Thread: Yeah! Asteroids, baby! :)

Originally Posted by Doomer

Guides are by definition should be able to guide. If language is required to be a guide then the guide should learn it. i.e. French side should find a guide who speaks all the necessary languages and that's what actually happens in the real world. French side should find resources to make the communication happen, as I was suggesting I don't see why Papua New Guinea should pay French side for a guide as you were suggesting

Ok, so who in the real world would learn whose language? Could French hire Kaluli interpreter who speaks French, or could French hire a French interpreter who speaks Bosavi? All I'm saying, in the real world, both things happen depending on the availability.

Originally Posted by Doomer

Selling the goods is also incorrect example, because goods are targeting local population thus should be useful and convenient for locals

What's targeting the local population is the non-speaking handicraft, but there's the whole marketing requiring lots of speaking and knowing the culture of the target audience. Again, it could do either way, a Kaluli firm could hire a Kaluli who's fluent in French to act abroad, or alternatively, the Kaluli firm could hire a French agent who's fluent in Bosavi. That depends on the availability of the resources. All, I'm saying, the economic ties would inevitably cause mutual language and culture studies. The tighter the ties, the more language studies. If all of a sudden it becomes fashionable for the French tourists to come and visit Papuan Plateau, whoever of Kaluli speaks better French, would get more money as they could provide more hospitable environment. And if French tourists would know Bosavi language better, they would find more exciting experiences. And so on.

I'm not sure what makes you so irritated about point 1, isn't that the natural process that had happen everywhere?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not sure what makes you so irritated about point 1, isn't that the natural process that had happen everywhere?

It suggests that both sides should spend resources on learning the language of the opposite side. I found this economically unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Doomer

It suggests that both sides should spend resources on learning the language of the opposite side. I found this economically unnecessary.

I agree. That's why I think options 2 and 3 (which I personally endorse) are equally good from the economic perspective. However, moving forward from point 1 requires some coordination of efforts, won't you agree? I mean, in my example, if both French and Kaluli would speak, say, Portuguese, it would enormously speed up the business integration, but what would make them both learn Portuguese?