Midnight RPG - Orcish Written Language - Revision history

71.217.100.43: /* Bill */

2008-01-14T19:00:07Z

Bill

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 14 January 2008
Line 86:		Line 86:

	Without references, I'm going to have to assume we're all wrong.		Without references, I'm going to have to assume we're all wrong.

			== Andrew ==

			Bill: you are remembering right. I thought I remembered something somewhere implying that Black Tongue was to Orcish what stripped-down-caveman-pig-latin would be to English, but I can't find it anywhere in the book, so I think I may have just made it up. I certainly don't see anything relating Black Tongue to Dark Speech other than the similarity of their names, unless Kevin made some sort of house-specific ruling on that. Absent any 'official' ruling on the topic, I'd go with Bill's theory, as it makes a lot more sense.

			Adam: you are correct that Black Tongue, being the language designed for creatures too dumb to speak anything else, would not be the best choice politically. However, I'm envisioning the Black Tongue written variant as more of a 'bridge' language than anything else. If Black Tongue is as simple as I'm envisioning it (with all sentences and words being reducible to the same unchanging set of syllables), then it would be an excellent 'starter language' for creatures with no history of literacy. Once the orcs can read and write the Black Tongue's written variant, they are in a much better position to learn other written languages, and once they begin to pick up smatterings of other languages (as they invariably will, given the orcs' linguistic abilities), it becomes much more feasible to try and adapt the much-more-complex Orcish.

64.62.7.202: /* Bill */

2008-01-14T18:30:19Z

Bill

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 14 January 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:
	== Bill ==		== Bill ==

	We have a problem here. ~~The~~ information in the languages section of the Midnight 2nd Ed. book doesn't say that Black Tongue (BT) is derived from anything. Andrew says it's a dumbed-down version of Orcish. Adam says Black Speech.		We have a problem here. If I'm remembering right, the information in the languages section of the Midnight 2nd Ed. book doesn't say that Black Tongue (BT) is derived from anything. Andrew says it's a dumbed-down version of Orcish. Adam says Black Speech.

	If you're just conjecturing, then I'm going to throw out what is far more likely than either of your guesses: it's a degenerated amalgamation of the native tongues of goblins, ogres, giant-men, and hobgoblins, and has nothing at all to do with other standard languages.		If you're just conjecturing, then I'm going to throw out what is far more likely than either of your guesses: it's a degenerated amalgamation of the native tongues of goblins, ogres, giant-men, and hobgoblins, and has nothing at all to do with other standard languages.

	Without references, I'm going to have to assume we're all wrong.		Without references, I'm going to have to assume we're all wrong.

64.62.7.202: /* Adam */

2008-01-14T18:29:02Z

Adam

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 14 January 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:

	Hope this helps.		Hope this helps.


			== Bill ==

			We have a problem here. The information in the languages section of the Midnight 2nd Ed. book doesn't say that Black Tongue (BT) is derived from anything. Andrew says it's a dumbed-down version of Orcish. Adam says Black Speech.

			If you're just conjecturing, then I'm going to throw out what is far more likely than either of your guesses: it's a degenerated amalgamation of the native tongues of goblins, ogres, giant-men, and hobgoblins, and has nothing at all to do with other standard languages.

			Without references, I'm going to have to assume we're all wrong.

192.211.25.9 at 18:14, 14 January 2008

2008-01-14T18:14:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 14 January 2008
Line 61:		Line 61:

	For Orcish, well, it'll be more complex to say the least. I can do some research into this.		For Orcish, well, it'll be more complex to say the least. I can do some research into this.

			== Adam ==

			One thing you might want to consider is both the Linguistic and the Political connotations of the Black Tongue.

			Linguistically, Black Speech is a bastardized pidgin of Dark Speech, the Language of Evil, unspeakable by man (well... almost). The Black Speech is a crude dialect both because it is designed to be very easy to learn, but also because the language from which it is taken is seriously incomplete to begin with. According to Book of Vile Darkness:

			"There are no words in the Dark Speech for good concepts such as kindness, mercy or purity. However, Evil characters can speak of Misery, Anguish, Hate, and Betrayal with an accuracy impossible in any other language."

			It seems reasonable then that any new system should distance itself as far as possible from Black Tongue and its self-limiting linguistic artifacts.


			Politically, Black Tongue is even worse. Firstly, it places the Odrendor on the same linguistic plane as Ogres and Trolls, reinforcing both the cultural link with the minions of Shadow and the Orcish slave-mentality. Even worse, the language itself is composed of the cast-off verbal crumbs of the Dark God himself. It seems wise that any Orcish language, especially given its existing antecedants in Old Dwarven and the linguistic adaptability of the Odrendor, should borrow and include as much as possible from other, already successful languages, as I'm sure it already does to some degree (Just as English does).


			Hope this helps.

64.62.7.202: /* Bill */

2008-01-12T01:10:00Z

Bill

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 12 January 2008
Line 52:		Line 52:
	==Bill==		==Bill==

	~~What about making orcish first and then dumbing it down for Black Tongue?~~ I think ~~either way would work~~, ~~but it's worth considering going~~ the ~~other way, since it's easier to cut out stuff than it is to add things in~~.		I think we need to be careful how much corrolation we imply between BT and Orcish, because they are not the same language. "Sword" might be one word in Orcish and another in BT. That doesn't preclude us from using the same syllabary for each, however. But people who know how to write in BT are still going to spell words differently in Orcish, because they are different words, even though they share some of the same characters.

	~~Also, for those who want to learn this new written language, writing~~ in ~~BT can be taught first,~~ and ~~Orcish can be added~~ in ~~for further complexity~~. ~~Sort of like this:~~

	~~<game rules>~~
	'~~'BT literacy costs 1 point~~, ~~and grants a synergy bonus of 1 rank in Orcish literacy~~. ~~Similarly, 1 rank~~ in ~~Orcish literacy grants a synergy bonus of full~~ BT ~~literacy. You must know the language~~ in ~~order to have literacy~~, ~~of course.''~~
	~~</game>~~

	~~This is~~ because they ~~both not only~~ share the same ~~writing system, but since it's all phonetic and it's a syllabary, the symbol for "Arg" in one language is the same in the other~~.

	==== The next step ====		==== The next step ====

64.62.7.202: /* The next step */

2008-01-11T22:52:51Z

The next step

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 11 January 2008
Line 66:		Line 66:
	I think the next step would be to start making a list of the syllables that would need to be represented by both languages. Do you agree?		I think the next step would be to start making a list of the syllables that would need to be represented by both languages. Do you agree?

	For BT I think it would work to cut out some specific sounds from the language as a whole, and then go from there. Like the hard S ('''s'''ound or O'''ss'''ion). Creatures with big, tusk-filled mouths would have a hard time with that whistling. Once we have a structure for how the symbols ''can'' be created, we can think up all 67 or so that we need.		For BT I think it would work to cut out some specific sounds from the language as a whole, and then go from there. Like the hard S ('''<u>s</u>'''ound or O'''<u>ss</u>'''ion). Creatures with big, tusk-filled mouths would have a hard time with that whistling. Once we have a structure for how the symbols ''can'' be created, we can think up all 67 or so that we need.

	For Orcish, well, it'll be more complex to say the least. I can do some research into this.		For Orcish, well, it'll be more complex to say the least. I can do some research into this.

64.62.7.202: /* Bill */

2008-01-11T22:42:54Z

Bill

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 11 January 2008
Line 59:		Line 59:
	''BT literacy costs 1 point, and grants a synergy bonus of 1 rank in Orcish literacy. Similarly, 1 rank in Orcish literacy grants a synergy bonus of full BT literacy. You must know the language in order to have literacy, of course.''		''BT literacy costs 1 point, and grants a synergy bonus of 1 rank in Orcish literacy. Similarly, 1 rank in Orcish literacy grants a synergy bonus of full BT literacy. You must know the language in order to have literacy, of course.''
	</game>		</game>

			This is because they both not only share the same writing system, but since it's all phonetic and it's a syllabary, the symbol for "Arg" in one language is the same in the other.

			==== The next step ====

			I think the next step would be to start making a list of the syllables that would need to be represented by both languages. Do you agree?

			For BT I think it would work to cut out some specific sounds from the language as a whole, and then go from there. Like the hard S ('''s'''ound or O'''ss'''ion). Creatures with big, tusk-filled mouths would have a hard time with that whistling. Once we have a structure for how the symbols ''can'' be created, we can think up all 67 or so that we need.

			For Orcish, well, it'll be more complex to say the least. I can do some research into this.

64.62.7.202: /* Andrew */

2008-01-11T22:34:47Z

Andrew

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 11 January 2008
Line 49:		Line 49:

	If the Cherokee syllabary only has 84 characters, I'd say we could get away with lowering Black Tongue to, oh, 67. The Cherokee people were obviously a lot smarter than ogres, orcs and filthy, filthy goblins, and besides, the Black Tongue seems mostly limited to short, gutteral bursts. How many different elaborations on "ugh!" do you really need?		If the Cherokee syllabary only has 84 characters, I'd say we could get away with lowering Black Tongue to, oh, 67. The Cherokee people were obviously a lot smarter than ogres, orcs and filthy, filthy goblins, and besides, the Black Tongue seems mostly limited to short, gutteral bursts. How many different elaborations on "ugh!" do you really need?

