Global Pandemic!

[Jellybelly]

Not over a 3000 year period.  Those periods are localized, and relatively short term, and often have to do with elimination of extraneous terms after two language bodies merge, not the simple elimination of complexity within a language in isolation.

 

We certainly do have simplification over much more than a 3000 year period. The postulated Proto-Germanic is assumed to have been spoken from around 2500 BCE, which should be about 4500 years ago. It is the common ancestor to all today's Germanic languages, many of which are still mutually intelligible. Norwegian and Dutch, for example, is still mutually intelligible to the educated speaker. Certainly the germanic dialects have developed in different directions, but they all came from Proto-Germanic, which in turn came from Proto-Indoeuropean. The history of western languages is one long tale of syntactic and morphological simplication.   

 

Universal language simplification, of a single language in isolation, over a period of 3000 years, is.

 

Certainly, that is the case, because no language can ever be isolated. I have merely given examples that language simplication (woeful term) is a known linguistic fact.

 

English never was, and never will be, a language in isolation.  Therefore your examples, while interesting, do not apply.

 

They most definitely do apply, to the premise at hand. Your obsession over whether or not the language in question has been isolated is irrelevant. Your initial claim was that languages never lose complexity, and gave the example of Latin and Italian in support. I provided a counterexample, that of English, a language which had parallell development to that of Italian, yet lost complexity where Italian (arguably) gained some. German too, is a language which has lost complexity in the same time-span, though not to the same degree as English.

 

EDITED for spelling. It's late.

[RobertAlexWillis]

We certainly do have simplification over much more than a 3000 year period. The postulated Proto-Germanic is assumed to have been spoken from around 2500 BCE, which should be about 4500 years ago. It is the common ancestor to all today's Germanic languages, many of which are still mutually intelligible. Norwegian and Dutch, for example, is still mutually intelligible to the educated speaker. Certainly the germanic dialects have developed in different directions, but they all came from Proto-Germanic, which in turn came from Proto-Indoeuropean. The history of western languages is one long tale of syntactic and morphological simplication.

 

While I could argue that none of that is a case of pure simplification (complexity has increased in some areas while simplification was occurring in others) that is irrelevant.  None of the Germanic languages exists, existed, or will exist in the kind of isolation that the language of Randland is supposed to.

 

The history of western languages is a history of linguistic interaction due to trade, conquest, and a variety of other influences, none of which has any apparent effect in Randland, or Shara, or Seanchan for that matter.

 

Certainly, that is the case, because no language can ever be isolated.

 

But the only living language in the world of Randland is.

 

They most definitely do apply, to the premise at hand. Your obsession over whether or not the language in question has been isolated is irrelevant.

 

It is not irrelevant if the premise is, as you said, "In actual fact, the simplification of the Germanic languages from their Proto-Germanic ancestor mirrors the simplification of Randland's language quite nicely."

 

Because, in actual "fact", the language of Randland does not occupy the same linguistic landscape that any actual human language has ever occupied, that is, a landscape in which it is apparently the only living language.

 

Your initial claim was that languages never lose complexity, and gave the example of Latin and Italian in support.

 

I probably went too far in my assertion that living languages never lose complexity.  I do think that your assertion that "The history of western languages is one long tale of syntactic and morphological simpli[fi]cation" is, itself, a gross simplification, but then, so was my assertion.  I never intended to embark on an extended discussion of linguistic development in the real world, because that is not the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is the language spoken in Randland, and the oddity of its universality.  The real world contains no analog, so a description of real world linguistic development is, at best, something which underlines the differences between reality and the World of the Wheel.

[Charlz Guybon]

Oh, Jordan came up with a rationalization for it.  He says that since the world had a united language at one point in the past, it was more natural to maintain some form of linguistic integrity.  Even the Old Tongue is still related to the modern tongue; he compares them at one point to Latin and Italian.

 

Of course, there are linguistic holes in that ... for example Italian is more complex than Latin, whereas the language of Randland is supposed to have lost complexity ... which never happens over time with live languages.

 

But yeah, he doesn't spend much time defending it.  Just like Star Trek sort of runs quickly across the top of the "universal translator", and Farscape didn't dwell on the mechanics of language microbes.  Because I'm sure he knew that it is unrealistic.

 

Its certainly not a reason to not enjoy the series.

