> This is madness. I think the best method of implementing languages is to > keep them scrambled... if you've got a decent learn by use system going > all that learn insanity will be taken care of automatically, and people > will generally understand more based upon their SKILL in the language... > ie. it is scrambled 100 - SKILL percent. The problem with making words > recognizable is that a good chunk of mudders are also coders, and writing > a small program or even a tintin script to decode languages based upon > known words would be fairly simple... then the person passes that little > tidbit to all his friends, it gets put up on an ftp site or web page, and > everyone is seeing foriegn laguages in clear text... back to square one. Indeed it is madness. :) I laugh at it everytime i try to rationalize what I'm coding... a way to make things look like fake languages... in the most accurate way. And I've thought about people making things to decode syllable translation tables, and I didn't want words to look too much different each time, so I thought about using dual syllable tables, you'd have 2 tables for each language, and the randomness would be places upon chooseing which table to use for each word translated. I didn't.. and still don't know much about coding, and thought that it would be hard to make a decoder in tintin or anything else... Mostly because some syllables will be trasnlated into other syllabes with letters, which might have more then one combination.. for instance... grublik might mean two different things in english. Maybe Grub=Hair and Lik=Net... and also.. maybe Gru=Hel, b=l, ik=o. So Grubilk could mean Hairnet or Hello depending on how you translated it. But, new to this as I am, I'm not sure if this too is easy to decode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST