Conlangs?

[martin]

Didn't we say that going past 50 mph was impossible, when automobiles first became popular, because at 50 mph, you're lungs would explode?
We were wrong.
Didn't we say that man would never break the sound barrier?
We were wrong.
Didn't we say we'd never split an atom, that atoms were, infact the most basic building block and nothing smaller exsisted?
We were wrong.

Very naive examples. There were no laws or mathematical relations showing that this was wrong.

So, can you say that we will never be able to accurately predict Radioactive Decay, can you prove it? Even if you think you can, People have "proven" Lots of things, but they have also been wrong.

If quantum theory is true -- and it seems like it, as we are just using it now, it is mathematically impossible, yes.
I will stop this discussion now because, as it seems, you have not the knowledge and understanding required to discuss this matter.

The primary difference between you and me is that you believe that some things are impossible, I do not. You see a world that has been formed by chance, I see a world that has been designed. I am, in addition to linguistics, also a student of applied math/computer science (only as minors now, I plan to take a course on it on my next spin through college)

I do not care what you are studying, in fact it does not matter in any sense. We are not talking about design, this is again a religious element, but about quantum theory. The only difference between us is:
I know quantum theory, because I played with it for several years now.
You do not know it but make assumptions and claims. These claims are useless for me, as you have no data backing that up or mathematical relations that show that you are right. You don't even have analogies that help anything.

When you look at radioactive decay (which I honestly can't suggest, it's killer on your sinuses.) You may say, "I will never be able to predict the decay phase of that." I say, "I can't predict that yet, I lack the tools."

In this case it seems it was me who was not able to explain, however I won't try it again. We're not lacking the tools, we lack the reality that allows it.

I do not believe in randomimity, God does not play dice.

You don't know anything about it and just adopt Einsteins point of view, which is foolish in that particular case.
Not knowing details about things and making claims about them is rather <fillinawordthatfits>.

Martin

[martin]

You can write a program that tells you when a Atom decays, it's as simple as realizing that at any given infintessimal period of time, the atom is decaying, since you can't see it to tell whether it is decaying now or not, then any answer must be both right AND wrong. Basic quantum physics people.

LOL

So, the answer to both questions,
1) Predict decay of an Atom,
A) At any given time, the Atom is both decaying and not decaying.

This truely is absolute nonsense. You did not understand basics of QT but try to explains something using it. Sorry, this, again, is foolish.

2) Prove God exsists
A) You cannot See God, therefore he must Exsist and not Exsist.

I want my money back.

Good old Schrodinger's Cat... (If I misspelt Schrodinger, I'm sorry, German is terribly hard for an old American to spell... I'm sure someone will correct me... )

Schrödinger.
However, you did not understand what it was all about.

Martin

[Moskher Heszche]

You mentioned something about actually having to learn the language adding to realism. Well, there's a problem in that. I'd have to learn the language. My character would only know it as a result of my personal study. This does not add or even subtract to the realism, in-game.

Let's say instead we go with the originally-planned idea for languages in-game. My character goes to the library daily, and by the end of a week (out of game) my character understands the basics of elven. Ingame time that's three weeks of daily study--enough time to start to understand a language that you hear now and again regularly. This system, also, is neither incredibley realistic nor is it unbelievable.

I think what Brendan and others were trying to say is that, much like any other medium, it's not the realism that counts; it's that the artistic license isn't taken much too far out of reality--I mean to say, realistic enough to make sense.

Also, at one point you asked what kind of fun we would have with no pants as an analogy. As a retort to your analogy: I think I've had plenty of fun while not wearing pants.

[Brendan Mason]

I think I've had plenty of fun while not wearing pants.

Oh my...

[Darlok]

Beside the current discussion here, I would like to go back to the technical possible implemention of languages.

Unlike martin I am not much a fan of *'s , I would have the feeling somebody would be cussing at me heavily and the language filter would prevent me from seeing it.
Also it would not add that much to the athmosphere.

Thats why I am asking if its possible to add some simple replacer-code to the language ?
Instead of displaying ******'s the server would look into prewritten lists of words for the used language and according to the number of letters of the original word the routine will choose a word from the list randomly.
The only little drawback of this would be, that the same sentance/word will always appear different to charaters that do not speak this language.

Surely this would look better then:
Damien: *** ** ***** **** *******.
Lennier: *** ***** *****!
Darlok: ***!!!

[martin]

Thats why I am asking if its possible to add some simple replacer-code to the language ?
Instead of displaying ******'s the server would look into prewritten lists of words for the used language and according to the number of letters of the original word the routine will choose a word from the list randomly.

This might look better in your eyes but it means an incredible waste of time to code that and it means a lot of computing time for each and every word.
Furthermore it means that we are rather unflexible because we'd have to replace whole words. Statistically spoken, this is overkill.
What would happen is:
Someone speaks a sentence.
This sentence is altered by using your method, which means browsing through a list with, say, 1000 entries.
Afterwards every character/monster/NPC that hears that sentence would mean that once more this list has to be browsed.

This would probably mean great lag just by talking.

How things look should not be that important.

Martin

[Bloodhearte]

If I was the programmer here, I'd rather have my testicles kicked with a jackboot than go through the process of creating this mindf*ck known as "in game language" (but then again, that's probably just me Martin ).

Racial language is easily something that can be role played, and this is, after all, a role playing game.

For example, let's say you were a lizardman trying to talk to another lizardman whilst being around many people.

You can approach the lizardman, and type #me speaks in a hissing tongue. Then, to the lizardman, you can whisper whatever it is that was really supposed to be said.

Magic, isn't it?

Edit: @Zare, that language you referred to on the first page was "Haslus." Only a handful of lizardmen even attempted to use it after my character created it, and only a couple after many months, now nobody. Proof that making a language is useless, where role playing it with #me statements is much easier.

[Cliu Beothach]

I still try to use it Bloodhearte, but no one else is up for it. Just remember...I still do...I still do :O

[Bloodhearte]

Well thanks, but you should probably toss it in the trash. As you mentioned, no one else is up for it, and as I've already mentioned, the #me statements are less of pains in the ass.

[Ralwyth]

The Idea, martin, was to help- surely you understand the meaning of that word. I may not be the smartest person in the world, but -- hate to say it, niether are you. I realize that you probably know a bit more about computers than me, and probably quantum physics too. But here's what I know, if you have to spend your time shooting down my ideas, I won't bother to post them anymore. I was trying to be a helpful, contributing player to what looks to be a wonderful game. If you don't want me to contribute, fine, I won't. But I'm pretty sure that a little help isn't, in fact, going to kill you.

Brandon, Of course I plan to keep conlanging, are you mad, laddy? Conlanging is like pringles, you just can't stop.

@ Martin, again.

My beliefs are my beliefs, if I choose to side with einstien, be it for no reason at all or not, thats MY choice, you don't have to like it, because you can't do anything about it. And, btw, my belief is not random or blind. It fits right in with all my other beliefs, Like Creation, ever hear of that? It's this little thing where God makes the universe, I happen to believe that, and you know- If I design something, it's generally not random, so- If God designed something, Like the -- gee, I don't know, universe?-- then it's likely he didn't do it very randomly either. Thats my theory, anyway. I can't prove it, but I dare you to prove whatever it is you believe.

PS, Quantum theory is on the way out, dude. String theory makes more sense. Get updated, I mean, honestly, It's on flippin PBS now.

PPS, Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is an amazing book, Highly recommend it...

~~Ralwyth (thats Wyth, not White... )

Edit:

Not everyone needs to use it, Conlangs tend to be less 'popular' it's like coffee, an aqquired taste, if you don't have the taste for it, you don't need to drink it, but for those with the taste, it's nice to have around.

I've invented 20 or so conlangs, I'm the only one who speaks any of them, Really just means more coffee for me...

[Brendan Mason]

I'd just like to address your points in a logical order.

But I'm pretty sure that a little help isn't, in fact, going to kill you.

