• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Tinto Talks #36 - 6th of November

Welcome to this week's Tinto Talks. Please stop trying to guess the name of the game, it's going to land us in trouble when you figure it out.

I'm @SaintDaveUK, and this week I'm going to delve into Cultures and some related mechanics like Language.





Culture​

Culture is a tricky topic because it is so abstract as a concept, but also it’s an area of our games that people have quite strong opinions about, especially when they have real-world connections to that culture.

As such we would appreciate it if the discussion on this thread is limited to the mechanics of the culture system as presented here, and direct your specific feedback for the culture setup to the relevant regional Tinto Maps where it will be much more helpful.

So, what is Culture? Culture is the culmination of vernacular, music, food, identity, ethnicity, art and various other hard-to-define ideas. It is something possessed by countries, pops, and characters. It contains two main dimensions: Culture Group and Language.


culture_maratha.png

A fairly typical example of a Culture, consisting of a Language and a Culture Group.


Culture Opinion​

For the most part, cultures all consider each other to be neutral, but they can also have natural preference or aversion to specific cultures.

This is represented with cultural opinions, which in ascending order are: enemy, negative, neutral, positive, kindred. This mainly gives modifiers in various places, for example, country opinions of each other, or how expensive they are while Accepted.

Most of these will exist from 1337, but there is a Diplomatic Action to change an opinion over time.


culture_list_aragon.png

A list of cultures present inside Aragon, with two-way opinions relative to the primary culture Catalan. Please note that these opinions are WIP, and might not be final.

Culture Capacity​

Cultural Capacity represents the maximum number of cultures a country can tolerate or accept. For most countries it starts quite low, but there is an Advance every age to increase the maximum, as well as various other sources like Government Reforms and Policies.

accepted_cultures_of_aragon.png


Each culture costs a different Cultural Capacity, depending on relative size, opinions, culture groups, and languages.


cultural_cost_andalusi.png
cultural_cost.png





Non-Accepted Cultures​

By default, every culture in the world is Non-Accepted to you. It is the default state, and at best means you ignore them. Non-Accepted pops are pretty miserable in your country but also don’t provide you with any benefits.

Tolerated Cultures​

If you have the cultural capacity, you can elevate a culture to a Tolerated Culture. This will make the pops a little more content. Tolerated pops will grow as normal, and they will also be a bit happier.

Accepted Cultures​

You can elevate a culture further into being Accepted, at which point they gain special rights.

Even though an Accepted Culture costs 3x more capacity than Tolerated, it’s usually much more desirable as they will give you more levies and sailors. Accepted Cultures also count towards whether you can core a province, and whether a colonial charter will flip to your ownership. Countries whose primary culture is one of your accepted cultures will see you more favourably.

However, Accepted pops cannot be slaves, and you cannot Accept a culture with "Enemy" culture opinion.

Primary Culture​

At the very top of the pyramid is Primary Culture, of which every country has exactly one. This is the principal culture of the apparatus of state, and it is favoured in many calculations. It is not necessarily the largest culture, you can find several countries where a small elite of nobles or clergy rule over the peasant masses belonging to different cultures.

Primary Culture is an important gate to a lot of gameplay content, such as Advances, Unit Types, Government Reforms and so on. It’s impossible to list it all here, but just know that the primary culture you have can affect many parts of the game.

You can swap your primary culture with an accepted culture if it fulfils the requirements, such as if it becomes the dominant culture in your country or if it is the culture of your ruler. There is also a game rule for it to be of the same Culture Group.






Language​

Attached to cultures is the Language system, which is spread across 3 tiers: Dialect, Language, Language Family. Of the three, Language is the most important and where most of the gameplay takes place.

Language Families​

The largest subdivision, many Languages belong to a Language Family, for example Arabic belonging to Semitic. The Indo-European family is split into its sub-groups like Germanic and Romance, because otherwise it is simply too large. Languages like Basque are isolated, and so do not exist in a Language Family. This mostly offers a small opinion bonus and also slightly minimises cost for things like culture acceptance and market attraction.

language_groups.png

Note that this is WIP and examples like Iranic and Indic language groups haven’t been set up.


Languages​

Every culture has a single Language which represents the most common vernacular amongst its people. Languages are often larger groups that are comparable to an EU4 culture group in size, if anyone here has played that game. For example, Iceland to Sweden all use variants of the Scandinavian language, while everyone from Vienna to Hamburg will use variants of the German language.

Languages have Language Power, which is impacted by many sources such as which countries use it as a court language, common language, and liturgical language. It is expressed as a percentage of the most powerful language in the world, and impacts the intensity of bonuses you get from it.

tooltip_language.png

Un ejemplo.


languages.png

The dominant language in each location is shown.



Dialects​

To add diversity within a Language, we have a system of Dialects (though we aren’t especially set on that nomenclature). They represent vernaculars that in Project Caesar’s time period broadly formed a dialectical continuum, and are an effective way to differentiate them without weakening them by splitting them into full Languages.

Dialects are purely for flavour and have no gameplay effect; two dialects are considered identical for most purposes such as opinion bonuses, and they share stats like Language Power. For example, both Leonese and Castilian are considered the same Spanish language and so share the same Language Power, but may have different character names, location names and potentially other light flavour too.
dialects.png

A map showing the dominant dialects in each location. The current setup is WIP, for example we haven't split up South Slavic or Italian.


germanic_language_group.png

Here is a sketch showing the structure of the Germanic language group and its languages and dialects.




Countries have several different ways of interacting with Languages.

Common Language​

The Common Language of a country is simply the language that is used by the primary culture. It can’t be chosen or changed without affecting the Primary Culture.


Liturgical Language​

Every country has a Liturgical Language, which represents the language that the Clergy use in their rituals and scriptures, and by extension what scholars use in their academic works. Some religions allow a country to choose whichever liturgical language they like, (for example, Eastern Orthodox countries variously use languages like Greek or Church Slavonic) whereas Catholic and Islamic countries are forced to use Latin and Arabic respectively.

In general, you will want to adopt a liturgical language with high language power, as it affects your research speed.


liturgical_language.png




Market Language​

Markets also have a Market Language representing the Lingua Franca used between the merchants, which is based on the dominant language of the burghers in the Market Capital. The higher the market power, the higher its contribution to the Language Power.

Locations will have a higher attraction towards markets that share their dominant language, and a slightly smaller bonus if they only share a language family.

market_language.png




Court Language​

Every country also has a Court Language, which represents the primary vernacular used in formal proceedings in the government, for example it might be the language spoken in parliament or written in legal documents.

Unlike the others, Court Languages can be changed almost at will. The possible languages are drawn from your Primary and Accepted Cultures, your ruler, or your Overlord country. The exact court language you have affects the satisfaction of the various estates: Nobles want you to have a more powerful language, meanwhile peasants just want it to be the Common Language. Burghers are happy if you use the same as the capital’s Market Language. The Clergy of course want everything to be in the Liturgical Language.

Most countries start with the same Court Language as their Common Language, but significant examples of where it is different in 1337 would include Norman French in England and Church Latin in Catholic theocracies.

court_language.png




Culture Group​

A Culture Group is a set of Cultures that have some sort of shared identity towards each other. Culture Groups are usually independent of language and current diplomacy, but rather represent a more geographic or genealogical connection that is difficult to represent without abstraction.

A good example would be the British culture group. The diverse cultures of Great Britain have 3 different languages, across several different countries, and yet they are still united by their shared history and cultural influence that transcends the borders.

cultrure_group_british.png

An important culture group.


In gameplay terms, Culture Groups give small opinion bonuses and make culture acceptance a lot cheaper, but also various pieces of content are gated behind Culture Group instead of Culture. For example, your primary culture needs to be in the British culture group to form the Great Britain tag. The game rules can be set to also prevent you from changing your Primary Culture to one in a different Group.

One change we have made from EU4 is that cultures can belong to multiple different Culture Groups, or if they are isolated enough, none at all.

culture_norse_gael.png

Norse-Gael is the most extreme example of multiple Culture Groups, but the median will be closer to 1 or 2.




