical that a language originally intended as a trade tongue -- Common -- would have the obscure tenses and "third person masculine singular with slightly offensive gender confusion overtones" that flavour would seem to suggest Elven supports. I would like to see that unless we can point to places that we would break other parts of the system by doing this then we adopt your suggestion. Cheers, Martin -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 06:36:10 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id GAA17994; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:36:10 +1200 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id GAA17991 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:36:09 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p169-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.169]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA10619 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:35:42 +1200 Subject: Re: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:36:42 +1200 Message-ID: <01bec970$d346b860$a9f56dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin Dickson wrote: > All that would seem to be implied by what you are suggesting is that >PC languages would go to 8, and some would go to 9 or 10, although often >these ranks would be reserved for ancient and complex tongues. > > I find this fits well with the idea of "standing on the shoulders of >giants" -- that the ancient races were more cultured and possessed of great >wisdom that has been lost in these later ages of the world. > > Even if Halfling does possess 500 different words for cream filled >pastry it is hard to concieve of its total vocabularly and grammatical >complexity approaching Elven... nor is it logical that a language originally >intended as a trade tongue -- Common -- would have the obscure tenses and >"third person masculine singular with slightly offensive gender confusion >overtones" that flavour would seem to suggest Elven supports. > I'm afraid this is the sort of thing that I meant about not liking this suggestion. A language that uses many cases and verb forms is often confused with a language of great complexity. In fact, the only truly difficult languages are ones where it's rules are inconsistent, and constantly changing. In fact, a living language like Common, or one that might match some current change in the culture is a much more difficult difficult language to master. That's why English is so hard to learn, and Latin, for example, is a complete doddle. If you want to bother with this sort of idea in the first place, just make the source material rarer, harder to come across, and more likely to be error prone. Higher language ranks is an excercise in futility. You may decide that an ancient written tongue was more ep expensive, though. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 07:34:39 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA18037; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:34:39 +1200 Received: from usenet.net.nz (root@usenet.net.nz [203.29.170.93]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id HAA18034 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:34:39 +1200 Received: from ismbc.com (roxy.ismbc.com [207.194.198.216]) by usenet.net.nz (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA29227 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:32:52 +1200 Received: from cricket.bcgas.com by ismbc.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19710; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:27:15 -0700 Received: by cricket with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:30:33 -0700 Message-ID: <13526950162FD211A07F0001FA68BE8C01CA457F@orca> Subject: RE: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:25:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > From: Jim Arona [SMTP:jimarona@ihug.co.nz] > A language that uses many cases and verb forms is often confused > with a language of great complexity. > In fact, the only truly difficult languages are ones where it's rules are > inconsistent, and constantly changing. In fact, a living language like > Common, or one that might match some current change in the culture is a > much > more difficult difficult language to master. > [Martin Dickson] Hi Jim, I'm not sure about "confused". I agree that a chaotic language, one with inconsistent rules and/or based on a rapidly changing culture is difficult, but then so is _mastery_ of a language with many subtle nuances. Another difficulty is languages with god-awful pronunciations... the Aztec's Nahuatl and the "clicking" tongue of the !Kung of the Kalahari both spring to mind -- and these are both human languages designed for our vocal ability. I don't know if any difference in the "quality" of the complexity could be modeled... but I'm pretty sure they are outside the scope of the complexity of the DQ model. I guess with Common it rather depends on how one looks at it. English seems to be the default model for Common (probably because that is what we all speak), but it may not be a good model. Common might be like Esperanto, an "artificial" language of simple and consistent structure and rules to enable the greatest number of people to use it for trading... (I seem to recall that modern Korean is something like that too, a language created to allow people of different languages to communicate together, in this case to unify a country). I'm not sure what the practical difference would be between allowing higher ranks for complex languages or charging more ep for them... both achieve much the same effect... the difference being that writing that (for example) Elven goes to Rank 10 and Halfling to 8 immediately suggests that Elven is a more subtle and complicated language with a larger vocabulary than Halfling... in much the same way that Rapier going to 10 and Hand-&-a-half to 7 suggests that Rapier is a more complex and subtle weapon, and that a master will have a larger repitore of moves. Cheers, Martin -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 08:35:46 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA18083; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:35:46 +1200 Received: from akl-notes.aj.co.nz (ns.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id IAA18080 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:35:44 +1200 Received: by akl-notes.aj.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (778.2 1-4-1999)) id 4C2567A8.00704881 ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:26:25 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AJ.CO.NZ Message-ID: <4C2567A8.007044EF.00@akl-notes.aj.co.nz> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:26:16 +1200 Subject: Re: Spell Availability (at the Guild) & Purchase Prices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@aj.