But isn't the increasing complexity of language due to the increasing complexity of technology and culture. With the collapse of modern civilization it's not surprising things got simpler.

 

[Shard]

Charlz, before the influx of European nations into the Americas there used to be about some 500 languages in North America alone. That's pretty complex.

 

What's more is there is a difference in word usage between British and American use of English and I don't mean in slang either. Like how we use Elevator in the states and Lift is used in Britain.

[RobertAlexWillis]

But isn't the increasing complexity of language due to the increasing complexity of technology and culture.

 

Not really.  Increases and decreases in complexity are generally due to multi-language interactions.  We haven't had the chance to observe any spoken languages in total isolation, over long periods, on the intercontinental scale proposed by Jordan.

 

With the collapse of modern civilization it's not surprising things got simpler.

 

That seems to have been Jordan's premise.  But "primitive" cultures have concepts and vocabulary that "modern" cultures lack, and vice versa.

 

In reality, languages seem to simply change as they interact, rather than lose or gain in overall "complexity".

 

Of course, that depends on how you define "complexity", so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong.  To which I will smile and say "nuh-uh".  ;D

[Charlz Guybon]

But isn't the increasing complexity of language due to the increasing complexity of technology and culture.

 

Not really.  Increases and decreases in complexity are generally due to multi-language interactions.  We haven't had the chance to observe any spoken languages in total isolation, over long periods, on the intercontinental scale proposed by Jordan.

 

With the collapse of modern civilization it's not surprising things got simpler.

 

That seems to have been Jordan's premise.  But "primitive" cultures have concepts and vocabulary that "modern" cultures lack, and vice versa.

 

In reality, languages seem to simply change as they interact, rather than lose or gain in overall "complexity".

 

Of course, that depends on how you define "complexity", so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong.  To which I will smile and say "nuh-uh".   ;D

English has by far the largest vocabulary because it is the language of science and most new inventions are named in it.

 

My Dad is a native Spanish speaker but he can converse slowly with someone who speaks Portuguese and Italian and Latin disappeared 1500 years ago.

[RobertAlexWillis]

English has by far the largest vocabulary because it is the language of science and most new inventions are named in it.

 

New technology brings in new vocabulary, and the abandonment of old technologies results in loss of vocabulary.

 

Also, a language's complexity is more than the number of words.

 

My Dad is a native Spanish speaker but he can converse slowly with someone who speaks Portuguese and Italian and Latin disappeared 1500 years ago.

 

But the difference is still far more than the observed difference between, for example, the Seanchan and the inhabitants of Randland.  Seanchan is a separate continent, larger and more diverse than Randland, and has been for 3000 years.  Portugese, Italian, and Spanish are all offshoots of a common lingual ancestor on one part of a single continent, and have been divergent for far less than 3000 years.  Yet the difference between Portuguese and Spanish is greater than the observed difference between Seanchan language and Randland language.

[CUBAREY]

Quote

My Dad is a native Spanish speaker but he can converse slowly with someone who speaks Portuguese and Italian and Latin disappeared 1500 years ago.

 

But the difference is still far more than the observed difference between, for example, the Seanchan and the inhabitants of Randland.  Seanchan is a separate continent, larger and more diverse than Randland, and has been for 3000 years.  Portugese, Italian, and Spanish are all offshoots of a common lingual ancestor on one part of a single continent, and have been divergent for far less than 3000 years.  Yet the difference between Portuguese and Spanish is greater than the observed difference between Seanchan language and Randland language.

 

Please note that an educated Spanish speaker (one who speaks Castillian) may very well also be able to read French. This is not surprising as all the "Romance languages not only are derived from latin but have similar syntatic (sp?) rules. Because of this a person who is fluent in one language often has some ability in another. However, even is the closest of related Romance languages such as Portugese and Gallego (a language spoken in Northwest west Spain) and Castillian (what we normally call spanish) and Catalon (a language spoken mainly in Northeast Spain in an around the Province of Catalonia of which Barcelona is the Capital)there is only an 80% uninamity in words (only 80% of the words are identical or so similar as to be readiliy understood). Compare this to the Modern language of WOT where accents can differ but the actual words are the same. I also note that Spanish, Galelo-Portugese and Catalan all date back to aproximately 1000-1100 A.C.E. Which highlights the difference in the development of seperate languages in our world and the very real static nature of language in Randland.