That’s all for now, but our talks on culture don’t stop here. Next week the artist currently known as Johan will make a song and dance about some deeper aspects of Culture that are brand new for Project Caesar, such as Works of Art and Culture War.
 
  • 349Love
  • 166Like
  • 6
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I'm currently entertaining "Vernacular" but I still think Dialect is better despite its political baggage. Most of the others are far too academic in nature for a game.
Is the name something that needs to be named in game or just of a 'mechanic' and used in the wiki? If it is the former I believe "Variety" is better than "Vernacular". If it is the latter, then just call it what it is "name list"

So in the wiki, it would state that Aragon's language is Spanish and that it used the Aragonese name list. If all it is doing is cosmetic I don't feel it needs an in game name. Is there any benefit for it being listed in game?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
View attachment 1212853
Dividing West Salvic into Czech-Slovak and Lechitic could be a better choice for the time in the same way they separated Bulgarian from the other South Slavic languages but not Slovenian, the problem here though is where to put Sorbian.

Sorbian could actually be its own language, because its two "dialects" are actually very different, Lower Sorbian has characteristics of Lechitic languages and Upper Sorbian has characteristics of Czechoslovak languages. Archaeology also confirms that these were two cultures that influenced each other and not the other way around, that the Sorbians are a transitional people between Lechitic and Czechoslovak.
Since we're debating that in this thread after all, I'll add few words.

Split of West Slavic languages into distinct subgroups already happened by the beginning of the game, and although we can argue that Czech and Polish were still very similar at that point, I'd say given that languages are not dynamic, it's better to have that split. While West Slavic "language" is defensible in 1337, it becomes more and more ridiculous with every century in the game.

So instead of West Slavic I would have:
- Lechitic
--- Polish
--- Kashubian
--- Polabian
(note: no separate Silesian dialect for that period, as already argued here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...baltic-feedback.1701889/page-17#post-29862001)

- Czecho-Slovak (or Czech-Slovak, but not Czechoslovak)
--- Czech
--- Slovak

- Sorbian
--- Lower Sorbian
--- Upper Sorbian
(if that division is too much for you, it can also be a language with a single dialect, although I agree with Inzano that linguistically speaking it's better to have separate dialects here).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hard to do as we can only easily show 2 dimensions at a time, but a culture can have any number of culture groups. How do we represent Norse Gael on this map?
You could do an overlapping blur thing like you did with the culture map, or multiple different colored outlines. Maybe just in game when you click on a language it would allow you to click through the different cultures groups it belongs to and display them individually on the map.
 
This looks absolutely amazing. I’m curious whether, even if dialects themselves don’t have gameplay effects, different dialects can belong to different culture groups.

It would be nice, for instance, if Hiberno-English could be part of the Irish/Gaelic culture group as well as the British one, or Galician within the Spanish culture group.
 
This looks absolutely amazing. I’m curious whether, even if dialects themselves don’t have gameplay effects, different dialects can belong to different culture groups.

It would be nice, for instance, if Hiberno-English could be part of the Irish/Gaelic culture group as well as the British one, or Galician within the Spanish culture group.
Dialects don't belong to culture groups, cultures do.

As it stands, Irish and Anglo-Irish both sit in the Hibernian culture group, but split between Celtic and British groups respectively.
 
  • 15Like
  • 4
Reactions:
I can understand that the choice for southern italian has been to revert back to just call it "Italian", even if I don't think that anyone would consider the existence of such an language in 1337, but for the love of Dante can the peninsula get some love in terms of dialects? Cisalpine could use a split between western gallo-italic and venet, and southern italian is in sore need of a three-way split between tosco-mediano, neapolitan, and sicilian.

Italian was a language back then, just a lot less centralized and widespread, it didn't just spawn in Manzoni's head at the end of the 19th century
Since a lot of people are saying that italian is a modern construct here's a page from Dante's divine comedy in medieval Tuscan
1731100497354.png


Im positive that the tinto team doesn't have any Italians in their team, so any native can back me up on this:it's undersandable for a modern italian speaker to undertand this 13th century verse written in medieval italian, especially if you are eloquent and know the "fancier" italian words who just fell out of use in recent times

The italian states started using Italian as the administrative and aristocratic language long before italian unification, thise includes both southern italian kingdoms and northen italian duchies and republics, here's some examples:
Edict of Rivoli (1561) where Italian became the official language in Piedmont proper and Nice
Piedmont-Savoy was one of the latest italian states to adopt italian as official administrative language, so 1561 is considered "late" in comparison to other italian states

Medieval Naples using Italian increasingly already by the 15th century
"If in the first phase of domination the French undoubtedly enjoyed greater strength, the prestige of the Florentine and of the numerous and qualified Florentine community present at court, which culminated with the nomination of Niccolò Acciaiuoli as Grand Seneschal (1348), also led here to a progressive increase in official production in an Italian strongly based on the Tuscan model."

Same for Mantova
"The path towards Italianization at the Mantuan court of the Gonzagas was earlier, a path that can be well documented thanks to the impressive funds of the Gonzaga Archive, which testify as during the lordships of Ludovico I and his successor Francesco I, between the 14th and 15th centuries , not only is the vernacular used, but the dialectal features that distinguished previous literary production (drop of final vowels, disarray of intervocalic consonants) disappear from public documents to make room for koinè solutions."

Slightly later officialy for the Papal states, though italian clearly left an early mark
"The events of the standardization of the official language in Rome were influenced by the removal of the papal court following the Avignon captivity (1309-1377). The curia was definitively re-established in the city only in 1420, with Pope Martin V, who perfected the institution of the new class of curials, recruited largely from the Florentine elite who were also acquiring economic power in the city. The early Tuscanization that emerges in the official fifteenth-sixteenth century productions, which have been at the center of numerous studies on the events of the language of Rome, does not seem unrelated to this. However, the still considerable weight of Latin in the drafting of public documents in Rome should be noted. If we examine the production of notices, another type of text for which intelligibility by the people should be an essential characteristic, we note that even in the first half of the sixteenth century these documents were largely written in Latin, only sometimes translated or abridged in the vernacular: the officialization of the vernacular as the second written language of the papal chancellery occurred in 1515, under the pontificate of Leo"


You get the point,Italian existed, it was just called Tuscan and only after it spread officially throught the peninsula did people start to call it italian (16th century), but it did exist since the 13th century and earlier


I stand by the opinion that Cisalpine shouldn't exist (i made a comment in the italy feedback about it explaining my reasoning) and should be unified with the rest of Italian, Sardinian is the only one who has some legittimate reasons to be a whole different language, but even then it's arguable just how much different it was in the 14th century and how isolated the Sardinians felt from the peninsula
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Dialects vs. Languages

This is of course always a hotly debated issue, but I think you've made reasonable choices in Europe. Although, there are still some inconsistencies. In Northern France for example, you have Norman and French as two distinct dialects of French. Old French, which is what we call the group of romance languages spoken in Northern France in 1337, is just that, a group of languages. The nomenclature is getting a bit weird already when we have it that the Kingdom of France speaks french, a dialect of french. A simple solution to this would be to change the language French to have the name langues d'oïl (or oïl languages). This is better and creates an accurate parallel with Occitan or langues d'oc in the south. But, ultimately, this causes problems with the 3 level conceptualization for languages that you have created as the term langues d'oïl automatically admits that what you have called a language is in fact a group of languages. I of course understand the historical justification for why Norman is the only language you deemed worthy enough to be separate in the dialect grouping, but it is incredibly inconsistent as the implication is that the other langues d'oïl are somehow equal contributors to what would later become the French we know today when, in reality, French was created out of the language of Paris. The other langues d'oïl had and some still have their own literary traditions separate from that of the language of Paris.

Another strange naming choice that you've made is with Italian (which sardinian should NOT be a part of, this is plainly inaccurate. Sardinian is so distinct that it forms its own branch of Romance). Italian is a constructed language formed mainly out of the language of Florence. Why should Sicilian (which I imagine you will add later) be considered a dialect of this Florentine language? I know it sounds silly but I genuinely believe this to be harmful design as it propagates the myth that the languages of Italy are dialects of Italian. (I have some proposed fixes for this later)

There are also then some other weird choices that I just don't understand. Why is Cornish called Breton? I can't find any historical reasoning for why this would be the case. Why is Manx called Scottish Gaelic? If you want to point out that Manx is not that different, why pick Scottish Gaelic over Irish? Once again I see no historical basis in this decision. I think the most accurate thing would be to have a separate Manx and Cornish.

In general though, I appreciate the abstractness given to Germanic, but I understand why that's difficult to copy over to Romance.

As it seems you already pointed at, the word dialect is innately controversial simply because it is an inaccurate word with no accepted definition. The word that is slowly gaining ground to replace dialect, particularly in academia is variety. Using the word variety is generally preferred to dialect as it doesn't come with the same political connotations that dialect does. Dialect is a word that has been used to put down languages for a long time and continues to do so. Variety is a neutral term that doesn't imply hierarchy. Which, in a sandbox game where in theory anyone can become hegemon, we should be striving to push away from the hierarchies that were created by the last 700 years and letting the player imagine their own.

Ultimately though, I think that the three tiered system is unnecessary, I can imagine that the relationships bonuses of being in the same language family could be offloaded somewhere into culture. I could see any one of the three tiers being eliminated and the game probably being more accurate. If you remove the language family tier then you can call what is currently the language tier language families and call the dialect tier languages. If you remove the language tier you can do a similar adjustment.

But, if you are set on having a three tiered system, I have what I think is a far more accurate solution which doesn't use ugly academic names. I'm going to present it using Romance since it is the language family I'm most familiar with.
languagegroupings1.png
languagegroupings2.png


I gave two examples because I think that while the first one is better linguistically speaking, the second one is more interesting for gameplay reasons as it splits up Western Romance into some constituencies.

If you choose to implement any of my ideas... please separate Sardinian from Italian, please do not call the language of Southern Italy Italian, and please do not have any varieties using the name of something in the languages tier.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Dialects vs. Languages

This is of course always a hotly debated issue, but I think you've made reasonable choices in Europe. Although, there are still some inconsistencies. In Northern France for example, you have Norman and French as two distinct dialects of French. Old French, which is what we call the group of romance languages spoken in Northern France in 1337, is just that, a group of languages. The nomenclature is getting a bit weird already when we have it that the Kingdom of France speaks french, a dialect of french. A simple solution to this would be to change the language French to have the name langues d'oïl (or oïl languages). This is better and creates an accurate parallel with Occitan or langues d'oc in the south. But, ultimately, this causes problems with the 3 level conceptualization for languages that you have created as the term langues d'oïl automatically admits that what you have called a language is in fact a group of languages. I of course understand the historical justification for why Norman is the only language you deemed worthy enough to be separate in the dialect grouping, but it is incredibly inconsistent as the implication is that the other langues d'oïl are somehow equal contributors to what would later become the French we know today when, in reality, French was created out of the language of Paris. The other langues d'oïl had and some still have their own literary traditions separate from that of the language of Paris.

Another strange naming choice that you've made is with Italian (which sardinian should NOT be a part of, this is plainly inaccurate. Sardinian is so distinct that it forms its own branch of Romance). Italian is a constructed language formed mainly out of the language of Florence. Why should Sicilian (which I imagine you will add later) be considered a dialect of this Florentine language? I know it sounds silly but I genuinely believe this to be harmful design as it propagates the myth that the languages of Italy are dialects of Italian. (I have some proposed fixes for this later)

There are also then some other weird choices that I just don't understand. Why is Cornish called Breton? I can't find any historical reasoning for why this would be the case. Why is Manx called Scottish Gaelic? If you want to point out that Manx is not that different, why pick Scottish Gaelic over Irish? Once again I see no historical basis in this decision. I think the most accurate thing would be to have a separate Manx and Cornish.

In general though, I appreciate the abstractness given to Germanic, but I understand why that's difficult to copy over to Romance.

