Talk:Runic transliteration and transcription
|WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies / Runes||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Norse history and culture||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
"A scholarly transliteration of a text from one alphabet or writing system into another must have as its aim the most exact rendering possible of the orthography of the original. A transcription, on the other hand, whether it be phonetic or phonemic, represents a phonological interpretation of the original written text. The two types of renderings must be kept strictly distinct, and for that reason it has long been the practice in runic studies to indicate a transliteration by using boldface type, while interpretive transcriptions are traditionally given in italics. With a graphically faithful transliteration, every scholar can be reasonably certain that an analysis of the text will not be unduly influenced by the mere substitution of symbols." (pg. 85)
- Source: Antonsen, Elmer H. (2002). Runes and Germanic Linguistics New York, Berlin: de Gruyter. ISBN: 3-110-17462-6.
- Andersen, Harry (1945). Hvordan bør runeindskrifter transliterate? [How should runic inscriptions be transcribed?]. In: Danske Studier (København) 42, 97-106.
Note: The following passage may have relevance for researching the history behind conventions in the transcription and transliteration of runic inscriptions. Interested editors are suggested to research the information given in text for possible further leads. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"The term "otherness" cropped up in 1980 during a discussion about systems for transcribing runic inscriptions. Paradoxically, it was not first used by its later champion Ray Page, but by his opponent. The convener of the First International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Claiborne W. Thompson, had made a plea for a unified system (Thompson 1981), while admitting that the question was "neither the most urgent nor the most intellectually exciting problem in runology". However, he seems to have underrated the degree of animosity that his proposal could generate. His plea was rejected out of hand by Ray Page, who argued that the system devised by Bruce Dickins half a century earlier (Dickins 1932) and later emended by himself (Page 1962) suited the Anglo-Saxon runic remains perfectly, besides solving some technical problems like the use of heavy type. