"A few words, please ..." Topic

Since the way a language develops is a reflection of the mindset of the people who use that language, understanding the cultural context of a military in which you have not extensively operated can be aided by learning the language. Of course, languages aren't constant, for example, the Ćnglisch tongue hast changéd over tyme. And even if you grew up speaking a military's language, you may still need to learn the military language.

So how much effort do you put into that type of learning?

None – Just playing a game or new to a period/genre and am using whatever terms were given to me.

Cursory – I put some effort into using terms, but use them as direct substitutes for what I already know.

Some – I learn a decent number of terms and know the big cultural differences associated with them.

Conversant – I know the terms and their contexts for orders I issue.

Proficient – I know terms and context well enough to teach some of the subtleties to others and to learn on my own.

Fluent – I am completely immersed in the warfare language of my troops.

Most likely, the level of effort varies by the different forces, genres, and periods you play. I will answer for my highest LoE and my most common LoE.

I am fluent in late 20th Century/early 21st Century Naval combat (but I don't play that a lot), and leverage that into fluency of 17th-20th Century Western counter piracy warfare. I am also proficient to fluent in Eastern European resistance operations from the Interwar period through the early 21st Century.

Most games I play, I a new (or once or twice a novice) to the genre, period and forces, so None to Some.

For the games I play a lot, conversant

For the rest, illiterate

Between, say, 1700 and WWII, I might get up to "some" with bits of "conversant."

Truth is, the Army spoiled it for me. By the end, I could make lists of the obsession du jour from the pentomic division to "the Army after next." The average lifespan of a whole new way of looking at war turned out to be 4-5 years. I'd read the Air-land Battle version of the Ops Manual, and where it said "the axis of maximum effort in the advance" I'd be pounding the table and shouting "Schwerpunkt, Idiot! Say Schwerpunkt!" And exactly the same thing would have a new word to describe it more or less every time they sent me back to school.

It's like slang. New concepts--if they're really new--can be interesting. But for every new idea, you've got a dozen or more new words, and I lost interest in memorizing vocabulary to show how modern and up to date I was.

None to cursory. Most of the time, I'm just playing a game according to the rules, so the terms the rules use are the terms I use. But as I've done a bit of reading here and there in certain periods or genres, I might throw in words and terms I know as suitable to the period, though I'm not giving all that much thought to whatever understanding those of the period might attach to the terms. (If I cry, "Fire as she bears," in an Age of Sail naval game, I sort of know what that means, but mostly I'm just tossing in a little verbal color.)

Fairly fluent in 20th & 21st Century warfare. Being always interested in military history and serving 10+ years in the US ARMY in 4 Inf Bns certainly helped …

Conversant, enough that I can pull data out of documents in languages I don't speak (Davout's letters for one).

Some to Conversant, depending on the era, no more than that.

The modern military lexicon is so full of nonsensical TLA's that anyone outside of your specific work area will have no idea what you are talking about. I personally have always believed that simple plain speech is best in your communications when speaking to a broad audience.

Words have meanings. Therefore I have learnt the technical stuff. e.g. the difference between rifled and smooth bore for infantry, cannon, and now tank main guns; the different uses of anti-tank, field, and infantry guns. But while I try to stay abreast of such matters, as others suggest, my use of colloquialisms probably dates me.

I personally have always believed that simple plain speech is best in your communications when speaking to a broad audience.

I'm with you. That's why I routinely spend 10-15 minutes in classes explaining the concept of "combined arms".

Think about how long games would take (and rules would be) without ever using both military and gaming jargon.

None except perhaps where a weapon is best described by the language like PILUM. To be fair why would I want/need to know? It is the strategy and tactics of an army I am interested in and my time is limited so learning a useful amount of language is not possible.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" as Shakespeare said

Sometimes (often?) I think wargamers spout out foreign language terms just to show off. Often they can't pronounce them correctly or don't understand them.
Perfect example. Wargamers and Latin. 40K Latin is even more screwed up than Church Latin.