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Actually I want to make more spells available, not less. Jim's points about favouratism are very pertinent, thanks. Rosemary This message contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient any use, review, perusal, dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please immediately telephone us on +64-9-356 4000 and destroy the original message. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 09:29:34 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA18117; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:29:34 +1200 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA18114 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:29:33 +1200 Message-ID: <37851825.122515FC@peace.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:29:09 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Spell Availability (at the Guild) & Purchase Prices Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jim Arona wrote: > Rosemary wrote: > >If we severly limit spell availablity then character development will be > more > >heavily influenced by which GM's they have had, and 'who you know' becomes > a > >major influence. I strongly feel that character's should have the SAME > >opportunities for developement, to keep things fair between players. > > There is this 'theory' going around that says, more or less, that if you > allow DMs to be able to influence the player character, then some players > may be advantaged because of favouritism. I think the argument is different: it is not a matter of GMs choosing to heap bounty on some of their players' PCs and send assassins after others. It is rather a matter of which players play with which GMs. Some GMs may be much more prone than others to give out spells not taught at the guild. If I, as a player, do not often play with these particular GMs, then after 6 years of playing I will likely have a character with no spells not taught at the guild, whereas another player's character may have the complete set after 2 years. I am not opposed, however, to spells being in the book that are not taught at the guild. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 09:33:30 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA18136; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:33:30 +1200 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA18133 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:33:29 +1200 Message-ID: <37851913.8EAB862E@peace.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:33:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin Dickson wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Parkinson [SMTP:M.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz] > > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 11:56 AM > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? > > > > Dear all, > > > > Your reactions & thoughts please: > > > > It has been suggested to me that the *only* languages with exceedingly > > complex grammar .... should go to rank 10 > > ... > > > > Language going to Rank 9 would be those that support diverse > > Civilizations .... ,... > > > > Languages going to Rank 8 would be "normal" human tongues... > > I think 1) The most important point - it isn't broken, so don't fix it. 2) The complexity of the language depends on the beings that speak it. Any language that is widely used will acquire complexity until reaches the level of complexity appropriate to the beings that use it. If necessary, it will import this complexity from other languages. 3) You will pointlessly upset all the players whose characters have ranked their languages beyond the new maximum rank. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 10:30:53 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA18202; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:30:53 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA18199 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:30:51 +1200 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:31:16 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62) id <01BEC9F6.3ECA5DA0@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:31:46 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:31:44 +1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz From the DQ97 rules, Character Gen - languages, it said: 3. If a magic user, then they must have rank 8 in their native tongue and be literate in that language also. This was dropped in the DQ98 rules as literacy to the required point for magic use became compulsory as part of the character background. However, the "rule" was never dropped, just made implicit - though common can now be substituted for their native tongue. I suggest that we do not change this rule. Andrew >---------- >From: Michael Parkinson[SMTP:M.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz] > >NB: It was suggested that the minimum Rank for Magic use might then be >[dropped to] Rank 7. ***Actually there is NO minimum language rank >required for a mage, in the rules. The two closest passages are: > >Page 13: A Guild member will be literate in at least one language and >literacy is required to learn magic. > >Page 35: Alternatively, the Adept may instead opt to prepare a scroll (in a >language in which they have a minimum of Rank 8 literacy). .. Triggering a >prepared scroll takes a full ten seconds and may only be done by someone >literate in the language in which the scroll is written. The scroll must be >read aloud without interruption. > >Regards, Michael > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 15:16:36 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA18459; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:16:36 +1200 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA18456 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:16:34 +1200 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.2/8.9.2/8.9.2-ua) with SMTP id PAA28739 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:15:57 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907090315.PAA28739@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:19:07 +0000 Subject: Re: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz, dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Your reactions & thoughts please: > > > > It has been suggested to me that the *only* languages with exceedingly > > complex grammar .... should go to rank 10 > > ... > > I think > > 1) The most important point - it isn't broken, so don't fix it. The Language document was in need of changes, the extant version has some definite errors & I intend a replacement version that is as correct and complete as is practical & desired by other players. > 2) The complexity of the language depends on the beings that speak it. Any > language that is widely used will acquire complexity until reaches the level of > complexity appropriate to the beings that use it. If necessary, it will import > this complexity from other languages. Agreed, this is one way that languages grow; hence an argument that the maximum rankd *should* be different NOT the same. E.g., see the suggested criteria human tongues *should* be rank 8 & some rank 9. But "complexity" is not merely vocabulary, or imported concepts novel to the native culture. Some complexity is inherrent to the language itself (multiple or redundant tenses; irregular forms; moods; complex declinations or conjugations; separate dual forms; etc). At the other extreme, Esperanto has only 16 Grammatical rules and NO exceptions (even the poetical forms are covered by these rules). > 3) You will pointlessly upset all the players whose characters have ranked > their languages beyond the new maximum rank. Not if, as usual, they get the time & ep back to spend on other things (If they are kean on languages, it will be other languages). I suspect you'll find that those characters with high ranks will probably want the distinction. So you now speak LaLange at Rank 9, not Rank 10 -- the point is you speak it at its maximum; the character who has spent time ranking LaLange to Rank 9 or Rank 10 is (I suspect) less likely to believe that Goblin should be rankable as high as LaLange. Sure, in some cases this is linguistic snobbery. But our system has e.p. & rank as a method of determining the effort of learning one skill compared to another. Given that no-one wants a seperate set of e.p. costs for each individual language (or sets of languages of similar status), the easiest way to distinguish between variable efforts required to gain maximum mastery in different languages is [probably] by maximum rank. No matter how hard it tries, a broadsword will never be a rapier. Conversely, we decide that all humanoid languages go to Rank 10 -- perhaps in a hissy-fit of namby-pamby PC-ness, or from a morbid desire to see ALL skills rankable to rank 10 [except weapons, that is]. If so, we should NOT pretend that it is a reflection of the intrinsic nature or versatility of language. Having said all that, thank you for your response. I asked for opinions & you gave yours promptly. Kind regards, Michael Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 -------------------------------- I say that as far as the truth of which mathematical proofs give us knowledge, it is the same truth that Divine wisdom recognises -- Galileo (tr.), "Diologo." -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Jul 9 19:20:08 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA18672; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:20:08 +1200 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA18669 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:20:07 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p358-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.104]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA09658; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:19:24 +1200 Subject: Re: Different Maximum mastery means different Max Rank? Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:20:24 +1200 Message-ID: <01bec9db$8301b2e0$68e86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Michael wrote: > >Some complexity is inherrent to the language itself (multiple or >redundant tenses; irregular forms; moods; complex declinations or >conjugations; separate dual forms; etc). A complex grammatical structure does not make it a difficult one to master. Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their own rules, or that don't have only a few rules. Nouns with many different declensions don't add to semantic value...They just cut down on the the number of words it takes to express something in. If anything, languages with complex grammars or huge vocabularies or both, just make a language more precise. That is to say, it is more possible to describe a thing exclusively, without resorting to jargonism. Language reflects the use that people put it to. It doesn't limit their understanding of the world. In some languages forms that only exist in the neuter gender. This doesn't mean that these people are confused about gender. It just means that this arbitrary rule of grammar has been accepted, and other ways are found to describe gender. Some dialects of Chinese have no word for 'no'. This doesn't make these people capable of saying 'no'. They just do it in a different. Whether or not you wish to model some languages as more complex than others, I suggest that it is a less than valuable endeavour. Not because I think that all pc races magically deserve a native language they can rank to 10 if the passion so siezes them, but because I think that this won't achieve the end desired. If the aim is to suggest that, say, Elven, is a more complex, convoluted language, able to convey subtle shades of meaning lost upon mortal races, then open another language skill...Court Elven, or something. Give it the same training and ep costs, but make it hard to acquire. Presumably, only those elves of gentle birth or higher would have the opportunity to begin their characters with it. Other characters might have to adventure to learn it. >Sure, in some cases this is linguistic snobbery. But our system has e.p. >& rank as a method of determining the effort of learning one skill >compared to another. Given that no-one wants a seperate set of e.p. >costs for each individual language (or sets of languages of similar >status), the easiest way to distinguish between variable efforts required >to gain maximum mastery in different languages is [probably] by maximum >rank. No matter how hard it tries, a broadsword will never be a rapier. > >Conversely, we decide that all humanoid languages go to Rank 10 -- >perhaps in a hissy-fit of namby-pamby PC-ness, or from a morbid desire to >see ALL skills rankable to rank 10 [except weapons, that is]. If so, we >should NOT pretend that it is a reflection of the intrinsic nature or >versatility of language. > Languages are as versatile as the people using them. Otherwise, writers the world over would give up on their native languages and only use English, Russian and Mandarin. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --