(03-31-2014, 11:32 PM)Ildur Wrote: Good find. I forgot about it.
But still it doesn't mean there are multiple human languages in the current times.
It's a moral boosting speech and what it does is reference that languages exist in the world, but not that they are used in Eorzea. Minifilia is making statements in a general or philosophical sense ("Languages are a barrier that divide people"), and not as a specific truth about current Eorzean society ("Eorzea is divided, by language and etc"). As far as we know languages may be a barrier that's been 'trascended' by Eorzea already, as they are not mentioned anywhere else.
She says nothing about referencing the past. She says "there exists", not "there existed". She is speaking to the Eorzean alliance before a major military operation. Why would she be referencing the world? Actually, if she was referencing the world, her reference would have to include the Garlean Empire. Considering they are about to take on another people of the world in all-out war, I see it highly unlikely that she is referencing anyone but Eorzeans.
Her speech would be rather insulting, actually, if Eorzea didn't have the variety she is referencing, for she says that without the variety there would be "sterile orthodoxy".
If Eorzea has broken down the language barrier then why would Minfilia say that those barriers she referenced "can never truly be broken down?" Then she mentions transcending them as the alliance is doing "NOW" in coming together for the operation. At the end she says "In defense of our shared home." Which can't mean Hydaelyn because the world is also the home of the Garlean Empire. She has to mean Eorzea.
As for it being just a speech, and the only reference thus far, there are many things referenced in speeches, and only once. For example, the age of Gridania is referenced in a speech. How would they have to be referenced, and how many times before they are valid?
You choose to interpret it as just a speech that doesn't mean much? I choose to interpret it literally, and in reference to Eorzea. There is no reason why I shouldn't and no reason why my interpretation is any less valid.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree?
