Thuum.org

A community for the dragon language of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Thuum.org

A community for the dragon language of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Transcription Reform

 1 

Kunvultuz
January 13, 2017

I would like to suggest a reform for the transcription of the dragon language, and instead of using the same letters multiple times in order to represent a rune, we use diacritics.

  • A - Æ
  • Ah - A
  • Aa - Á
  • E - E
  • Ei - Ï
  • Ey - É
  • I - I
  • Ii - Í
  • Ir - Î
  • O - O
  • Oo - Ó
  • U - U
  • Uu - Ú
  • Ur - Û

P.S. The post on phonology is coming soon, just have to make sure I didn't miss a single bit of dragon dialogue.

P.P.S. On the learn section, I've noticed you guys notated "Ah" as the back open vowel when it's really /a/, and many times, dragons pronounce "Aa" as /a/ instead of the back open vowel, though it seems interchangeable.

by Kunvultuz
January 13, 2017

I would like to suggest a reform for the transcription of the dragon language, and instead of using the same letters multiple times in order to represent a rune, we use diacritics.

  • A - Æ
  • Ah - A
  • Aa - Á
  • E - E
  • Ei - Ï
  • Ey - É
  • I - I
  • Ii - Í
  • Ir - Î
  • O - O
  • Oo - Ó
  • U - U
  • Uu - Ú
  • Ur - Û

P.S. The post on phonology is coming soon, just have to make sure I didn't miss a single bit of dragon dialogue.

P.P.S. On the learn section, I've noticed you guys notated "Ah" as the back open vowel when it's really /a/, and many times, dragons pronounce "Aa" as /a/ instead of the back open vowel, though it seems interchangeable.


Ruvgein
January 13, 2017
Hm, it's a nice thought, but I personally don't think it would work too well. One reason being most standard keyboards don't have those characters.
While another is for the style of the language, it would be strange to see Latin letters in something more Nordic, it does not fit the style. If we took Icelandic letters instead, it would be a different discussion.
Third is that, not many understand the pronunciation of those characters, which would make learning all the more difficult.
by Ruvgein
January 13, 2017
Hm, it's a nice thought, but I personally don't think it would work too well. One reason being most standard keyboards don't have those characters.

While another is for the style of the language, it would be strange to see Latin letters in something more Nordic, it does not fit the style. If we took Icelandic letters instead, it would be a different discussion.

Third is that, not many understand the pronunciation of those characters, which would make learning all the more difficult.

Kunvultuz
January 13, 2017

I find the lack of direct notational correlation a bit irksome, is all. The symbols I just put up as alternatives are purely symbolic, and have no real official pronunciation, truly.

Also, I suggested the change in the learn section not necessarily for learning purposes, but for accuracy purposes.

by Kunvultuz
January 13, 2017

I find the lack of direct notational correlation a bit irksome, is all. The symbols I just put up as alternatives are purely symbolic, and have no real official pronunciation, truly.

Also, I suggested the change in the learn section not necessarily for learning purposes, but for accuracy purposes.


Frinmulaar
January 13, 2017

Nonvul bron, damán dár rot do fin fodís borma -
wa krí ko morokï kïn los wa zin gïnmar,
wa dî ko morokï kïn los wa zin pa do kïzál.

Having the grapheme for /ai/ be based on 'i' doesn't quite sit right with me, but that's a matter of taste. Circumflexing /ir/ and /ur/ into single vowels looks plain crazy too, but given that you want a simple correspondence based on the Latin alphabet it might be justified. What about the utterances where [ah] is realized as a (near-)back open vowel followed by an unvoiced uvular fricative?

by Frinmulaar
January 13, 2017

Nonvul bron, damán dár rot do fin fodís borma -
wa krí ko morokï kïn los wa zin gïnmar,
wa dî ko morokï kïn los wa zin pa do kïzál.

Having the grapheme for /ai/ be based on 'i' doesn't quite sit right with me, but that's a matter of taste. Circumflexing /ir/ and /ur/ into single vowels looks plain crazy too, but given that you want a simple correspondence based on the Latin alphabet it might be justified. What about the utterances where [ah] is realized as a (near-)back open vowel followed by an unvoiced uvular fricative?


paarthurnax
Administrator
January 13, 2017

Thanks for the writeup, Kunvultuz, I'm really looking forward to your work on phonetics. It's an intriguing thought. I actually think Bethesda did a pretty good job with the transcription. It's easily readable (which I think is an important attribute for any transcription), and all the sounds are accurately represented, insofar as there are no letters with conflicting pronunciations.

Have you seen UESP's transcription method? I think it's a happy medium. It features the same English letters everyone is familiar with, and capitalizes letters that are represented by a single rune.

Here's a transcription of the text Frinmulaar posted:

NONVUL BRON, DahMaan DaaR ROT DO FIN FODiiZ BORMah
Wah KRii KO MOROKei KeiN LOS Wah ZIN GeiNMaaR
Wah Dir KO MOROKei KeiN los Wah ZIN Pah DO KeiZaaL

by paarthurnax
January 13, 2017

Thanks for the writeup, Kunvultuz, I'm really looking forward to your work on phonetics. It's an intriguing thought. I actually think Bethesda did a pretty good job with the transcription. It's easily readable (which I think is an important attribute for any transcription), and all the sounds are accurately represented, insofar as there are no letters with conflicting pronunciations.

Have you seen UESP's transcription method? I think it's a happy medium. It features the same English letters everyone is familiar with, and capitalizes letters that are represented by a single rune.

Here's a transcription of the text Frinmulaar posted:

NONVUL BRON, DahMaan DaaR ROT DO FIN FODiiZ BORMah
Wah KRii KO MOROKei KeiN LOS Wah ZIN GeiNMaaR
Wah Dir KO MOROKei KeiN los Wah ZIN Pah DO KeiZaaL


Kunvultuz
January 14, 2017

What about the utterances where [4] is realized as a (near-)back open vowel followed by an unvoiced uvular fricative?

First off, I was completely unaware that it would be followed by a uvular fricative and not a velar fricative; I'm pretty sure I'm always hearing a velar fricative when it happens, but I digress. The reason I did not include a separate symbol for those instances is because the trait of that rune that you mentioned is purely lexical, and does not show up in every word. The goal of this transcription is not to provide clearer pronunciation necessarily, but to "match up" the Latin alphabet to the dragon runes.

Have you seen UESP's transcription method? I think it's a happy medium. It features the same English letters everyone is familiar with, and capitalizes letters that are represented by a single rune.

At the risk of sounding petulant, I find their method ugly, unweildy, and annoying to read. Capitalization is such a lazy way to provide alternative notation - not that diacritics are any more creative - but at least diacritics do not interupt the flow of reading nearly as much as capitalization does.

by Kunvultuz
January 14, 2017

What about the utterances where [4] is realized as a (near-)back open vowel followed by an unvoiced uvular fricative?

First off, I was completely unaware that it would be followed by a uvular fricative and not a velar fricative; I'm pretty sure I'm always hearing a velar fricative when it happens, but I digress. The reason I did not include a separate symbol for those instances is because the trait of that rune that you mentioned is purely lexical, and does not show up in every word. The goal of this transcription is not to provide clearer pronunciation necessarily, but to "match up" the Latin alphabet to the dragon runes.

Have you seen UESP's transcription method? I think it's a happy medium. It features the same English letters everyone is familiar with, and capitalizes letters that are represented by a single rune.

At the risk of sounding petulant, I find their method ugly, unweildy, and annoying to read. Capitalization is such a lazy way to provide alternative notation - not that diacritics are any more creative - but at least diacritics do not interupt the flow of reading nearly as much as capitalization does.


paarthurnax
Administrator
January 14, 2017
Kunvultuz

At the risk of sounding petulant, I find their method ugly, unweildy, and annoying to read. Capitalization is such a lazy way to provide alternative notation - not that diacritics are any more creative - but at least diacritics do not interupt the flow of reading nearly as much as capitalization does.

That's fair, I can understand that assessment.

by paarthurnax
January 14, 2017
Kunvultuz

At the risk of sounding petulant, I find their method ugly, unweildy, and annoying to read. Capitalization is such a lazy way to provide alternative notation - not that diacritics are any more creative - but at least diacritics do not interupt the flow of reading nearly as much as capitalization does.

That's fair, I can understand that assessment.

This thread is more than 6 months old and is no longer open to new posts. If you have a topic you want to discuss, consider starting a new thread. Contact the administrator for assistance if you are the author of this thread.