But when that "help" is in the form of something that isn't needed, then it's not really help, is it. Martin (one of the game's creators) knows what needs to be done. There's a difference between actual help and forcing your idea which is unneeded and hence pointless.

I've invented 20 or so conlangs

But what's the point of having conlangs that you can't use to roleplay with people. Isn't it kind of depressing?

[falco1029]

Racial language is easily something that can be role played, and this is, after all, a role playing game.

For example, let's say you were a lizardman trying to talk to another lizardman whilst being around many people.

You can approach the lizardman, and type #me speaks in a hissing tongue. Then, to the lizardman, you can whisper whatever it is that was really supposed to be said.

Magic, isn't it?

Gee this sopunds awfully familiar, almost as if I said something just like it

[Ralwyth]

I'd just like to address your points in a logical order.

...

But what's the point of having conlangs that you can't use to roleplay with people. Isn't it kind of depressing?

Not particularly, I enjoy the actual act of creation, moreso than the results. Like some other things I'm sure you know of... Heh. (That was a Joke, in case you missed it, now is a socially acceptable time to laugh...)

For the whole "Help" thing, Help probably wasn't the right word. "Attempt to increase the depth of the roleplaying experience" would have been better, but thats a little wordy, I think. Anywho

~Joe

[martin]

The Idea, martin, was to help- (...) If you don't want me to contribute, fine, I won't.

I just told you what is possible (within time, CPU usage, RP etc.) and what isn't. That means that this single proposal of yours, which in fact was the first detailed one about languages here (and therefore original), will not be used.

@ Martin, again.

My beliefs are my beliefs, (...) And, btw, my belief is not random or blind. It fits right in with all my other beliefs, Like Creation, ever hear of that? It's this little thing where God makes the universe, I happen to believe that, and you know- (...) Thats my theory, anyway. I can't prove it, but I dare you to prove whatever it is you believe.

You see, that is very much of a problem. You see, both, the pope and the Dalai Lama stated that as soon as science contradicts their believes they have to change their believes. (This happened several times in the past)

Now you say: If science contradicts my believe, science is wrong.

That is funny. The pope and the Dalai Lama, both leaders of (some form of) religions are more flexible in their religious believes than you?

PS, Quantum theory is on the way out, dude. String theory makes more sense. Get updated, I mean, honestly, It's on flippin PBS now.

You have no idea about string theory as it seems. ST does not contradict or substitute QT. Furthermore I find it rather disturbing that you, who puts religious believes above science, wants to tell me something about science (wrong things, in fact). You better go and read the bible or something.

PPS, Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is an amazing book, Highly recommend it...

It's a nice book, but as it seems you read it and didn't understand much.
But you don't need to read these books anyway, as they partially contradict your religious believes anyway.

Martin

[Naybet Grint]

Prove God exsists
A) You cannot See God, therefore he must Exsist and not Exsist.

Bizarrely this is the closest to a correct answer to the write a program that always correctly tells you is God (in the Christian sense) exists or not. Seeing as Martin doesn't believe that such a program exists I'll post the pseudocode for it somewhere between the lines of dashes

-------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

boolean does_god_exist() {
    return true;
}

Code: Select all

boolean does_god_exist() {
    return false;
}

-------------------------------------------------

Naturally I can't say where between the lines of dashes the program is, or else I'd be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, which I can't do. (Naybet runs away to somewhere where people can't throw stuff at him).

So Racial Language Obfuscation:

Martin would it be feasible to process the text in the client thereby allowing a good deal more processing? Then you could do more funky things that *s depending on the characters knowledge of the language. For example if I know a bit of elvish some words will be fine but the rest could be anagrams, or have the vowels swapped with random other vowels, and a random selection of consonants swapped with other consonants. But obviously that wouldn't be worthwhile if it had to be done on the server side.

[Adano Eles]

god_exists OR god_exists_not = TRUE ...

Oh the fun of boolean math...
As I said, you can pseudo proof anything, even that 1 = 0...

on topic:

Another more simple solution to get rid of the asterisks:
Would it be possible, instead of using precreated words to just replace all written letters with with random ones? The coding wouldn't be too different but I'm not sure about the processor usage.

[Moskher Heszche]

That's exactly the plan, as far as I'm aware, Naybet. One who has no knowledge of the language will not understand any of it. One with some knowledge of it would be able to get a few words.

I actually proposed that someone who knows a language that is related to the other will be translating whole words (because they would use the same alphabet) and as such would either get no word or a whole word. Languages unrelated would have a different alphabet, and so would be translated sound by sound, or letter by letter.

[martin]

Using random letters would be possible, yes.

As for the pseudocode: This is stupid.
I can write everything this way. There is no point in it.
Your programs do not decide whether or not god exists, nor do they prove it.
The same would go for the decay thing.

Martin

[Naybet Grint]

The point is a philosophical one, and the purpose of the question is to make you think. I never claimed to be able to predict whether God exists or prove anything except for what I stated: I can write a piece of code that correctly answers the question 'Does God (in the Christian sense) exist'. You stated that it couldn't be done, but I have done it. Perhaps next time someone asserts a possibility that seems obviously impossible you'll think about it for a little longer (I'm not saying everything is possible however).

[Ralwyth]

I just told you what is possible (within time, CPU usage, RP etc.) and what isn't. That means that this single proposal of yours, which in fact was the first detailed one about languages here (and therefore original), will not be used.

Ok, Plain enough, but the proposal at the first has changed considerably, the original proposal did imply that it would be something that is coded. But what about the Idea of Non-coded Conlangs, would that be something worth pursuing?

You see, that is very much of a problem. You see, both, the pope and the Dalai Lama stated that as soon as science contradicts their believes they have to change their believes. (This happened several times in the past)

Now you say: If science contradicts my believe, science is wrong.

That is funny. The pope and the Dalai Lama, both leaders of (some form of) religions are more flexible in their religious believes than you?

I am not the Pope, nor am I the Dalai lama, I also never said that Science was wrong, only that what I believe is what I believe. I see science differently than you. I see Quantum physics and see something that I don't think God would design, I see String theory as a better version. I see things that are "impossible" and believe that I only cannot do them Yet. It is my choice whether I choose to limit myself by believing in the impossible or not.

You have no idea about string theory as it seems. ST does not contradict or substitute QT. Furthermore I find it rather disturbing that you, who puts religious believes above science, wants to tell me something about science (wrong things, in fact). You better go and read the bible or something.

...

It's a nice book, but as it seems you read it and didn't understand much.
But you don't need to read these books anyway, as they partially contradict your religious believes anyway.

Martin

I don't see what there isn't to understand, from what I've read, the idea is simple, it's just so simple it makes you dizzy. The basic concept of Quantum Theory, as I understand it, is that if you can't see something happening, you cannot determine what it's doing, Heisenberg uncertinity, no? So QT says "Well, I can't tell, so, it must be doing both" Where Classical Physics would say "It must be one or the other" QT then offers several Explinations for why that is. It also gets into Quantum Spin, and the behavior of electrons in a atom, as I remember, and there is some other stuff, which I do not remember, because I am not a Physics student.

String theory is far more simple, but no less mind boggling. The Idea is that tiny little strings, infinitely tiny, exsist in many more dimensions than the normal 4. These strings move in a particular pattern and that pattern causes the effects of an Electron, or a Tau Particle, or a Proton, whatever. There's also the whole "Theory of Branes" which suggests that we live on a massive, streched out membrane of a string. I'll be honest, it is hard to wrap my head around that Idea in particular. But it does seem to help explain the relative weakness of gravity.

Regardless, I didn't say that I'm a genious in the world of Physics and Math, I'm only someone who's trying to learn. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, teach me. And yes, some of String theorys Ideas don't agree with my beliefs, but for the most part, those ideas can also be explained in a different way that do fit my beliefs and don't change any of string theory or quantum physics, (although I do believe QT was an Important Idea, I don't think it was a complete Idea at its onset. String theory, I believe, is the "other half" of QT.) Regardless, I thought this post was about Conlangs, not Quantum Physics.

Oh, and at the guy who made the joke about pants,
That was funny....

~~Joe/Ral

[Adano Eles]

At the point where you went from coding to simply providing languages it wasno longer a proposal to the staff (except maybe the background team) but to the community.
I think the community already made a few statements somewhere in between all the off topic stuff. Any more opinions?

[martin]

But what about the Idea of Non-coded Conlangs, would that be something worth pursuing?

This is the wrong place to discuss that subject.
It's up to your social skills to convince Illarion's players to learn some artificial language.

I see Quantum physics and see something that I don't think God would design, I see String theory as a better version.

You did not understand string theory (nor did I, but as it seems I have a deeper knowledge of it, which does not come as a surprise at all). String theory does not replace QT by any means. If string theory turns out to be true, everything I said here about QT, randomness, radioactive decay ect. stays as it is.
String theory just explains better why the standard model of elementary particles is as it is, it gives a quantum theory of gravity and it will unify the for forces. That's it.
If any, string theory would be a more general approach to what quantum FIELD theory tries to describe, however QFT will still remain as a special case (just like newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic and quantum mechanics for v<<c, h->0 etc.)

If string theory turns out to be true, nothing changes about what I said.

I don't see what there isn't to understand, from what I've read, the idea is simple, it's just so simple it makes you dizzy.

If you think it is simple you did not understand it.
I had 4 courses on (super) string theory over one year and I can tell you: It isn't.

The basic concept of Quantum Theory, as I understand it, is that if you can't see something happening, you cannot determine what it's doing, Heisenberg uncertinity, no?

No, this isn't the basic concept of quantum theory.

So QT says "Well, I can't tell, so, it must be doing both" Where Classical Physics would say "It must be one or the other"

This is not what we were talking about.
It is not even right. Measurement on a quantum scale -- this is what you are talking about -- is a complex subject.

String theory is far more simple, but no less mind boggling.

No. What ST does:
Substitute particles which live in 3+1 dimensions and have certain properties (charge, mass, ...) by (closed or opened) strings in a lot of dimensions (11). It is not "far more simple", but it is "incredibly more complex".
In fact there is no doubt that string theory is the by far most complex theory EVER. Standard QT is a little toy compared to it. It's like a dice compared to Illarion.

although I do believe QT was an Important Idea, I don't think it was a complete Idea at its onset. String theory, I believe, is the "other half" of QT.

Because you didn't understand either of them.
The problems we discussed here still exist in ST.

Martin

[Bloodhearte]

Gee this sopunds awfully familiar, almost as if I said something just like it

Well, I can't be bothered to read the rest of a thread with 90% of the postings negating the existence of God.

[Ralwyth]

Well then, Martin, if I am not aware of what it is in reality, do you know of any decent books that explain it, I've read many sources and Superposition/Manyworlds Theory seems to be a rather consistent theme, Maybe I'm just using the Wrong name?

Regardless, I felt that originally this forum was the most fitting (certainly not the perfect fitting) place for the proposal, it was directed, or atleast became so directed, to the players. Sorry for the Confusion.


~~Joe

[Darlok]

Back to the important things, the riddiance of the astericks in languages.

When the server cannot help me, maybe the client can.
This would be just an additional step, added on the client side and is basicly only a visiual enhanchment.
Instead of sending *'s back to the client the server will send a special character for each language.

The client itself has a set of custom fonts, some nicely curved letters for elven speach, rough rune symbols for dwarf language, and so on.
Now, everytime the client recives one of these special reserved characters from the server, it will pick a random letter from the custom font for the specific language used.

So you would see a series of elvish letters in the end, when a elf talks and you dont understand anything.

[martin]

No way.
As mentioned millions of times already, we cannot make great changes on the client currently.

Martin

[falco1029]

I dont think he meant immediately

[Darlok]

I should have stated that I, of course, do not mean the current client, or maybe I just put too much faith into martin realizing that I am one of those guys who understand something when they hear it the first time.