Brydar wrote:Sad that in this day and age we are not required to expand our vocabulary in order to comprehend terminology.
An important point for us as writers too. When I studied to be a Swahili translator, I was told that for practical purposes I could be fluent in the language with a vocabulary of 2,000 words. I don't know how that compares with English, but even a working vocabulary of 10,000 English words would leave a reader lacking a good 95% of the language. Of course he will recognise a lot more words than he uses in his working vocabulary, but nevertheless a writer with a graduate or postgraduate standard of education is likely to use in his regular language a considerable number of words that many readers won't know. The clever trick is remembering which ones they are!
Brydar wrote:What do you think on the Ebonics, would it be considered a foreign language and rejected outright? What about spell casting words based on Latin terms?
I am insufficiently familiar with this dialect to know how much is different vocabulary and how much is just intonation and pronunciation. I speak Tyke (Broad Yorkshire) but I would not expect to get away with writing stories in it. This is because it is effectively a separate language from English, strongly influenced by Old Norse and Old English whereas modern English incorporates a lot more Latin and Norman-French vocabulary.
I got away with elements of Lincolnshire dialect in 'Old Man', but only because I kept Joseph's statements short, I think. Also I only used an indication of variant pronunciation, as Aaron suggests, rather than making any significant use of dialect words.
Personally I hate it when writers pepper their work with large numbers of made up words. Just because the Grzzxhi call cows przti and meadows arkchxxtrp I do not need to be told that the przti were grazing in the Grzzxhi arkchxxtrp. The cows were in the meadow will do fine. Now a few made up magic words may well give good flavour; a whole lot will just irritate the reader, I suspect.