The teaching rules say that both students must share a language.
But how much of a language do you need to be able to benefit from teaching?
Do you both need fluency? Or is a score or 2-3 enough? What if you don't have enough? Should there be a penalty?
We have (DE 05-Abilities) (Living Language)*:
2 Basic conversation. You can sustain a short conversation on a common topic. You still make many mistakes, and often fail to catch what others say.
We also have (DE 05-Abilities) Academic Abilities:
In addition, learning an Academic Knowledge requires a Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic score of at least 3, depending on the region of Europe you are from. For most characters, Latin 3 is required.
So we can conclude, that teaching in a language with minimum score 2 among teacher and student is at best very awkward and maybe impossible, while learning from teaching with a score of 3 is covered by general procedures in Academia.
3 Likes
I believe that the specific mention of Latin/Greek/Hebrew/Arabic to learn academic skills is because those languages are extensively used to define key terms (as they still are in modern law and medicine, but more-so at the time.)
Although technically this means that you can't learn to write your own language (e.g. middle English) until you have first learned Latin. As Latin 3 or more is a pre-requisite for Artes Liberales.
1 Like
I believe that is specifically in an academic setting, not as a general rule. So a young person could learn artes liberales and Latin both at 1 from the village priest.
That is plausible at Western European schools, as the literacy there is defined in Latin. That was of course not the case among Vikings and their Runic alphabet, and also is not among the Jews, where literacy is defined in Hebrew. See e. g. DE 04-Virtues Educated (Hebrew).
But especially this is also besides the point of your OP, where you ask about the language requirements for Teaching. As a Latin 3 is the basic language requirement to be taught at a Western school using Latin, and not Latin 2, this makes generally score 3 the likely necessary score for a language to be taught in.
Yes, this is possible - but may result in very limited Artes Liberales: basically the Latin alphabet, but certainly not Astronomy or Geometry. There teaching would happen in the local vernacular, which both teacher and pupil know sufficiently.
Obviously, which then comes to the question of whether 3 is itself sufficient (if lectures are completely in Latin) or simply required in academic institutions as a secondary language. Given that you can read a language at level 4 I think it can clearly be used for teaching at that level. It might be argued that student and teacher must have an average of 4 in the language if teachers at universities are teaching in Latin but have the language at 5, though this would make little sense in extreme situations (teacher has language:7 and student at 1).
Also worth noting that clearly at some point it is possible to teach language to someone who has no language skill at all, or else nobody would learn any language... and given the rate the initial language is learned at it does not seem to be significantly hampered by lack of a common language at that point.
1 Like
IIRC, score 4 is needed to study from a book without further help. Attending lectures at university provides significant further help by the teachers there - and might be the reason, why score 3 is sufficient there.
For a living language 3 is "haltingly functional" You can hold a conversation on everyday topics, though it takes time- this seems a bit halting for teaching, unless there was going to be a penalty for speaking slowly. Of course it could be 3 to learn, 4 to teach...
It varies on subject. For example, on language, I think if there is no language shared, the first season is Practice. Language 1 allows you to teach further.
It could also be Training.
1 Like
Training on language? How would that work in practice?
While teaching a class, or writing a book on Latin, or making a living through the use of Latin, you'd be yelling at the trainee to correct him.
And it's Training, so it can't be in Practice... 
1 Like
I’d say you don’t need to be fluent, but having a basic grasp (like a 2-3 on the scale) is definitely helpful. I’ve been in situations where I didn’t fully speak the same language as others, but as long as you can get your point across and understand the basics, it’s usually fine. If the gap is too wide, though, it can make things harder, so maybe offering some extra help or giving a little more time to adjust would be better than a penalty. It’s all about finding a balance, I think.
I have taken a math class where the TA spoke... less than perfect English (never mind the local language). If the subject is in any way complex, you need to be skilled fairly with the language in use.
I've reviewed the Training description in the base book, and I don't think I'd allow training to be about the language skill per se. I'd allow someone to be trained in teaching and scribe for the examples you gave, but not Latin. While someone may use Latin in a season, it's not latin that corresponds to the ability being used to make a living. I'm also not aware that an apprentice - master relationship over Latin makes any sense in the medieval era, nor that this kind of education model for language learning was ever used in any practical shape or form.
1 Like
I would allow someone to be trained in Latin if they shared a vernacular language, but also self training in a language in an area with constant exposure does offer an exceptional rate of training compared to other abilities, so if you are hanging around a church or university where conversations in Latin are routinely taking place then you might just need a year to adjust through self training..
I prefer to use the rules in the "Academic learning and experience points" sidebar on p96 of Art & Academe - spending up to half your points received when learning an academic skills on Latin or Teaching, as you learn more from classroom exposure.
2 Likes
Sue, but that requires you first be able to learn academically due to a common language.
And the self-taught-with-no-common-language rate of SQ8 for 'practice' in a community where the language is commonly spoken needs to factored in as well. Given that SQ 8 is pretty darn good, and can be reached even with Language ability of zero, I think allowing language training with no common language seems pretty reasonable.
I'm not sure there would be a benefit. Assuming you are learning their native (L:5) language, training SQ is the level+3, which would be 8, which is the same as self study where the language is commonly used. Essentially you are just providing an environment where it is commonly used.
However also note "The apprentice may only be taught an ability which the master is using to earn a living over the whole season", which would not typically apply to languages unless the master is acting as a translator or something similar.
1 Like