Common Tongue

[Hand of Evil]

Common in my games is a trade language and as such not good for expressing complex thoughts. I have fun with it.

Race languages are prime for the kingdoms/lands controlled. I discuss with my players before game to show them a map of races so they can at least pick languages they will run into. This goes with % makeup.

 

[Dinkeldog]

In one of the groups I played in we all took Terran so that we could talk behind others' backs.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm considering reducing the number of languages that starting characters get, as I think that D&D characters are multi-lingual to an absurd degree.

I'm also considering playing with the literacy levels of characters (difference between read/write and speak) and the number of skill points required to learn a language.

 

[darkbard]

for those who want to tweak the language rules to make them more "realistic", i suggest picking up [or, at least, browsing through at your FLGS] the kalamar book that i mentioned earlier. the rules seem pretty well-thought-out with regards to the verisimilitude of language acquisition over time, initial languages, etc. now, i'm still inquiring if anyone has actually put these rules into practice and how they fared.

 

[FraserRonald]

I think there is a basis for a 'common' language. There is even a real world equivalent. The term 'lingua Franca' technically has the same meaning as 'common language', though it does specifically refer to French. This is simply because at the time the term was coined, French was a common language.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone would know the common language, and the common language for one area might not be the same for another, but in any area with extensive trade, a single language tends to dominate. An earlier poster mentioned English, but then qualified the remark. That's not necessary. More people speak English than any other language. There aren't as many people with English as their mother/father-tongue, but more people learn English as a second language than any other language in the world. Why? Trade.

It was the same in the Medieval and Renaissance periods of our world. In Europe, educated people spoke Latin, and at different points in history, a merchant would speak French, Italian, Spanish or Dutch. In the Orient, all educated people spoke Mandarin. In fact, the written Chinese language (I call it Hanja, simply because that's what it was called in Korea, where I lived) has the same meaning in Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean and Japanese, though when spoken, the word is in the language of the speaker. Wild, eh?

So, while I completely agree that a single common language, known by every individual the world over is ridiculous, there is precedent for a geographically focussed common language used by the intelligentsia and possibly another for trade. In my world, one section of the setting has a unifying religion, which uses an otherwise dead language (Latin, anyone?), and that language is used by intellectuals, while the language of the regional economic powerhouse is a kind of 'trade common'.

Also, on the topic of adventurers learning many languages, I don't find that too hard to believe. Your average mercenary soldier in the Renaissance could probably speak around three languages well, and would have smatterings of very many others. Of course, the likelihood such a mercenary could read any of these languages was small, but multi-lingual individuals, in certain strata of society, is well within the realm of believability.

Sorry for being so long-winded. Hope this is of interest to someone. Take care.

 

[darkbard]

In fact, the written Chinese language (I call it Hanja, simply because that's what it was called in Korea, where I lived) has the same meaning in Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean and Japanese, though when spoken, the word is in the language of the speaker. Wild, eh?

hate to be a pedant but....

not quite true. while japanese kanji did develop from the chinese pictograms [not technically an alphabet ... seems i don't mind being a pedant after all], only about 50% of japanese and chinese kanji coincide nowadays.

however, your point is well-taken. there is historical precedent [and modern precedent too for that matter] for trade tongues. however, assuming that everyone in the world speaks the "common tongue"--and well enough to communicate complex ideas--is not an accurate depiction of how these languages work. take, for example, my current home, japan. despite the fact that everyone is educated in english for the 6 years of junior and senior high school, good luck trying to start up a conversation in english with a random japanese person here! sure, many people may know a few key words in english, but beyond that....

 

[CrazyMage]

Good comments, FraserRonald. Don't forget Aramaic in its day (for many centuries the lingua franca of the ancient near east) and Greek, after Alexander the Great spread his empire to Egypt and India.

For alternate rules on speaking other languages, check out Dungeon #97, the V for Victory mini-game. There they use a 5 rank scale for ability in languages. One rank will get you a few phrases; 5 ranks has you speaking like a native.

Another interesting and related topic is the spell comprehend languages . The text says it gives you "the literal meaning". And this, my friends, gives a DM room for fun. There are some advantages for knowing a languages vs. just having a translation.

A language does not need to have one word that corresponds exactly to "east" or "west". An obvious substitution is "sun rising, sun setting." But maybe the direction is "to the mountain", but there are a number of mountains around. Which one is it? Native speakers know. People trained in the language probably know. Those using spells...don't, unless they have extra info.

The PCs find a treasure map with writing in an unknown language on it. They cast their spell, find out they need to go 200 paces north and off they go. Ooops. This was written by halfings; their paces are a BIT shorter than human. If they knew the writing, they would have recognized that it was halfling; but the spell doesn't tell you that.

There are a number of ways (terms for distances, direction, idioms) where having a literal translation does little good. I'm thinking of coming up with some more like this and getting it printed somewhere, but we'll see.

 

[WizarDru]

E.g.: I'm fluent in English, I can make myself understood in French, and I know a few words of German, Spanish and Italian. In D&D, there's no way for a character to be able to debate politics with kings and nobles in Common and Elven, know how to ask the way to the toilet and do her shopping in Dwarven, and be able to say "hello", "goodbye" and "I don't understand" in Halfing, Gnome, and Undercommon.

I think there is. For Common and Elvish, you know those languages, and are fluent in them. For the Dwarven "knows enough to get by" aspect, Bluff would be appropriate, possibly with a cirumstance modifier. For the "know-three-words/phrases" aspect, Innuendo works fine.

Not elegant, and not terribly realistic, but mechanically sound and within the system.

 

[CrazyMage]

i agree. a discussion on linguistics in DND is well called for.

If the fantasy world models the real one, then along side common is going to be any number of pidgins and creoles, mixtures of different languages intended for basic communication, although in the case of creoles they approach being a new language entirely. And just knowing the languages involved doesn't necessarily mean you'll understand the pidgin based on it. Even if the character knows elvish and common, that does not mean he'll understand a trade pidgin mixture of elvish and common.

There are a few linguists who frequent these boards. I'd like to see some of these issues discussed by someone with some real background, rather than my amateur-ish musings.

 

[ichabod]

In my world, different regions have different common tongues, and there are national languages as well as racial languages. Frex, the common tongue in the main area of the campaign is Peng, which is a nation with a large fleet and an emphasis on diplomacy. But when the PCs went to a nearby undergound area, the common tongue was Dwarvish. Since dwarves are rare above ground IMC, only one of the PCs was able to talk with most people. The group spokesman role shifted, and produced an interesting dynamic.

Also, my world has civilized areas seperated by large wilderness areas, and no teleportation. If the PCs ever move beyond their current area, I may do something to take into account language drift over time, but I really haven't decided on that yet. But if there is teleportation in a world, that is going to work to impede language drift to some degree. Language will still change over time, but the language change will be more uniform across areas. How much the drift is impeded will depend on how accessible teleport is, as well as other magic that allows exchange of information across great distances.

Now I probably have enough linguistics coursework to have a degree in it. With a bit of review, I could make some house rules for linguistics that are more 'realistic.' But I haven't. Why? Because 'realism' isn't the be all end all of RPGs. I don't see that adding in rules that will complicate interaction is going to add fun to my game, and could likely interfere with such fun. So I confine my linguistic putterings to the design of languages and writing systems.