 

I would also like to note that the linguistic similarity of Seanchen and Randland is even more bizzare in that not only did the two groups diverge one thousand years ago but Seanchen was heavily culturally influenced by the cultrue of Seanchen as it existed in Hawkwings time but apperently was not influenced at all by the language spoken in Seanchen prior to the Hawkwing invasion (or the language spoken in Seanchen onw thousand years ago was the same as spoken in Randland although the two cultures seemed to have very little interaction for two thousand years).

 

 

[Shard]

There is still a big difference between Mexican Spanish and Spainish though isn't there? Just like with American and British English. One of the better examples is Chinese and Japanese now as different as night and day but once they WERE the same.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I would also like to note that the linguistic similarity of Seanchen and Randland is even more bizzare in that not only did the two groups diverge one thousand years ago but Seanchen was heavily culturally influenced by the cultrue of Seanchen as it existed in Hawkwings time but apperently was not influenced at all by the language spoken in Seanchen prior to the Hawkwing invasion (or the language spoken in Seanchen onw thousand years ago was the same as spoken in Randland although the two cultures seemed to have very little interaction for two thousand years)

 

Actually, what was spoken in Seanchan, according to RJ, was supposed to be closer to the Old Tongue, making pre-Luthair Seanchan even more static than Randland, which is a unrealistic given the purported political chaos and even the purely physical factors of land area and variety of topography.

 

Again, nothing in the real world is even a roughly accurate analog.  The Age of Legends was supposed to have an essentially unified human society with uniform language, customs, etc.  The nearly 3000 years since (actually, its closer to 4000) have seen a huge diversity in cultures and customs, but apparently zero meaningful variation in language?  Absurd.  But convenient for a writer.

 

Again, I doubt that RJ was unaware of this.  He made gestures in the direction of an explanation, but didn't spend much time worrying about it.

[Serenla]

I'll probably get my head bitten off but, it seems to me that if there is only one language, then the amount of change seen in that language would be much less than if there are many other languages to influence it. Also spoken language is usually simpler than written, so while the world was breaking, language would probably gotten simpler.  (no schools and libraries and scholars.  Just a bunch of people trying to find food and shelter.  Who would have time to obsess over grammer?)

 

Maybe the two thousand or so years between Hawkwing's army going to Seanchan would have had more of an impact in our reality, but I just chalk that up to Hawkwing's army being as controlling back then as they are now.  I figure if they own people and put them on leashes and whatnot, they can stomp out a language or two. 

And as for the thousand years until their return without too much of a change, the Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills...  How can Rand make the alliance that the Pattern and Prophecies call for, if he can't communicate with them?  While I'm reading, I keep my sense of realism intact by assuming that the Pattern wove what was needful.

[Roxinos]

Well, at least RAW got the point of me mentioning the language thing.

[Serenla]

Laughing, got distacted by the language bit and forgot about the illness thing. 

 

There have been some illnesses that have spread, right?  I think that Egwene mentions that some smell reminds her of fear from when people were afraid of catching some illness in the Two Rivers.  The thing is that groups that are isolated are the ones where no Aes Sedai help would have been available.  Their isolation decreases the spread of disease, it's not like they can catch it and hop on a plane before symptoms appear.  It takes weeks to get from one population to another.  In big cities, Aes Sedai would be available, to use their method of Healing everything at once and wouldn't spread it because the One Power offers protection from catching things. 

 

Well, at least RAW got the point of me mentioning the language thing.

I think I see your point, it's that in a fantasy novel, many things seem like a big stretch, right?  I always find a way to rationalize these things, if possible.  Otherwise I'd obsess over it until smoke came out my ears.  TWoT has the Pattern, which I use to rationalize many things that seem too convenient.  (My latest obsession, because I accidently watched Harry Potter last night, is why are the teachers so uninvolved in what the kids are up to?  Why weren't my teachers like that?  Smoke comes out of ears so I go back to thinking about tWoT...)

[Roxinos]

Yep. That was precisely my point.

 

There are many little shortcuts that an author will take to make things simpler. Often, these little things can be rationalized away, as has the language thing, for the sake of the story and other little reasons (which have been since mentioned in this thread). In the end, you just have to have a bit of suspension of disbelief.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

Latin "gave birth" to languages such as Spanish, Italian, Romanian and French, to give a few examples. It did not give birth to German or English, which are both West Germanic languages. The Germanic languages and Latin were related, though, both being members of the Indo-European family of languages. Modern English is the direct descendant of an Anglian dialect of Old English, a languages in turn descended from the western branch of Proto-Germanic.

Though, Latin has heavily influenced English in other ways. Given that Latin influenced French, and the fact you can see the influx of French words into English, there’s a link.

 

Words such as sanguine, servant, consul, gym, etc., etc, all either Latin (OK, gym is Greek), or French-Latin additions to a Germanic language.

 

Culturally, the legal systems have all been influenced, to a degree, by Roman systems. Reference the Napoleonic legal codes which have in turn influenced legalese, and from there the common language, in all English-speaking countries.

 

Granted, the latter is more cultural than linguistic, but nevertheless it is there.

 

In Randland it’d be the same with the Old Tongue. Especially given that it’s a status symbol… reference all the nobles taking classes and paying it lip service.

While I could argue that none of that is a case of pure simplification (complexity has increased in some areas while simplification was occurring in others) that is irrelevant.  None of the Germanic languages exists, existed, or will exist in the kind of isolation that the language of Randland is supposed to.

 

The history of western languages is a history of linguistic interaction due to trade, conquest, and a variety of other influences, none of which has any apparent effect in Randland, or Shara, or Seanchan for that matter.

One example of “isolation” vs. “expansion” in terms of language that might well be relevant is Arabic.

 

Arabic is closely related to Hebrew and Aramaic, they share the same 3-vowel/letter system.

 

Now consider this. There are two types of Arabic, colloquial and classical. Colloquial Arabic differs from one state to the next, and even differs internally. Something similar to the Spanish examples CUBA gave earlier. This linguistic creep occurred due to the various waves of Islamic conquest. North West African Arabic is more of less the same throughout the region, Egyptian is different from the North West, Arabian Arabic is different again, Levantine Arabic (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine/Israel) is another branch.

 

However, the classical Arabic (Fusha) is unchanged, mainly because it’s the language of the Koran which, by religious law, cannot be altered. Therefore, any Muslim who’s being religiously educated learns Fusha.

 

The only place where the colloquial Arabic is closest to classical Arabic? Saudi Arabia. It has changed very little. Why? Isolation. Very few people come into the country, religious observation is strong (therefore exposure to the written word is strong), and change is, on all levels, very slow to take place.

 

Having said that, just as with CUBA’s example, someone who can read Fusha, can understand all of it, apart from region-specific vocabulary.

Because, in actual "fact", the language of Randland does not occupy the same linguistic landscape that any actual human language has ever occupied, that is, a landscape in which it is apparently the only living language.

I’m sure there are tribes in the Amazon that have never heard any other language than the one they speak, but sure.

There is still a big difference between Mexican Spanish and Spainish though isn't there? Just like with American and British English.

Well, that depends on your definition of “big difference”. The differences between US, UK, Australian, New Zealand, South African, etc., etc., English are, in the main, miniscule.

 

Sure, the accent might be challenging to understand, but in the main the vocabulary will be strikingly similar.

 

--

 

One thing that’s been missed is the presence of the printing press. Apparently there have always been books produced. This means that there’s another “anchor” for the language to take hold with.

 

…. Though the stunning level of literacy is none-the-less, astounding.

 

In any case, the one language thing is a fudge.

[water_seeker]

So when the official WoT encyclopedia (based off the notes) comes out with the ~1k word Old Tongue vocabulary, who's gonna sit down and learn it?

[Jellybelly]

Though, Latin has heavily influenced English in other ways. Given that Latin influenced French, and the fact you can see the influx of French words into English, there’s a link.

 

Words such as sanguine, servant, consul, gym, etc., etc, all either Latin (OK, gym is Greek), or French-Latin additions to a Germanic language.

 

Certainly, but it is not the language from which English is descended. The direct influence of Latin on English is mainly limited to two waves of loanword-influx. Also, after the Norman conquest there was an influx of French forms, which were of course also affected by Latin. Latin did permeate deeply into English vocabulary (witness for instance the "native" forms of latin "grammar" and "arithmetics", the Old English version of which were "stæfcræft" and "rimcræft" - literally "letter-skill" and "number-skill". Latin did, however, not intrude into the "core" function words of the language, namely pronouns of the demonstrative and personal kind.

 

I do think that your assertion that "The history of western languages is one long tale of syntactic and morphological simpli[fi]cation" is, itself, a gross simplification, but then, so was my assertion.

 

I certainly did not mean to suggest that there has not been areas in which the languages have gained in complexity. My point is that in the core functioning of the langauges descended from Indo-European, there has been extensive morphological and syntactic "simplification" (a term which is not a valid linguistic term, by the way, but since we've been using it...) over a period of millennia. The loss of inflections, cases, reduction of grammatical gender, the fixing of certain word-order patterns etc. I do not think that is really open for dispute. Other areas, such as the lexicon, will undoubtedly have gained members, but I do not think a larger lexicon is necessarily indicative of increased complexity.

 

You stress that language change is due to interaction with other languages. That may be the case now, but I do not think it was the preeminent reason in prehistory. The only languages the various Indo-European dialects would regularly come into contact with, were other Indo-European dialects. This, of course, opens up the question of exactly what constitutes a "language" versus a "dialect", which largely is a meaningless debate. I rather tend to agree with the sentiment that a language is a dialect with an army.

 

Anyway, this is not to be interpreted as a genuine defense of RJ's language construction, although I do think some here are a bit too categorical in their statements about it. The development of RJ's world does not really compare to the last 3000 years of human history. RJ's premise is that the Old Tongue had been established as an exceptional lingua franca, which was probably the mother tongue of all of the world. That premise in itself is fantastical, and does not have anything close to a real-world equivalent. However, if we accept the premise (you may utilise your willing suspension of disbelief) it is not ALL THAT far-fetched that the languages in Randland and Seanchan remain mutually intelligible. The ubiquitousness of the printing press through most of RJ's history, both in Randland and in Seanchan will certainly have contributed to stabilising langauge development. And the consolidation was not a process through which the linguistic features of the conquerors were forced down the throats of he conquered.

 

Besides, we do not know to which extent the Seanchan dialect varies from the dialect of Randland, as RJ has transcribed them into more or less idiomatic English. He does the same with the dialects (which might as well be called languages) of Randland, for instance by letting some languages (Domani, eg) have a higher use of DO-periphrasis, odd syntax, etc. Still, we do not know exactly to which the degree the languages really are different. What we do know, is that it is hard for a randlander to understand a person from Seanchan. That does say something, but not enough.

 

 

 

[CUBAREY]

There is still a big difference between Mexican Spanish and Spainish though isn't there? Just like with American and British English. One of the better examples is Chinese and Japanese now as different as night and day but once they WERE the same.

 

Actually there is almost no difference between present day written Mexican spanish and written Spanish from Spain. There are indian words that have found there way into the Mexican vocabulary that have not been adopted in Spain but even in spoken spanish the differences among the educated or semi-educated is miniscule. The difference is indeed similar to the differences between Texan english and that spoken in Cambridge or Oxford, that is a difffence of accents.

 

It should be noted that unlike english written spanish (Castillian) has not chnaged dramaticly in 800 years. Cervantes who wrote contemporaniously with Shakespeare can be read by any spanish speaker and readily understood; Unlike Shakespeare or even more so Chaucer which must be "studied" by most present day english speakers.

[Roxinos]

...Have you ever spoken to a Mexican? Have you ever spoken to a Spaniard?

 

'Cause I have, and I've known people who have a greater understanding of Spanish who have. Believe me, Mexican Spanish and Spanish Spanish are wildly different.

 

Just as if you believe that the differences between "Texan" English (which, in itself, is a wild oversimplification) and "Cambridge" or "Oxford" English are just determined by accents, then you're insane.

 

I am, of course, simply referring to the spoken languages. Not the written.

[Majsju]

Unlike Shakespeare or even more so Chaucer which must be "studied" by most present day english speakers.

 

Uhm, English is not even my primary language, and I have very little need of doing any "studying" when reading him. Heck, I find most american rap "musicians" harder to understand...

[Roxinos]

Well, if you read the little notes and margins, sure they're easy! But try to read them without!

[RobertAlexWillis]

I certainly did not mean to suggest that there has not been areas in which the languages have gained in complexity. My point is that in the core functioning of the langauges descended from Indo-European, there has been extensive morphological and syntactic "simplification" (a term which is not a valid linguistic term, by the way, but since we've been using it...) over a period of millennia. The loss of inflections, cases, reduction of grammatical gender, the fixing of certain word-order patterns etc. I do not think that is really open for dispute. Other areas, such as the lexicon, will undoubtedly have gained members, but I do not think a larger lexicon is necessarily indicative of increased complexity.

 

That's fine, but not relevant to the topic at hand, which is Randland.

 

And I did admit that my original assertion that language never lost complexity was going too far.

 

That may be the case now, but I do not think it was the preeminent reason in prehistory.

 

I'm sorry, but anything that either of us states about the development of language in pre-history will not only be completely speculative, since by definition we have no records of it, but will also be entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the oddity of the language situation in Randland.

 

Anyway, this is not to be interpreted as a genuine defense of RJ's language construction, although I do think some here are a bit too categorical in their statements about it.

 

It sure sounded like a genuine defense when you said, "In actual fact, the simplification of the Germanic languages from their Proto-Germanic ancestor mirrors the simplification of Randland's language quite nicely."

 

But yes, I have admitted that at least one of my original assertions was too categorical.

 

However, if we accept the premise (you may utili[z]e your willing suspension of disbelief) it is not ALL THAT far-fetched that the languages in Randland and Seanchan remain mutually intelligible.

 

Given the observed degree of change in other areas, I maintain that it is extremely far-fetched.

 

Besides, we do not know to which extent the Seanchan dialect varies from the dialect of Randland, as RJ has transcribed them into more or less idiomatic English.

 

I think we can accurately extrapolate from the complete lack of difficulty in communication ...

 

What we do know, is that it is hard for a randlander to understand a person from Seanchan.

 

Um ... no it isn't.  The Randlanders think that they have an odd accent, but they understand every single word.

 

I’m sure there are tribes in the Amazon that have never heard any other language than the one they speak, but sure.

 

You conveniently ignored the intercontinental scale I explicitly included in the full body of my objection.

 

One example of “isolation” vs. “expansion” in terms of language that might well be relevant is Arabic.

 

Arabic is closely related to Hebrew and Aramaic, they share the same 3-vowel/letter system.

 

Now consider this. There are two types of Arabic, colloquial and classical. Colloquial Arabic differs from one state to the next, and even differs internally. Something similar to the Spanish examples CUBA gave earlier. This linguistic creep occurred due to the various waves of Islamic conquest. North West African Arabic is more of less the same throughout the region, Egyptian is different from the North West, Arabian Arabic is different again, Levantine Arabic (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine/Israel) is another branch.

 

However, the classical Arabic (Fusha) is unchanged, mainly because it’s the language of the Koran which, by religious law, cannot be altered. Therefore, any Muslim who’s being religiously educated learns Fusha.

 

The only place where the colloquial Arabic is closest to classical Arabic? Saudi Arabia. It has changed very little. Why? Isolation. Very few people come into the country, religious observation is strong (therefore exposure to the written word is strong), and change is, on all levels, very slow to take place.

 

Having said that, just as with CUBA’s example, someone who can read Fusha, can understand all of it, apart from region-specific vocabulary.

 

Multiple languages, smaller scale, smaller time period.  Not relevant.

 

Look, people ... I'm not calling RJ an idiot for doing it this way.  It was necessary to tell the story.  I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. 

 

But it isn't realistic.  I'm OK with that.  I don't have to pretend that "Nuh-uh, it could happen" to be OK with it.

[Roxinos]

Um ... no it isn't.  The Randlanders think that they have an odd accent, but they understand every single word.

 

They understand every word, but they do have difficulty. Nearly every time you see a Randlander listening to a Seanchan, you always have note of how slow and slurred the accent is and how difficult it is for them to understand. Sure, they understand, to the point where they don't even misunderstand the Seanchan speech, but it's still difficult.

[RobertAlexWillis]

They understand every word, but they do have difficulty. Nearly every time you see a Randlander listening to a Seanchan, you always have note of how slow and slurred the accent is and how difficult it is for them to understand. Sure, they understand, to the point where they don't even misunderstand the Seanchan speech, but it's still difficult.

 

The difficulty of someone from Boston talking to someone from Texas, not the difficulty of someone from Brazil talking to someone from Azerbaijan.

 

It is a difference in accent, and only a difference in accent.  Not in vocabulary, not in usage, not in syntax, not in grammar.

 

It is more of an irritant than a bar to understanding.

[Roxinos]

I agree. I was just clarifying. I do that, if you haven't noticed. I try to facilitate understanding.