As it seems you already pointed at, the word dialect is innately controversial simply because it is an inaccurate word with no accepted definition. The word that is slowly gaining ground to replace dialect, particularly in academia is variety. Using the word variety is generally preferred to dialect as it doesn't come with the same political connotations that dialect does. Dialect is a word that has been used to put down languages for a long time and continues to do so. Variety is a neutral term that doesn't imply hierarchy. Which, in a sandbox game where in theory anyone can become hegemon, we should be striving to push away from the hierarchies that were created by the last 700 years and letting the player imagine their own.

Ultimately though, I think that the three tiered system is unnecessary, I can imagine that the relationships bonuses of being in the same language family could be offloaded somewhere into culture. I could see any one of the three tiers being eliminated and the game probably being more accurate. If you remove the language family tier then you can call what is currently the language tier language families and call the dialect tier languages. If you remove the language tier you can do a similar adjustment.

But, if you are set on having a three tiered system, I have what I think is a far more accurate solution which doesn't use ugly academic names. I'm going to present it using Romance since it is the language family I'm most familiar with.View attachment 1213792View attachment 1213793

I gave two examples because I think that while the first one is better linguistically speaking, the second one is more interesting for gameplay reasons as it splits up Western Romance into some constituencies.

If you choose to implement any of my ideas... please separate Sardinian from Italian, please do not call the language of Southern Italy Italian, and please do not have any varieties using the name of something in the languages tier.
What alternatives are there to "Italian"? Central Romance sounds bad in my opinion, plus i think some level of abstraction is fine, we can assume that "Italian" isn't the Florentine one specifically, but the broader "Italo-romance"/"Italo-dalmatian" group,it would be cooler if you could separate these languages and Tuscan slowly influences them (or if some italian state conquer large chunks of italy it can excert its own influence) but it's not possible, they already said that culture convergence with things like french won't be possible, just assimilation
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What alternatives are there to "Italian"? Central Romance sounds bad in my opinion, plus i think some level of abstraction is fine, we can assume that "Italian" isn't the Florentine one specifically, but the broader "Italo-romance"/"Italo-dalmatian" group,it would be cooler if you could separate these languages and Tuscan slowly influences them (or if some italian state conquer large chunks of italy it can excert its own influence) but it's not possible, they already said that culture convergence with things like french won't be possible, just assimilation
I really dislike the word Italian for this purpose. While I agree that Central Romance is a little bit dookie it is more neutral. I think a not unreasonable compromise is Italian Romance. This way Italian refers specifically to the peninsula as opposed to the language.
 
Italian was a language back then, just a lot less centralized and widespread, it didn't just spawn in Manzoni's head at the end of the 19th century
Since a lot of people are saying that italian is a modern construct here's a page from Dante's divine comedy in medieval Tuscan
View attachment 1213783

Im positive that the tinto team doesn't have any Italians in their team, so any native can back me up on this:it's undersandable for a modern italian speaker to undertand this 13th century verse written in medieval italian, especially if you are eloquent and know the "fancier" italian words who just fell out of use in recent times

The italian states started using Italian as the administrative and aristocratic language long before italian unification, thise includes both southern italian kingdoms and northen italian duchies and republics, here's some examples:
Edict of Rivoli (1561) where Italian became the official language in Piedmont proper and Nice
Piedmont-Savoy was one of the latest italian states to adopt italian as official administrative language, so 1561 is considered "late" in comparison to other italian states

Medieval Naples using Italian increasingly already by the 15th century
"If in the first phase of domination the French undoubtedly enjoyed greater strength, the prestige of the Florentine and of the numerous and qualified Florentine community present at court, which culminated with the nomination of Niccolò Acciaiuoli as Grand Seneschal (1348), also led here to a progressive increase in official production in an Italian strongly based on the Tuscan model."

Same for Mantova
"The path towards Italianization at the Mantuan court of the Gonzagas was earlier, a path that can be well documented thanks to the impressive funds of the Gonzaga Archive, which testify as during the lordships of Ludovico I and his successor Francesco I, between the 14th and 15th centuries , not only is the vernacular used, but the dialectal features that distinguished previous literary production (drop of final vowels, disarray of intervocalic consonants) disappear from public documents to make room for koinè solutions."

Slightly later officialy for the Papal states, though italian clearly left an early mark
"The events of the standardization of the official language in Rome were influenced by the removal of the papal court following the Avignon captivity (1309-1377). The curia was definitively re-established in the city only in 1420, with Pope Martin V, who perfected the institution of the new class of curials, recruited largely from the Florentine elite who were also acquiring economic power in the city. The early Tuscanization that emerges in the official fifteenth-sixteenth century productions, which have been at the center of numerous studies on the events of the language of Rome, does not seem unrelated to this. However, the still considerable weight of Latin in the drafting of public documents in Rome should be noted. If we examine the production of notices, another type of text for which intelligibility by the people should be an essential characteristic, we note that even in the first half of the sixteenth century these documents were largely written in Latin, only sometimes translated or abridged in the vernacular: the officialization of the vernacular as the second written language of the papal chancellery occurred in 1515, under the pontificate of Leo"


You get the point,Italian existed, it was just called Tuscan and only after it spread officially throught the peninsula did people start to call it italian (16th century), but it did exist since the 13th century and earlier


I stand by the opinion that Cisalpine shouldn't exist (i made a comment in the italy feedback about it explaining my reasoning) and should be unified with the rest of Italian, Sardinian is the only one who has some legittimate reasons to be a whole different language, but even then it's arguable just how much different it was in the 14th century and how isolated the Sardinians felt from the peninsula
First of all, thank you for the info, I did not know of the Editto di Rivoli (and I'm piemontese).

Second, I respectfully think that you don't quite grasp what the dialects are suppose to represent in this game. I really like that there is actually the granularity to adequately represent the divide between the official court language (that, as you present very eloquently, was gradually spread over the courts of the whole peninsula), and the language that most of the people were speaking. Taking away the literate and the aristocracy (and, in latter centuries, the bourgeoisie) the majority of people were speaking regional dialects. Tullio de Mauro, in Storia linguistica dell'Italia unita (1963), estimates a 2,5% of italian speakers in Italy at the moment of unification (1861). This game represents it by having both court/market language, which I have no problem in having a role, and dialects, and on that regard I don't think that anywhere apart tuscany it can be applied such a definition in the timeframe covered in this game.

Third, over your dislike for the inclusion of cisalpine language... may I remind you of the isoglossa Massa-Senigallia (or La Spezia-Rimini, for a slightly outdated naming convention)? There is clear divide between gallo-romances languages and easter romance languages.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
No, we represent that as the country's primary culture assimilating the minorities.
I can understand this a little, with things like the 'Francien' culture pretty much dominating France and being heavily pushed in the French education systems in the 19th century... But things like the 5 different kinds of Polish having to assimilate to whichever the primary one is kinda strange. If I play as a Silesian count, and manage to unite Poland, are all of the Polish people gonna start converting to the Silesian culture and dialect slowly if I push it? Can you clarify please
 
We have a soft rule where if a ruler title is commonly used in English, or it represents a distinct concept from the English equivalent, we can use the unique cultural term. There is essentially no conceptual difference between the English King and French Roi so we don't translate, but Tsar and Sultan do exist in English.
Could you make a game rule for this/the more unique or regional name?. Roi de France sounds so much cooler. Also, Tsar comes from Csar, which comes from Caesar meaning emperor, so by your logic we shouldn't have the regional Tsar name, because it would just be the emperor title.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
It's possible, problem is it's just an extra calculation every month on every location which slows the game down.
I love all the discussion, and I don't mean to be 'that guy', but any sophomore historian knows that the west Slavic languages, primarily Czech/Polish/Sorbian diverged within the 10th century. Similar to why you guys didn't put the English and Frisian cultures together, Id argue that these languages should be stripped from the generic 'West Slavic". Hey at least its not as bad as when Slovak was in the Carpathian culture group ;). Czech and Slovak remained closer till about the 12th century, while the sorbs and poles remained closes until the beginning of the 13th century.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: