From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 08:32:28 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA21749; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:32:28 +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 IAA21746 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:32:26 +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 IAA12800 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:30:19 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907112030.IAA12800@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:33:29 +0000 Subject: Re: 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, & Bystanders The point is that some languages ARE harder to learn than others, even if you'll only admit to [quote] > Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their > own rules, or that don't have only a few rules. ========= Concerning your other responses: > >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. Gees Jim. How can you NOT see that it takes absolutely less Memory to learn a language that has NO grammatical genders, especially as it crucial to fluent speaking and effects other grammatical choices -- especially in languages that do not have a normal word order. Ergo, it should take less EP. Even if the character already speaks a language WITH genders, they will have some difficulty with transvestite words. > 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. The point is that it still requires a GREATER amount of memory (& presumably effort). The major objection to the draft document (& hence the original document) was that there was no absolute measure of what could be done at a particular rank. Since you conceed that it does take different amounts of effort to learn languages to particular levels, why can you not see that it takes less effort to learn one sort of DQ language to mastery than another sort. We DON'T have to specify what the difference is (although some of the factors I mention may well be relevant). It is sufficient that there really IS a difference in the absolute effort required; hence the absolute effor. Oops outa time -- I'll respond to your other comments at morning tea-time. I want to accomodate your view Jim, but you must be reasonable rather than argumentative for the sake of provocation, or whatever. 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 Mon Jul 12 09:00:50 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA21775; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:00:50 +1200 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id JAA21772 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:00:49 +1200 Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3WGA64Y0>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:54:13 +1200 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC0B86F6@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: RE: Harder to learn Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:54:11 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin 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 The way I see it, we want 2 main things out of languages: - That some are more complex than others. - That some are harder to learn than others. The level of complexity that can be communicated has been associated with Rank. So it makes sense to associate the complexity of a language with a max rank that can be achieved. At the moment all languages are equally hard/easy to learn to the same level of complexity. If everyone is happy with this "World Rule" then that's fine. Otherwise assign each language an EM between 100 and 300 based on the difficulty to learn it. So that leaves 2 descisions for each language. - How complex can it get? (Max Rank) - How hard is it to learn? (EM) Cheers, Stephen. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 09:11:35 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA21795; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:11:35 +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 JAA21792 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:11:33 +1200 Message-ID: <3789080B.AAB5C782@peace.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:09:31 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Harder to learn 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 Michael Parkinson wrote: > Dear Jim, & Bystanders > > The point is that some languages ARE harder to learn than others, even if > you'll only admit to [quote] > > > Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their > > own rules, or that don't have only a few rules. However, to my mind the fundamental point is that these differences are quite unimportant to DQ, and not worth the rules complexity to support them. The EP investment in a language is trivial compared to the time investment, so changing the EP costs won't have much effect on player's perception of the difficulty of a language. Changing the maximum rank to reflect these differences is simply wrong - rank reflects the complexity and subtly with which things may be expressed, not the difficulty of learning the language. Changing the ranking time would work, but why make a major exception to the rules for such a minor point? If you want some languages to be thought of as difficult, convoluted etc. the best way is to write a document describing the Allusian languages: Foobarian is spoken the north of the Foobar Archipeligo. It is famous for its complex genders, extreme insults and many words related to fish. As a minor error in grammar will turn almost any sentance into a deadly insult, and because the islanders take (litterally) violent offense, there are very few non-native speakers. Most sentences about fish can be expressed very compactly, but other topics typically take several times longer to express than in most languages. Due to the fact that questions are indicated by speaking while inhaling, many circumlocutions have evolved to elicit information without directly asking a question. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 09:13:47 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA21814; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:13:47 +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 JAA21811 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:13:46 +1200 Message-ID: <37890890.D22546F3@peace.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:11:45 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Harder to learn 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 Stephen Martin wrote: > The way I see it, we want 2 main things out of languages: > - That some are more complex than others. > - That some are harder to learn than others. Why? What does it add to the game? If it is flavour, why are you trying to add flavour through the rules, rather than by writing campaign background documents? -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 10:29:27 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA21885; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:29:27 +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 KAA21882 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:29:25 +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 ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:27:55 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62) id <01BECC51.48E77C20@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:28:30 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Harder to learn Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:28:27 +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 Because (almost) no one reads/remembers campaign background documents. (Most) people modify their behaviour primarily based on rules. Sad, but true. BTW, I think that what we want is a list of languages and where they are spoken, so the PCs & NPCs can communicate appropriately. The rest is optional, and needs to add more value than complexity. Andrew >---------- >From: Michael Woodhams[SMTP:michaelw@peace.com] >> The way I see it, we want 2 main things out of languages: >> - That some are more complex than others. >> - That some are harder to learn than others. > >Why? What does it add to the game? If it is flavour, why are you trying to >add >flavour through the rules, rather than by writing campaign background >documents? -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 10:48:15 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA21919; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:48:15 +1200 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA21916 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:48:14 +1200 Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3XQTZS25>; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:41:30 +1200 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC0B86F7@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: RE: Harder to learn Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:41:28 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin 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 Quick Clarification: I wasn't saying that the only things we wanted out of the language rewrite were measures of complexity, I am seeking a simple answer to the only issue that remains contentious. The language document is great and I don't want to see it stalled/killed over one last issue. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) [SMTP:AndrewW@falum.co.nz] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 10:28 AM > > BTW, I think that what we want is a list of languages and where they are > spoken, so the PCs & NPCs can communicate appropriately. The rest is > optional, and needs to add more value than complexity. > > Andrew > >---------- > >From: Michael Woodhams[SMTP:michaelw@peace.com] > >> The way I see it, we want 2 main things out of languages: > >> - That some are more complex than others. > >> - That some are harder to learn than others. > > > >Why? What does it add to the game? If it is flavour, why are you trying > to > >add > >flavour through the rules, rather than by writing campaign background > >documents? > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 10:50:22 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA21937; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:50:22 +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 KAA21934 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:50:15 +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 KAA02298 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:48:01 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907112248.KAA02298@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:51:12 +0000 Subject: Re: 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 M.W. wrote: > Stephen Martin wrote: > > > The way I see it, we want 2 main things out of languages: > > - That some are more complex than others. > > - That some are harder to learn than others. > > Why? What does it add to the game? The point that of Martin's weapon analogy, I feel. I think Stephen has neatly summarised 2 key aims which are relevant to the structure I was aiming to give languages. Stephen also wrote: > Otherwise assign each language an EM between 100 and 300 based on > the difficulty to learn it. I'm game if other GMs are; but I suspect that they are not. [Please correct me, if you feel otherwise]. The old draft proposal had a more elegant ep scale: mostly the same, overall for low ranks -- but very expensive at high ranks. Although the figures may not have been less arbitrary than the current rules, it made it easier to use simple "[Rank - x]" modifiers for related languages. Unfortunately I suspected that, depite its elegance, the new EP would not be favoured -- so I dropped the EP modification, and depowered the effect of High ranks. The "penult" version which I posted keeps the old basic ep costs. Important questions: Do people want the basic EP values for languages to change ?? If so, in what manner ? Do people wish to see the rewite of the skill to be based on the extant EP values ? 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 -------------------------------- If you divide the various sciences and learned disciplines in accordance with their subject matter, you will find the first and deepest line of cleavage between mathematics on the one side and the whole remaining body of human knowledge on the other. -- "Norbert Wiener: Collected works" v.1 p.234 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 11:27:35 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA21973; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:27:35 +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 LAA21970 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:27:34 +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 LAA07941 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:25:23 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907112325.LAA07941@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 11:28:33 +0000 Subject: Re: 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 Michael Woodhams wrote: > However, to my mind the fundamental point is that these > differences are quite unimportant to DQ, and not worth the > rules complexity to support them. That's why I'm suggesting a distinction between maiximum ranks of 8, 9, & 10. One digit is sufficient to distinguish between these 3 cases. That very little w.r.t. rules complexity. It's a bit clunkly, sure: but we're used to that with weapon ranks. It's easy to apply. The only complexity lies behind the reasons why Destinian is, say, Rank 8 and Lalange is Rank 9. All of which is child's play compared with tweaking the base chances or maximum ranks of weapons. Remember the set-up intends that You CAN say anything at Rank 8 that you can at Rank 10. The advantages for high ranks apply more to the grand scheme of things, an understanding of the language as a whole & its relationship to other languages. I suspect that only troubadors & philosophers will seak high ranks -- and even then only SOME, not all, will make this decision. Others will rightly perceive that it is more EP efficient to know *more* languages at upto Rank 8, than to know *fewer* but at Ranks 9 or 10. > The EP investment in a language is trivial compared to the > time investment, so changing the EP costs won't have much > effect on player's perception of the difficulty of a language. Actually it is far from trival! The base absolute cost, for ranks 6,7,8,9&10 is 3,450 5,150 7,400 10,300 & 13,800 Indeed if you want to look at the *weekly* cost it is, at proposed normal skill-type ranking [e.g. 7 weeks to go from rank 6 to rank7] respectively 493; 736; 1057; 1471; 1971. Similarly at "weapons" rate 246, 368, 529, 736, 986] The difference between learning a language at Rank 8 & at 10, is about the cost of learning an entirely NEW language to Rank 8. Indeed many adventurers will prefer to have TWO extra languages at Rank 6, sufficient for every-day communication, than ONE extra at rank 8. > If you want some languages to be thought of as difficult, > convoluted etc. the best way is to write a document describing > the Allusian languages: I'd be happy to prepare a web page with this sort of detail on it. And your example is a cute one -- but if the language is *specified* as "complex" how much EP will it take to go to Rank X, Y, or Z if I do want to learn the language. You seem to have given an example which REQUIRES some sort of differentiation from the normal cost of a language. How would you do this? 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 -------------------------------- If you divide the various sciences and learned disciplines in accordance with their subject matter, you will find the first and deepest line of cleavage between mathematics on the one side and the whole remaining body of human knowledge on the other. -- "Norbert Wiener: Collected works" v.1 p.234 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Jul 12 17:27:39 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA22270; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:27:39 +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 RAA22267 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:27:36 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p315-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.255.75]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA05851; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:25:15 +1200 Subject: Re: Harder to learn Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:29:54 +1200 Message-ID: <01becc27$9296cda0$4bff6dcb@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, & Bystanders > >The point is that some languages ARE harder to learn than others, even if >you'll only admit to [quote] > >> Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their >> own rules, or that don't have only a few rules. > >========= >Concerning your other responses: > >> >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. > >Gees Jim. How can you NOT see that it takes absolutely less Memory to >learn a language that has NO grammatical genders, especially as it crucial >to fluent speaking and effects other grammatical choices -- especially in >languages that do not have a normal word order. >Ergo, it should take less EP. Even if the character already speaks a >language WITH genders, they will have some difficulty with transvestite >words. Yes, there are a few complications with languages that use gender. But on the whole, languages that use nominal genders are also remarkably regular. What you lose on one side of the equation, you gain on the other. In general, languages are pretty much as easy to learn as others. Yes, some languages are more difficult than others, but the difference is minor, and mostly only in a particular way that is outside of the scope of a roleplaying game to handily represent. If you attempt to model every single aspect of life in a roleplaying game, then it strikes me that you're likely to waste your time on trivia in the face of the gapingly large holes in the rest of the system. This is not to say that I think the effort shouldn't be made...Just that I don't think it should be enshrined in the rules.If what you are saying is 'Is this a good model of languages?', then I might agree, because I just don't care enough about the specifics of your points. But, as I understand it, you want to add a rule to the game that I see as time-wasting, at this stage, and in pursuance of telling a story, as well. It adds little to the game, and in fact offers many opportunities to fracture the opportunities of players to interact together. > > >> 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. > >The point is that it still requires a GREATER amount of memory (& >presumably effort). The major objection to the draft document (& hence >the original document) was that there was no absolute measure of what >could be done at a particular rank. Since you conceed that it does take >different amounts of effort to learn languages to particular levels, why >can you not see that it takes less effort to learn one sort of DQ >language to mastery than another sort. We DON'T have to specify what the >difference is (although some of the factors I mention may well be >relevant). It is sufficient that there really IS a difference in the >absolute effort required; hence the absolute effor. > Well, I may have become so carried away with my argument that I forgot to make the point that a language without case, gender or number considerations, or verbs that don't conjugate for tense, mood, and person are complex in other ways. Some parts of learning a language are hard and others are easy. For example, Latin is quite hard to learn because it is so inflected. However, once you've learnt those rules, it's a remarkably regular language. Once you've mastered the basics of the language, then it becomes very easy to learn. It only becomes difficult again at the top end, when you're talking about things like poetic usage or special kinds of constructions that are clearly vernacular to their era. The point I'm making is that the difficulty of a language is most likely to be because of the degree of difference between your natal tongue, and the new one. For example, let us say your natal tongue was French, and the language you're trying to learn is Mandarin Chinese. Learning the four required vocal tones as well as the phonemes of the language makes it very hard to learn. There are other reasons why it's difficult, but that will do for now. In contrast, if you're natal language was Japanese, you'd find Mandarin much less difficult to learn. >Oops outa time -- I'll respond to your other comments at morning tea-time. > I want to accomodate your view Jim, but you must be reasonable rather >than argumentative for the sake of provocation, or whatever. I'm not being argumentative, unreasonable or provocative. I don't agree with you. You're accusation is foundationless and personal. I would have said it was baseless, however, I feel strongly that it is particularly base. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --