The Orville

[Za Waldo]

People who read the King James Bible, people who read Shakespeare, understand it because they've learned to understand it. There are plenty of words and phrases in both of those that the average reader would have to look up... and it would be even harder if it was spoken rather than written.

Many many many people learn the King James Bible as very small children. Your average reader has probably read the King James Bible, your average not reader as probably read or heard the King James Bible...it being the Bible and all. This is a thing that's over 400 years old, and is far more formal that people actually talking to one another would be. I'm not really seeing why you think people wouldn't be able to understand normal communication from 400 years ago when a good deal of people have some level of understanding of irregular communication from the same time.

No it wouldn't be harder spoken than written. Archaic spelling of words could throw someone off, but this isn't a problem when you just hear someone saying it because it'll still sounds the same way as now.

There were lots of topical references in writings from 400 years ago that we wouldn't understand without annotation.

Yeah, and you're going to run into that with references no matter what the time period. But you increase you're chances of not being able to get a reference by going forward more than backwards. It's possible you'll get a reference to something in the past, it is impossible you'll get a reference to something that hasn't been made yet.

It might be easier understanding 400 years in the future than 400 years in the past mainly because spelling has been standardized now and will probably say somewhat standard in the future. That standardization was only just beginning around Shakespeare's time.

What would that have to do with anything? You travel 400 years into the future and talk to someone you're probably not going to be reading an outline of what they're saying to you.

Think of anything that's changed in the past 30 years. Anything that has to do with the Internet or the online world, which is all-pervasive today but barely existed in 1987. Hell, even if you said the word "online" to someone from 30 years ago who wasn't a computer geek, they'd probably respond "on what line?"

But people don't communicate with single words. I want to know what you think could be said in a conversational sense to someone 30 years ago that wouldn't make sense to someone given the context it's being said in. Context is a helpful thing, it can allow you to work out what's being said even if you aren't sure of a word or something.

There were news stories and stuff about the internet in the '80s. And talking about going online to get on the internet wouldn't be too hard to figure out given it worked with phone lines. Bring something online is also an old term, so I doubt that's exactly the response you'd get.

You could easily converse with someone from 30 years ago on 95% of things, of course. But the farther back or the farther forward you go, the worse it gets. People in their 40's today don't understand all of the slang terms and phrases their teenaged kids use... the textspeak and so forth. Now multiply that by 10 generations, with all the change that will happen in that time.

But what slang are you talking about? The little modern teen slang I've heard just sounds like a bunch of '90s slang with some older slang throw in, stuff that isn't this seems so obvious what it's meant to mean I'm not sure how it couldn't be figured out by someone just hearing it being used.

And this is all just arguing for the fun of arguing, of course. Everyone in every futuristic science fiction film or TV series ever has spoken like the audience they were playing to. It's just presumed translation, taken for granted. Frodo Baggins didn't speak 20th century English either.

It is a fiction, no reason to assume Frodo doesn't speak 20th Century English, unless the book says something about it being a translation from Middle Earth's most widespread language of the region...which I don't remember if it does. If it doesn't it seems kind of weird to assume they don't given how nerdy it gets with the Elfin language.

This also isn't true of all sci-if films. Blade Runner and A Clockwork Orange both have characters in their future setting speaking differently than people of the time. Even Star Wars throws in some weird slang.

[Midvillian1322]

My boss is from Syria hes english isnt good but as long as i speak plainly and dont use common phrases(Might as well for example. If i say might as well he looks confused) we can communicate. While it would be tough talking to someone who spoke english 400yrs ago its doable. The base language is there. Might have to rephrase things alot but communocation woulr be possible

[AndrewCrossett]

Fine. People 400 years from now will speak just like the characters on The Orville do.

[Da Boat]

If the show was just humour, I would like it more. But it's trying to have dramatic moments and because of that it loses momentum.

[Kirby101]

Let's be real, 300 years from now most of Earth will speak Mandarin.

[TheInvisibleMan]

Let's be real, 300 years from now most of Earth will speak Mandarin.

Dāngrán nǐ shì duì de

[Jim Kelly]

I think the best place to survive the coming apocalypse is not in China--they'll be bombed out of existence right after North Korea. Next is the USA, then Canada (we're collateral damage), Russia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India. Then most of Europe and North Africa. Somehwere in the middle of Australia is probably the best place to wait out the nuclear winter (if it's not too hot). The rising sea levels will wipe out most of the major cities.

However, those reality show tapes are in the Trump bunker--and they'll still be around in three hundred years.

[AndrewCrossett]

Let's be real, 300 years from now most of Earth will speak Mandarin.

Unless Firefly has lied to us.

[Osiris-Rex]

I think the best place to survive the coming apocalypse is not in China--they'll be bombed out of existence right after North Korea. Next is the USA, then Canada (we're collateral damage), Russia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India. Then most of Europe and North Africa. Somehwere in the middle of Australia is probably the best place to wait out the nuclear winter (if it's not too hot). The rising sea levels will wipe out most of the major cities.

There was a 1959 movie "On The Beach" in which the last human survivors of WWIII were in Australia. Eventually the nuclear fallout drifted down there too and killed everyone.

[Za Waldo]

There was a 1959 movie "On The Beach" in which the last human survivors of WWIII were in Australia. Eventually the nuclear fallout drifted down there too and killed everyone.

So it's a happy ending.

[AndrewCrossett]

For me the next question after "where would I go to survive a nuclear holocaust" is "why would I want to?"

I imagine it would be a lot less fun than the Mad Max films would have us believe.

[Za Waldo]

For me the next question after "where would I go to survive a nuclear holocaust" is "why would I want to?"

I imagine it would be a lot less fun than the Mad Max films would have us believe.

They only really seem fun for the villains. The last movie the normal people just get taunted with water, and they're probably living in the nice town that gets brought up.

[Kirby101]

Nuclear Winter will wipe out most life on Earth. There may not be anywhere to survive.

[Jokerz79]

Really enjoying Orville so much so it got me interested in watching some TNG on Netflix today which I haven't done in a while. I've watched DS9 and Enterprise on the last few months but this is the firs time I've watched some TNG in a while.

[Za Waldo]

Oh, new episode is on right now.