Languages in/around Mythic Europe

The more I think about it, the more I think languages should be distance based. You talk the language of your birth/education place. Then you can talk with anyone at up to 100-200 km (or whatever) distance with a 0 difficulty, then you accumulate a -1 for the next XX km and so on until you do not understand each other. You only need broad frontiers between language groups if you do that. Language unification is an extremely modern thing, based on universalisation of modern nation-based education systems and media, specially TV.

As Mario points out the Iberian languages would not seem to be that similar at the time. They are not similar in that way nowadays, let alone then. Portuguese (Galician) and Leonese have very low relationships, and so does Navarrese with Leonese as well. Etc. Maybe it is because it is the area that Mario and I know the best, but it certainly seems questionable to dump them all based on the modern (only XVIth century onwards) political entity where they are inscribed. Even the Spanish constitution (1978) recognizes up to 5 official languages (not dialects) within Spain, and there are at least 3 more that are not recognized in the constitution but in later laws. These are not dialects but full fledged languages. Some of these would be dialects of the same language in the XII century (Aranese is basically uncorrupted Occitan, for example, while Catalan derived from it) but most would not. Also, as a side note, Spanish is a really recent term and should not be used in Ars. Spain is a much more modern country than that. It irks me to hear about Spain in Roman or medieval terms, since it did not exist at the time. Same for France and a lot of other modern concepts. Until 2000 or so the concept of Spanish as a language was not used. Spanish is another name for Castillian, that is the language that imposed itself in the territories due to territorial conquest and administrative parameters.

I would also add a lingua franca or 2. A while ago I did cursory research on that based on my interest on a wide ranging ship captain character. It seems it did exist at the time! A mix of words from several languages and a very basic grammar. :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Xavi

I am with Xavi, very with him.
For example, there are very hard cademic discussions about Mozarabe/Andalusian/Ladino[bad called Sephardic, not related to the Byzantine term] are really closed or the same or just influenced. Again, in future, Aragonese "Spanish" will be dialect, but just now it's another Iberian languages. The same with Leones. The Hispanic mark itself is bad named, i studied that term like Carolingian Mark for example.

I hear what you guys are saying. I don't think I was clear about the issue I'm dealing with. If you look at my original list you'll see I have them separated as you'd like. But this runs into a problem on the other end. Is Castillian really as closely related to Sardinian as it is to Langues d'Oil, for example? That's what I end up having as a default if I separate the NW Ibero-Romance languages from each other, and those are several more steps apart than are the NW Ibero-Romance languages from each other, right? Also, that same argument could be applied all over the place. When it comes down to it, there are many separate languages that have been grouped together as different "dialects" of the same language in ArM5 canon. If this can be done in lots of other spots, why not in Iberia? I don't think this is a bad thing. While it may not be totally realistic, it helps for some game-level simplification. Plus, if you're willing to lump all languages within a few hundred miles together as one, wouldn't that amount to about the same thing for someone living in north-central Iberia?

What I think may work better is to leave those NW Ibero-Romance languages as "dialects" and then insert a note that, for example, Aragonese and Portuguese would be at -2 to each other, not -1. This keeps them separated more like individual languages without destroying all the rest of the relationships I think I've improved here.

I did change "Spanish." I didn't want to be offensive. I just didn't want to write all of "Northwestern Ibero-Romance" as a language. I've changed it to "North Iberian" to try to simplify it and avoid offense.

Xavi, I would far prefer to go with modern conceptual understanding than with any current political recognition. Political recognition doesn't necessarily match reality very well. Frequently different dialects are recognized as different languages or different languages are lumped together for political reasons. While modern conceptual understanding may not match the names in use, that understanding is based on language structure, vocabulary, etc. That seems to me to be a better basis for mutual intelligibility than anything political, and mutual intelligibility is what guides the ArM5 language system from what I can see.

1 Like

The problem you're running in that language is multi-dimensional - it does not change and mutate in the same way in every instance. And that not every language you're running in to is, in fact, a pure dialect - some will lean toward patois or creoles or pidgins, etc etc.

English is listed as a Germanic language b/c many of the core words are of Germanic origin, but truth is both that a higher % of words are Latinate than Germanic, and the sentence structure and grammar is clearly influenced far more by French/Romance languages (and that's from only 2 centuries of Norman rule, despite the overall "lifespan" of the language before and since). Toss in every other language it's bumped into over the centuries, and calling it "Germanic" is, in some ways, more a practical surrender to convenience (and an echo of jingoistic territorialism) than an accurate assessment.

And that's, ultimately, that same decisions that you'll have to make. Without an incredibly complex multi-dimensional rule system, you ultimately have to make a rough black-or-white decision for all sorts of colors and shades. Same as any Ability, acting as an umbrella for many varied (and often loosely defined/related) RL skills. In the end you have to accept in order to be playable it has to be approached as a game, not a RL simulation.

Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to set up reasonably realistic relationships to make things flow well in-game, even if they're not perfect out-of-game. That's why I'm so ready to accept languages being classified as dialects as they sometimes are in canon ArM5.

Yes, I already included Sabir.

Interesting discussions so far...

Key themes that appear to be emerging are:

  • Option of Living Languages as Accelerated Abilities (XP spent as per Arts rather than as Abilities) to offset current XP sink effect
  • Increased granularity appears to add flavour but not certain if this outweighs resultant book-keeping / complication of mechanics
  • Potential to gain granularity by extending range of languages from 1 to 7 (as opposed to 5)
  • Difficulty in reconciling current political divisions of languages with medieval conceptions of language and dialect
  • Particular difficulties with Northern Iberian and Italian languages and dialects

Discussion to date has been around Living Languages, as opposed to Dead Languages and does not take into account those "Magical Languages" that contribute to casting totals eg Pictish for Gruagach or Jotun for Trollsynir / Muspelli - changing XP for progression to that of an Accelerated Ability would significantly shift the power upwards for these groups.

There are also some scattered sub-mechanics that could be affected (eg my Arab/Bedouin Poetry dueling mechanic from the Cradle and the Crescent which depends on the characters Arabic (Classical) score), but the purpose of a score in any language has very little in-game effects if it is not used as part of a Casting Total.

Yes, but I don't want to delve into them too much since they're all off topic. I want to get the languages sorted out in my table so it can be a great resource for everyone, including myself. I know there is no way to make the table perfect. Real languages are far too complex to be organized this way. But I think a really solid table that saves people a lot of digging can be put together. Everyone can tweak from there as desired.

ezzelino, two questions about those Neapolitan dialects:

  1. What about Molisan? Is that a newer dialect?
  2. Have Lucanian and Calabrian converged or diverged? I ask because I've found them lumped together under a single group of dialects. If they converged, I should probably treat them separately, whereas if they diverged I should treat them as one.

Thanks.

That would seem a great goal I agree.

Once you've sorted it, making it available somehow via the forum, a blog or even Sub Rosa would be helpful for all.

Lachie

I'm almost done adjusting the Romance languages. I know some won't be too happy with the Iberian languages, but I do think they'll fit better into the overall scheme this way. I included some -2s between more distant ones, to nearly set them as different languages. I still have a few more special notes to make between a few Romance languages, I need to find a good way to locate the dialects of Franco-ProvenƧal, and I'm looking for dialects of Latina (Mozarabic).

I also adjusted Greek. From what I can find Romaic Greek doesn't show up for another 200-300 years. ArM5 is solidly within the Byzantine Greek period. And I was able to find a few dialects that were spoken at the time, even though the one dialect was very widespread.

Still, I have lots more to work on...

Sorry, I had missed these questions.

Not really. It's just one more sub-dialect of the Neapolitan family, spoken in Molise, a tiny, partly mountainous region east of Rome. Basically, you have to decide how many subdialects you want to list; if you really want to push it, you can easily get over a hundred in the Italian peninsula. For playability, I'd try to keep the number low.

The quick answer is "probably slightly diverged".
The more accurate answer is slightly more complicated. Both come from Latin; although even under Rome Lucania was a region with its own distinct cultural identity (tight-fisted, no-nonsense, rough farmers). Over the centuries the languages both diverged and "reconverged" as war, commerce and other stuff brought them back together. I'd probably treat them as one, as the picture is already complex enough for playability.

I just checked this amazing "Languages In and Around Mythic Europe" table. The tree Group - Family - Language - Dialect seems clear and really useful.

I have some questions, in order to clarify all these "related bonus" and penalties. Perhaps these are answered elsewhere, but could not find them.

1.- Is there a Score limit regarding languages?
Seems 5 is the maximum useful language level for 99% of the situations. The core book tells 6 as "elegant", but no other AM5 aspect requires this.
I go with 6 is the absolute maximum.

In case 6 is not the maximum value, increasing to 8 a single dialect allows fluent talking in all the dialects in the group. (not so much, just 105 XP, compared to invest 75XP per dialect)

2.- Should the related bonus be a bit lower?
Raising with just 30XP the skill to 6 (lets say Catalan) allows a character to have a
5 in same language (Occitan, Provencal)
4 in same Family (in case catalan, this means one "can hold a conversation with few mistakes" with all inhabitants of the actual spain, france, half italy... and beyond)
3 in all the languages in the group, including all of italy, half of the balkans, austria...

I feel bonus is too much. I dont feel myself, nor most people i know to be able to understand level 4, (nor perhaps even at level 3) with all related languages of my native language.

Perhaps -1 with same language is fine, but -3 with same family, and -4 with same group are more realistic values.

So any standard Catalan inhabitant (5) can communicate at level 4 (Functional) his "Occitan" neighbours, at level 2 (Basic conversation) with most people 1000 km around, and level 1 (Basic questions and answers) with every person within the Latin area of influence. Even so, the bonus seem pretty high.

3.- In case I train another language, it is clear you dont start from scratch. How should I model this?
I say... Just receive for free the XP equivalent to the level you already know thanks to the related value.

For example, I have catalan level 5, so I understand Genoese level 2. I receive 30 XP for free.

That means, every character born in the "Latin romance" linguistical area has 30 XP free in Latin.

4.- Whats the effect of the +1 bonus with same dialect?
I believe this +1bonus adds to communication rolls, but does not increase the "fluency" level.

Thanks in advance

Actually, translating without reducing quality requires 6s. And at least one magical tradition uses a language, so that might be like capping Magic Theory at 6.

Actually, you're misinterpreting it somewhat. That penalty applies to both speakers. So let's say you get to a score of 7 and try to communicate with a native speaker of a language related to it at -3. Sure, you effectively communicate at 4, but you're communicating with someone at 2. Scores of 4 and 2 talking to each other is far worse than what you list for above for 4.

This is where house rules come in. Some have done what you say. But take heed of my comment above. This is not really the equivalent of having the other language at the level you're putting it at.

It gives you an appropriate accent in that dialect. So two native speakers with the same dialect communicate as mutual 6s, while they communicate with someone of another dialect at mutual 4s. That's a pretty quick drop, I would say.

I didnt knew about the translation requirements (A&A 87). So 6 in both languages and Area Lore 3(in the Book Language Area). Here is some info:

Better some examples to clarify your proposal.
2 persons both talk same dialect at effective level 5 communicate with a + 2 bonus.
2 persons both talk same "dialect", one level 4; the other level 3. They get a +2 bonus (same dialect) and a -3 penalty (under 5), so -1
2 persons both talk same language at effective level 5 communicate with a - 2 bonus.
2 persons both talk same "language", one level 4; the other level 3. They get a -2 bonus (different dialect) and a -3 penalty (under 5). so -5

I understand this bonus/penalty applies only must be aplied to the "Player" Die Roll, in order to succeed whatever purpose. Im not sure now, but seems It does not make sense to penalize both characters, as the total effect should add to 0. Perhaps in some cases this is fine, need to imagine different situations (NPC wants to cooperate with PC / NPC wants to win the point to the PC / and so on)

Seems a house rule (2x different language penalty) can be used as a base for the XP free gain, representing this double effect (lets say speaking / listening). For example, a 6 in Catalan, could default to 4 (50 XP free) in any other Occitan language, to 2 (15 XP free) in any "Western Romance" language, to None in others.

Either you're misunderstanding you or I'm misunderstanding you. These are the canon rules for your examples as I believe you wrote them:

2 people speak the same "dialect" (Specialty) with the "language" (Ability) at level 5. They communicate with each other as though they both have 6.
2 people speak the same "dialect" (Specialty) with the "language" (Ability) at level 4 for one and 3 for the other. The communicate with each other as though one has 5 and the other has 4.
2 people speak different "dialects" (Specialty) within the same "language" (Ability) at level 5. They communicate with each other as though they both have 4.
2 people speak different "dialects" (Specialty) within the same "language" (Ability) at level 4 for one and 3 for the other. They communicate with each other as though one has 3 and the other has 2.

Notice how quickly it drops for people who speak a different dialects when compared to people who speak the same dialect.

That would probably be a better house rule than giving things free to the language level minus the penalty. Doubling the penalty still allows learning the language easier but not overly easily.

1 Like

As some questions have arisen about what I did with the Romance languages, I figured I'd continue here and explain.

As a foreword, my areas of expertise are physics and ballroom dance, followed by physics-related stuff and volleyball. I'm just a linguistics fan. I wanted a more complete set of Mythic European languages that matches Medieval Europe within the ArM5 framework as best I could. Most of what I put together came from ArM5 canon, Wikipedia, following links from within Wikipedia, broader searches when Wikipedia couldn't provide decent answers, and advice here. This is a pet project and has eaten up plenty of time just doing that; I'm not about to try to become a somewhat decent linguist just to put this together.

I started with ArM5 canon. A big part of that was to get an understanding for the grouping of languages and how that works with the language Abilities in ArM5. That let me use that structure to extend things more easily. Also, ArM5 authors have generally done good research. There have been mistakes, and I've been in contact with some of the authors to clarify some points and I've sent in some stuff for the errata. So I certainly haven't used this as the gold standard, but it was an essential place to start since I'm trying to work with ArM5 Abilities.

For the Romance languages, I then got a lot of help in this thread, particularly from ezzelino. Here is his main post from above:

With Veneto and Istriot I had particular difficulty. They're somewhat heavily separated in TSE, yet I'd been reading how similar they are. Ezzelino also mentioned similarities. They seem somewhat isolated, but still related to a few things. Scholars seem to disagree on placement. I didn't want to create more languages, figuring fewer is better when possible, but where should I place them?

I used this Wikipedia page to do a lot of sorting of the various Romance languages: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages . I also payed attention to the subdivisions listed there, while wanting to include dead languages like Latin. Still Veneto and Istriot were separated more from the others than seemed useful for ArM5. Also, where to break down a few things was difficult.

Frequently I've turned to graphical language maps to help make divisions. I did exactly that here, using: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Wes ... ion-en.png . This seemed to fit what ezzelino had written well. It also seemed to fit most of the published ArM5 stuff well. So those were big pluses. On top of that, the physical layout was helpful for fitting things into the ArM5 structure. So this is where I pretty much ended.

hi callen!

Nice job.
I found a spelling mistake in title "Greco-Armemian" It should be Greco-Armenian"

Could you tell me where that is? I'm running computer searches and the computer can't find it.

Sry callen! I apologize.
I was talking about the hyperlink of cornelius post and confused it with your work. Now I just realized that it was posted by Cornelius not by you, callen. Also I meant "good job" with an impressed-by-your-work-feeling, not as an insult.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/thelemur/ars/house_rules/languages.htm