			==Bill==

			What about making orcish first and then dumbing it down for Black Tongue? I think either way would work, but it's worth considering going the other way, since it's easier to cut out stuff than it is to add things in.

			Also, for those who want to learn this new written language, writing in BT can be taught first, and Orcish can be added in for further complexity. Sort of like this:

			<game rules>
			''BT literacy costs 1 point, and grants a synergy bonus of 1 rank in Orcish literacy. Similarly, 1 rank in Orcish literacy grants a synergy bonus of full BT literacy. You must know the language in order to have literacy, of course.''
			</game>

71.217.106.206 at 15:38, 11 July 2007

2007-07-11T15:38:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 11 July 2007
Line 43:		Line 43:

	One option (maybe for the development of orcish) might be to make the written language be a syllabic alphabet. In these, each character has an inherant vowel that can be changed or muted with a diacritic. This simplifies the language by requiring the reader to learn the diacritics for the vowel sounds, and then a collection of 30-40 consonants. This is closer to an alphabet, however. [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm Ethiopic], one of the oldest writing systems in the world, and [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/inuktitut.htm Inuktitut] (sort of), which is less than a century old, are both examples. Inuktitut is normally classified as a syllabary because each character ''is'' different, but only because they are mirrored or rotated. Rotating a letter to change it isn't much different than adding two little circles to the top of it.		One option (maybe for the development of orcish) might be to make the written language be a syllabic alphabet. In these, each character has an inherant vowel that can be changed or muted with a diacritic. This simplifies the language by requiring the reader to learn the diacritics for the vowel sounds, and then a collection of 30-40 consonants. This is closer to an alphabet, however. [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm Ethiopic], one of the oldest writing systems in the world, and [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/inuktitut.htm Inuktitut] (sort of), which is less than a century old, are both examples. Inuktitut is normally classified as a syllabary because each character ''is'' different, but only because they are mirrored or rotated. Rotating a letter to change it isn't much different than adding two little circles to the top of it.

			==Andrew==

			I like that idea for the later written adaptation of Orcish. However, one of the main points I wanted to make with the written version of Black Tongue was that it could be picked up with relative ease by beings who had no previous knowledge of any written language. The one syllable = one character system works very well for this; you see a picture of something with a two-syllable name followed by a 'word' made up of two characters, and now you know what syllables those two characters represent. Given orcs' capacity for language, I'd bet most of them could commit it to memory in a week. (Assuming they had the skill points to spend ... </metagame>)

			If the Cherokee syllabary only has 84 characters, I'd say we could get away with lowering Black Tongue to, oh, 67. The Cherokee people were obviously a lot smarter than ogres, orcs and filthy, filthy goblins, and besides, the Black Tongue seems mostly limited to short, gutteral bursts. How many different elaborations on "ugh!" do you really need?

Bihlbo at 17:18, 30 June 2007

2007-06-30T17:18:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 30 June 2007
Line 40:		Line 40:

	'''On the number of characters:'''<br>		'''On the number of characters:'''<br>
	The [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/cherokee.htm Cherokee] syllabary has 84 characters, and it boasts one of the highest learning and retention rates of any written language anywhere (maybe the Cherokee are just smarter, hehe). ~~However, [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/japanese_katakana.htm Japanese] also uses a syllabary of only 48~~ characters, and it's far more complex than Black Tongue I bet. Japanese also uses conjoined symbols to alter the pronounced sound, just like we do in English. ''Example:'' the "o" in "sound" is said as though it were an a.		The [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/cherokee.htm Cherokee] syllabary has 84 characters, and it boasts one of the highest learning and retention rates of any written language anywhere (maybe the Cherokee are just smarter, hehe). I think black tongue could get away with 60-70 characters.

	~~I think Black Tongue could get away~~ with ~~merely~~ 40 ~~or so characters~~. ~~The first step~~, as ~~you~~'~~ve already done~~, is to ~~decide on~~ the ~~syllables needed~~.		One option (maybe for the development of orcish) might be to make the written language be a syllabic alphabet. In these, each character has an inherant vowel that can be changed or muted with a diacritic. This simplifies the language by requiring the reader to learn the diacritics for the vowel sounds, and then a collection of 30-40 consonants. This is closer to an alphabet, however. [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm Ethiopic], one of the oldest writing systems in the world, and [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/inuktitut.htm Inuktitut] (sort of), which is less than a century old, are both examples. Inuktitut is normally classified as a syllabary because each character ''is'' different, but only because they are mirrored or rotated. Rotating a letter to change it isn't much different than adding two little circles to the top of it.