Language Issues

> > >To bring this OT for GZG, I wonder how to simulate this in GZG

> > We assume that everybody gets trained in "Standard English" during
<duck>

> On a slightly less off topic note, what about the Spanish-speaking

Probably it is an asset to be bilingual in the modern day NAC forces (English
Spanish) at a minimum. Their may be high tech hypno teachers etc that help
junior officers and NCOs pickup the other languages they need depending on
what their basic is. I assume you'll have English units operating on primarily
spanish colony worlds and vice versa. I think English would be the language of
government, but high tech would make some sort of "universal language"
translation probable for all docs (and speech to text and translated text to
speech would make this possible for speech too). So I expect you
would get service in any of the official languages of the NAC -
English, Spanish, Welsh, and of course Broad Scots. (grin).

The English used by most NCOs especially (who don't have pretentious
affectations to speak in "pure King's English") and many other junior rnaks
would probably be scattered with words picked up on different
worlds in different languages - if they'd served on a Irish colony,
probably littered with local Irish phrases. If they'd served on a South
American colony, probably some Spanish or native SA Indian words picked up.

But my point was, let us say we have come up with a scenario where an NSL
Kampfgruppe has to work with the King's Own Puerto Plata
Grenadiers - how do we simulate this in SG2?

I'd assume the following tasks might have modifiers attached:
- arty, air or casevac requests
- comms between units including loaning of actions and this includes
a roll instead of an automatic success if under 6", the fact you can hear the
German officer doesn't mean you'll understand what he is telling you....

I think a fair modifier might be based on troop tech. If we assume first line
troops with first line equipment, software and AI, the
modifier might be cut to a +1 (simply put, even computers will
sometimes blow a contextual translation). If the force is not equiped
to state of the art, maybe a +2. If the force has really old gear, or
no translator, maybe a +3.

Comments?
/************************************************

> On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> > On a slightly less off topic note, what about the Spanish-speaking

as far as possible, military communications should avoid written or spoken
text as an interchange format, to minimise errors. rather than sending a
message to the left flank squad saying "attack the enemy mortar position with
IAVRs", you'd select the left flank squad on your map, click on the "engage"
menu, select the "IAVR" option, and then select the enemy mortar position.
this would be sent to the left flank squad in an internal
computer-readable format, and then rendered into their local language at
that end.

whilst this is obviously not applicable in all situations, if thoroughly
designed it might cover 75% of all orders. that would help quite a bit, i
should think.

also, there might well be a team of translators attached to the battalion hq,
so if you needed to issue an unusual order, you could get a translator to
change the language in real time. translation would be a very, very stressful
job.

> I think a fair modifier might be based on troop tech. If we assume

this is true. computers are far from perfect. now, i know today's technology
is primitive at best, and in 150 years it will work much, much better
(although bear in mind the device will have to be small and work in realtime,
so it does have a harder job than modern computer translators), but have a
look at this. consider the simple command:

Sergeant Mendoza, move your missile team forward under cover of the hedge!

here is what Altavista's Babelfish translator made of it, translated from
english, to german, back to english, into spanish and back into english:

Sergeant Mendoza, changes of position to his equipment of the flight advanced
under address of the fence!

see what i mean? this is why we have symbols on maps, methinks :-).

> Comments?