From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Jul 10 14:42:38 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA19396; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:42:38 +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 OAA19393 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:42:37 +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 OAA04090 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:41:28 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907100241.OAA04090@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:44:38 +0000 Subject: Harder to learn 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 Dear Jim & All I fully agree with Jim that some languages are harder to learn than others. Indeed my *main* point is that some require more EP ["effort"] to achieve *maximum* or near maximum mastery, NOT > ... to suggest that, say, Elven, is a more complex, convoluted language, > able to convey subtle shades of meaning lost upon mortal races, Actually I think that ANY language at Rank 8 should be able to express ANY conceivable feeling or thought, since [p.136] "A character may not become a Philosopher unless they possess at least one language at Rank 8, and are literate in that language." Furthermore *no* skill require a language above rank-8, not even to gain rank 8, 9, or 10. Jim has perhaps confused the issue somewhat, so here are THREE examples of what I meant. no.1: In French "soleil" (sun) is Masculine & "lune" (moon) is Feminine; in German, it's the other way around. The concept of grammatical gender is an complications that makes some languages harder to learn. [More EP cost] no.2: English has almost completely lost the subjective mood, because we don't need it -- I know you can get a University Arts degree never having to recognise or use it. In some languages it is essential at the equivalent of primary school. E.g. In Italian, changing one word from the subjunctive to the indicative is the difference between "Close the window because Nana has a cold" and "Close the window in order that Nana gets a cold" no.3: In English, nominal modifiers are easy. To use the word "good" correctly, I only have to understand what it means and stick it in front of the word it modifies (i.e., describes); but to use the Latin word "bonus" properly, I have to know what it means AND ALSO the appropriate form it takes for each of 6 cases by 2 numbers by 3 genders. This is a lot to learn. It should take more EP to learn how to use "bonus" than it takes to learn how to use "good." Especially since every grammatical rule has exceptions. Similarly, in the sentence "The mad farmer's healthy black dog bit the wretched citizens" I only have to put the adjectives in the right *place*. Unfortunately in Latin "rabidus," "saluber," "niger," & "miser" are declined differently. If I make a mistake, I could be saying a completely different permutation of the English sentence... Blah, blah, blah (or is that Blus, Bla, Blum) I'm sorry if the word "complex" confused the matter. I merely suggest that some languages require more EP ["effort"] to achieve *maximum* mastery. This would especially be the case if a language involves multiple moods, dual forms, cases, ... etc to express what another language would express with prepositions. Both CAN say exactly the same thing; its just one takes more effort to learn correctly. Hence different Maximum Ranks. 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 Sat Jul 10 15:00:54 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA19426; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:00:54 +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 PAA19423 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:00:53 +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 OAA04662 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:59:45 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907100259.OAA04662@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 15:02:55 +0000 Subject: Rank 8 for magic 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 Thanks Andrew, > 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. ...that explains why I couldn't find it. If people do prefer the Rank-8 requirement to stay, then human languages should be Ranks 8 or 9 depending *primarily* on the absolute effort to learn the language, secondarily on the breadth of cultures that they span; -- also bearing in mind that ANY thought is expressible at Rank 8. Or do people think my previous mailing was wrong in this respect? 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 Sat Jul 10 22:14:30 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA19730; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:14:30 +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 WAA19727 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:14:29 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p200-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.200]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id WAA11460; Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:13:09 +1200 Subject: Re: Harder to learn Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:17:54 +1200 Message-ID: <01becabd$799cc720$c8f56dcb@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 >Dear Jim & All > >I fully agree with Jim that some languages are harder to learn than >others. Indeed my *main* point is that some require more EP ["effort"] to >achieve *maximum* or near maximum mastery, NOT > >> ... to suggest that, say, Elven, is a more complex, convoluted language, >> able to convey subtle shades of meaning lost upon mortal races, > >Actually I think that ANY language at Rank 8 should be able to express ANY >conceivable feeling or thought, since [p.136] "A character may not become >a Philosopher unless they possess at least one language at Rank 8, and are >literate in that language." Furthermore *no* skill require a language >above rank-8, not even to gain rank 8, 9, or 10. > >Jim has perhaps confused the issue somewhat, so here are THREE examples of >what I meant. > > >no.1: In French "soleil" (sun) is Masculine & "lune" (moon) is Feminine; >in German, it's the other way around. The concept of grammatical gender is >an complications that makes some languages harder to learn. [More EP cost] > Nope...I know exactly how gender works in languages from Greek and Latin to French and German. I don't think it's germane. Yes, it's a grammatical complication, but one that is subject to and consistent with predictable rules of grammar. I just don't accept that a language that is as regular as any of those languages is a difficult language to learn. It may slow you down to start with, in much the same way that learning a new alphabet may slow you down for a while, but once you get used to it, it's not that hard at all. It is merely a mechanical difficulty. One can quickly acquire the techniques to handle these languages. > >no.2: English has almost completely lost the subjective mood, because we >don't need it -- I know you can get a University Arts degree never having >to recognise or use it. In some languages it is essential at the >equivalent of primary school. E.g. In Italian, changing one word from >the subjunctive to the indicative is the difference between > >"Close the window because Nana has a cold" and >"Close the window in order that Nana gets a cold" > Yes, this is true. But it doesn't make it any more complex. If anything, the dismemberment of the subjunctive has made that particular mood very erratic in terms of meaning. Because its function is erratic, it is difficult to understand its purpose. Because it is not intuitively 'sensible' of meaning, again, the language as a whole becomes more complex. > >no.3: In English, nominal modifiers are easy. To use the word "good" >correctly, I only have to understand what it means and stick it in front >of the word it modifies (i.e., describes); but to use the Latin word >"bonus" properly, I have to know what it means AND ALSO the appropriate >form it takes for each of 6 cases by 2 numbers by 3 genders. This is a >lot to learn. It should take more EP to learn how to use "bonus" than it >takes to learn how to use "good." Especially since every grammatical rule >has exceptions. Similarly, in the sentence "The mad farmer's healthy >black dog bit the wretched citizens" I only have to put the adjectives in >the right *place*. Unfortunately in Latin "rabidus," "saluber," "niger," >& "miser" are declined differently. If I make a mistake, I could be >saying a completely different permutation of the English sentence... Blah, >blah, blah (or is that Blus, Bla, Blum) Again, purely mechanical. Consider this: Define a working adjectival order...In other words, why do we say 'the little old man' rather than 'the old little man'. Imagine trying to teach this to a someone. I suggest that languages are not much more complicated than others, really, except for languages that are in the midst of change. I don't accept the idea of common as a simple, esperanto like language. For a start, trade languages mutate depending on what is important for them to define. In one trade language you may not have a way of describing a coconut. In another, you may have dozens. The point is that trade languages evolve to meet the needs of the people using them. The less frequently a language is used, the less chaotic it becomes, and the more rigid its structure. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --