Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

KaseiII · 2003-08-30 11:09:23

I was just wondering here, could I please have some answers please.

Which Do you think, Italian or Japanese, would be the best language for Mars? Opinions... (But please stick to Italian or Japanese, the other Lang. Topic covers all languages).

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-30 13:44:50

Hi KaseiII, what is your favorite language?

My friend is learning Japanese, though, despite Italian being considered quite difficult, I believe I would prefer Italian, due to the symbolic (and I believe complicated) nature of Japanese.

Plus, I think I can pronounce Italian better!

Why the constraints, BTW?

(edit, mistype!)

Free Spirit · 2003-08-30 13:58:56

Which qualities make a language suitable to Mars? Except for maybe the amount of vocabulary there's really no such thing as a language that's superior to another. Is Portuguese superior to French? Is Inuit superior to English? They're all just flapping of the tongue with a few cultural idiosyncracies thrown in. Languages adapt to their situation, so I'm sure if some Eskimos got stranded on Mars they'd develop the jargon they need to communicate with each other in no time. So to get to the point I'd say both Italian and Japanese are equally suitable.

Spider-Man · 2003-08-30 19:58:01

I think Kasei's point is, given the choice, which would work better? indeed, which is superior? I believe he cites Italian and Japanese because they are the two most phonetic (major) languages in the world, one a great representative for the East, the other for the West.

At first glance, Japanese looks a lot like Italian, with its frequent vowel endings, its greater proprotionality of vowels to consonants, and its fairly elegant appearance. Japanese is a wonderful language, to be sure, and I admire it very much. However, despite its potential grace, Japanese is often spoken very gutterally, haltingly, and in no way takes advantage of its phonetic fluidity. From a musical and aesthetic viewpoint, modern pronunciation of Japanese definitely appears to be inferior to the lovely melodies inherent to Italian speech.

True, neither Italian nor Japanese necessarily is "better" specifically for Mars, but Italian is definitely prettier, as nice as Japanese can sound when sung. Actually, the "best" language for communication, on Mars or Earth, would doubtlessly be English ? and I don't say this from an Anglocentric point of view, but a linguistic and lyrical one. English is the most poetic of languages, in part due to the classicism of its aesthetic sound, but mainly due to its awesome power of description. There are more words in our lexicon than any other language; the second largest lexicon is Russian, which has no more than a quarter of the words as in English; and then French is in third, with only a sixteenth the vocabulary as we have. There is also tremendous variety in English, stemming from a rich cultural linguistic history that grows from traditions of nearly every language and nation in the world. As a sampling of so very much, and having a power to describe like no other, English is doubtlessly the best language to carry the flag of Earth to Mars, and beyond.

Free Spirit · 2003-08-31 00:19:35

From a lyrical and phonetic point of view, I don't understand why Italian would be any more appealing than Portuguese, Spanish, or French. To be honest though, if someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote on which language I would have to speak on Mars I'd pick the easier of the two to learn since I really have no preference based on other criteria.

Spider-Man · 2003-08-31 02:19:11

I'll happily clarify for you, Free Spirit.

The two Iberian languages differ from classical Latin in that they have a number of gutteral qualities not found in the Roman tongue. For instance, Spanish has many of Gaulish sounds, like "-ch" as in "ach", similar to the German sound (like "Bach"), as with the letters "x" (Quixote, Mexico) and "j" (Quijana, rojo). Also unfortunately for these languages, they tend to end more frequently in consonants, even more often than Latin, stifling fluidity and harshening the sound (in the way that German has a harsher sound to the untrained ear).

French only resembles Latin by the appearance of the words themselves and the origin of the vocabulary. There are no other similarities, least of all in pronunciation. Of all the Vulgar tongues that became the Romance languages, French is by far the most vulgarized, having a wishy, washy sound to it. This can sound rather nice, and spoken well, French can be quite lovely, as can Portuguese and even Spanish.
But French has very weak vowel sounds, schwas and many other unstressed sounds as can be found in English, making it very indefinite, inarticulate, and dulled. More than that, French, heavily influenced by Frankish (a Germanic language), has many gutteral sounds as well, far more even than the Iberian languages, the "proper" sound frequently coming out like a caughing, sickened, even nasal sound.

Italian, the old dialect of the Medieval Tuscans, has the virtue of being wholly musical, in a number of ways. It has absolutely no gutteral, Gaulish, or Germanic quality, allowing it absolute fluidity at the front of the mouth, providing for perfect articulation, ideal for singing. Italian ends in vowels more frequently than almost any other language, allow for a wonderful rapidity and elegant transition from one word to the next as the phrases flow off the tongue like water, or honey, also making it perfect for singing. Best of all is its closeness to Latin, its perfection of Latin, taking all the best of vocabulary, and improving vastly on the overbuilt Roman grammar, giving it such simplicity and logic as is unseen in any other European language, including German.

Indeed, with a gun to your head, Free Spirit, you would choose Italian. Granted, the other Romance languages can sound great, and are all worth learning; but as far as pure aesthetics go, it's hard to beat la lingua pi? bella.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-09-07 18:09:09

Spider-Man;

Japanese is almost entirely unphonetic.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-07 21:29:16

You may be thinking of Chinese. I don't claim to be any more than an amateur aficionado of either language, of course. Nevertheless, Japanese is extraordinarily phonetic, to a point which arguably rivals Italian; observe:

http://www.harapan.co.jp/english/japan/hiragana.htm

The Japanese alphabet is composed of three subalphabets, the Hiragana, the Katakana, and the Kanji.

The Kanji are derived from Chinese characters that they borrowed centuries ago; they are the unphonetic symbols you may be thinking of (one requires working knowledge of about a hundred Kanji in order to read a Japanese newspaper). Think of the Kanji as a more difficult version of really odd words in English that can only be understood and differentiated by knowing the language (such as 'rough,' 'through,' etcetera, or any number of borrowed words).

The Hiragana is the standard alphabet that composes most of Japanese writing. As you can see on that website, it is totally phonetic (maybe not as clear and simple as the Roman alphabet, but definitely very syllabical), using different versions of the syllables depending on the vowel and consonant change (not unlike Elvish, if you've studied Tolkien languages).

Japanese also has the Katakana, a group of syllables with identical comparable pronunciations to the Hiragana, but with a totally different appearance (it's like having more than one way of writing a letter, kind of like how very different capital letters look from lowercase in Roman). The Katakana is used exclusively for foreign words or terms, so that once a Japanese reader sees the Katakana letters, he recognizes them instantly as being for non-Japanese, lowering confusion especially if the foreign term bares a spelling that would otherwise resemble a regular Japanese word. (A hilarious example of this is demonstrated in Austin Powers: Gold Member, where Austin meets the Japenese Fuk Twins, Fuk Yu and Fuk Mi. Such delightful bits of comedic embarrassment are frequent between East and West due to the fundamental differences between cultures and languages alike, only now in the present being fused together, with potentially disasterous and severely jocose consequences.)

Gage · 2003-09-08 01:03:27

Languages develop over time, branching into dialects, and eventually becoming new languages. English and German are an example of this.

Over a period of generations, a mixing of languages would eventually lead to a new language.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-09-08 11:55:12

Spider-Man;

No, I was thinking of Japanese. I know they have both ideographs and letters. The ideographs are in no sense phonetic and you can't read based on phonics. At most it's semi-phonetic, like English.

And I'm curious where you get the idea Italian is some gold standard of phoneticality. Russian, Spanish, just about any language with an alphabetic script (except English) is phonetic. It looked like a simple malapropism, since you went on to "prove" how phonetic it is by a prolix explaination of why you think it's pretty.

(And the Kanji are more like @, &, and 2 used to mean to or too than words like rough, which used to be phonetic. "Gh" meant the same thing as German "ch" or Russian "X")

Spider-Man · 2003-09-08 22:09:28

Spider-Man;

I find your emphatic, empassioned desire to prove me wrong quite charming, really.

No, I was thinking of Japanese. I know they have both ideographs and letters. The ideographs are in no sense phonetic and you can't read based on phonics. At most it's semi-phonetic, like English.

...No, that would be incorrect. The Kanji are not truly essential to Japanese (they're actually Chinese, after all, inserted into Japanese). Ignoring the Kanji, Japanese is more phonetic than any Western language, including Italian. Pronunciation is a different story...

And I'm curious where you get the idea Italian is some gold standard of phoneticality.

Heh, well, it is, in European tongues. There are plenty of oddities found in Vulgar Latin, and in Classical Latin, Italian having the fewest. These nonphonetic peculiarities include -gn-, as in Romagna, pronounced more like romania, but with a more consonantal quality before the 'a'; meglio, the 'g' again being silent in favor of adding a consonantal 'i' after the 'l'; and other than a few more idiosyncrasies inherent to the language at a fundamental level, that's about it. Spanish, Portuguese, Romany, mainly with their odd accents and peculiar uses of certain vowels, are not quite as high as Italian. But Italian's virtue is in musicality, more than phoneticality.

Russian, Spanish, just about any language with an alphabetic script (except English) is phonetic.

I find your anti-English bias as well to be charming; you've ignored so very many languages that are not phonetic at all. Let's start with the Teutons, for one can cite German right off as being phonetical, but not fully phonetic (the differentiation between those synonyms my own, "phonetical" having the essence of phonetic pronunciation, but lacking truly, purely phonetic quality, if you will bear with the interpretation). German is logical, and understandable quite easily, and follows a set of rules for pronunciation; but not every letter is pronounced to have a specific and singular sound. German has peculiar, nonphonetic diphthongs (as French does, which is one of its failings among others).

For instance, the German 'e' does not have a constant pronunciation. At the end of the word, it falls off as a schwa (as in the wife of Mozart, Constanze, phonetically 'kO-stahn-zah', more or less). When preceeded by an 'i', the diphthong becomes 'E', as in "Eek!". When followed by 'i', the diphthong is as the English 'I'. This is logical, and the rules can be remembered, but it is definitely not phonetic. Japanese is.

It looked like a simple malapropism, since you went on to "prove" how phonetic it is by a prolix explaination of why you think it's pretty.

I believe that is precisely what this thread is about, signore. Your being critical of my quantity of speech is, at best, humorous ? at worst, pitiful. My goal here is to discuss, to debate, to learn, not to engage in petty arguments, as much as I am not guiltless in that regard either.

(And the Kanji are more like @, &, and 2 used to mean to or too than words like rough, which used to be phonetic. "Gh" meant the same thing as German "ch" or Russian "X")

I hope you'll forgive the clearly generalized point of reference I was trying to give for those readers unfamiliar with symbollic writing. I pray you'll overlook this transgression.

Simply, Japanese is quite phonetic. The Hiragana and Katakana are one hundred percent phonetic. The Kanji are symbollic, and therefore not phonetical.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-09-09 01:33:03

The Kanji are not truly essential to Japanese (they're actually Chinese, after all, inserted into Japanese). Ignoring the Kanji, Japanese is more phonetic than any Western language, including Italian.

Except the the tiny detail that the Japanese don't ignore the Kanji. But why let a little thing like that impede the Language Arbiter?

Heh, well, it is, in European tongues. There are plenty of oddities found in Vulgar Latin, and in Classical Latin, Italian having the fewest. These nonphonetic peculiarities include -gn-, as in Romagna, pronounced more like romania, but with a more consonantal quality before the 'a'; meglio, the 'g' again being silent in favor of adding a consonantal 'i' after the 'l'; and other than a few more idiosyncrasies inherent to the language at a fundamental level, that's about it. Spanish, Portuguese, Romany, mainly with their odd accents and peculiar uses of certain vowels, are not quite as high as Italian. But Italian's virtue is in musicality, more than phoneticality.

Russian, I believe, is more phonetic, although there may be surprises when I get further in.

I find your anti-English bias as well to be charming; you've ignored so very many languages that are not phonetic at all. Let's start with the Teutons, for one can cite German right off as being phonetical, but not fully phonetic (the differentiation between those synonyms my own, "phonetical" having the essence of phonetic pronunciation, but lacking truly, purely phonetic quality, if you will bear with the interpretation). German is logical, and understandable quite easily, and follows a set of rules for pronunciation; but not every letter is pronounced to have a specific and singular sound. German has peculiar, nonphonetic diphthongs (as French does, which is one of its failings among others).
For instance, the German 'e' does not have a constant pronunciation. At the end of the word, it falls off as a schwa (as in the wife of Mozart, Constanze, phonetically 'kO-stahn-zah', more or less). When preceeded by an 'i', the diphthong becomes 'E', as in "Eek!". When followed by 'i', the diphthong is as the English 'I'. This is logical, and the rules can be remembered, but it is definitely not phonetic. Japanese is.

My anti-English bias? So now the Language Arbiter thinks noticing that fact that English has screwy spellings makes you anti-English. Yet another reason why, dispite initial appearances, you are not to be taken seriously.

It's obvious to anyone who knows English. (Which necessarily implies that YOU know it.) It also doesn't say if English has other factors that outweigh it. Or even if it's worth continuing now that it exists so people can read old books, ect.

I believe that is precisely what this thread is about, signore. Your being critical of my quantity of speech is, at best, humorous ? at worst, pitiful. My goal here is to discuss, to debate, to learn, not to engage in petty arguments, as much as I am not guiltless in that regard either.

The only criticism about the length is the fact it had nothing to do with the true meaning of "phonetic". Italian can be pretty as all get-out and have absolute fluidity wherever you want. It's still only phonetic because of the writting system. Or maybe you just jumped from one subject to another without saying so.

BTW, the whole argument is inherently stupid: if you're willing to posit a colony willing to switch to a whole different language for a few minor or imagined benefits (which is already stupid), there's no reason not to reform or replace the writing system while you're at it. Or go with an invented language.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-09 05:38:08

Spider-Man, I've neither the linguistic wherewithal nor the slightest desire to become immersed in this seemingly fruitless argument!
However, might I draw your attention to the pronunciation of the name 'Constanze'?
Sifting through the ragged remains of what's left of my memory of the German language [ ], I think I would be inclined to pronounce the name as Kon-stahn- tseh.

A trifling point, to be sure, though one you may care to dispute. If so, I'm prepared to listen.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 05:45:20

Thank you, Shaun, you're absolutely right; I wasn't at all sure which was the best way to represent the German sounds in English. I've gotten so used to German that I've forgotten how to explain it properly.

Nat?rlich kann ich Deutsch sprechen, und ich weiss, wie W?rter gesagt sind, aber nicht wenn die deutsche W?rter ins Englisch gehen.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-09 13:33:43

I think I'll stick with English. Apparently it's actually one of the hardest languages to learn.

Gennaro · 2003-10-27 02:03:07

Gather they'll speak whatever language used by the nation who founds a given settlement.
:;):

Most will probably be English speaking though, because of the US and since it's the lingua franca in all of Europe. Chinese colonies however, will probably speak mandarin.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-06 16:29:28

An old discussion on language and culture

the people of Mars will probably pick their own language, for now the big players would be America-English and Chinese-Mandarin but it depends who arrives on the first colonies and what cultures grow and dominate, it may even be something non-human mixed with Cyborg enhancements, the Homoid Robots and Cyber-People might be able to walkk outside without suits, the humans will have helped other life and machine evolve but they might be something of a past curiosity across the offworld planets like an old animal seen in a jungle in Brazil or Africa or India, that is not to say humans will not make a great contribution to Galactic spanning worlds but changes are there will be evolutions, enhancements and the human of old will be passed by something augmented.

the humans might invent their own lnguage their own dialect or slang, 'Interlingvo' of Franglais, Spanglish, Engrish or Chinglish or whatever

in a location of noise or lack of air, the Cybernetic machine bio-metalic man might use signs, radio blips, colors and hand signals

Police Officer uses Sign Language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4OcZX0hsU

'Langue des signes française'

https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Langue_de … %C3%A7aise

South Africa

sign language

https://web.archive.org/web/20100521215 … istory.htm

Japan

Deaf community requests enactment of the sign language law
https://web.archive.org/web/20110708032 … nt-of.html

Busy Aircraft, marshalling is visual signalling between ground personnel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLoQWxbPMoU

Carrier signals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqHqwT0md8

fireman hand signals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09C1TyE7X38

local teachers or authority might try promote an artificial language like Esperanto the world's most widely spoken constructed language, an interconnecting auxiliary language a mix of Pigin Romance Latin and old French Lingua, the contact language of ship traders and pirates and shop keepers from the 11th to the 19th centuries.

Space could have political and legal complexity, AI would be of benefit as being almost as skilled in translation as a human but can also translate far more languages at once than a human can.

and AI has risks

Language expert warns against the risk of free translation tools for high stakes tasks
https://www.usatoday.com/story/special/ … 856067007/

China and Space

#pdf

Submission by the Delegation of China to the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/co … ources.pdf

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (hereinafter referred to as “the Outer Space Treaty”), as the cornerstone of the existing international space law, provides the fundamental principles for all outer space
activities including space resource activities. The Chinese Delegation believes that

any discussion of the rules governing space resource activities should be within the framework of international space law with the Outer Space Treaty as its basis. The fundamental principles enshrined therein, including but not limited to peaceful use of outer space, for the benefit and in the interests of all humankind, non-appropriation, international cooperation, due regard and compliance with international law including the UN Charter, shall be applicable to space resource activities.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-06 17:48:37)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-30 11:09:23

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#2 2003-08-30 13:44:50

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#3 2003-08-30 13:58:56

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#4 2003-08-30 19:58:01

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#5 2003-08-31 00:19:35

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#6 2003-08-31 02:19:11

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#7 2003-09-07 18:09:09

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#8 2003-09-07 21:29:16

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#9 2003-09-08 01:03:27

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#10 2003-09-08 11:55:12

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#11 2003-09-08 22:09:28

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#12 2003-09-09 01:33:03

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#13 2003-09-09 05:38:08

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#14 2003-09-09 05:45:20

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#15 2003-09-09 13:33:43

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#16 2003-10-27 02:03:07

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

#17 2024-03-06 16:29:28

Re: Languages, Return of the - A simple question, opinions please

Board footer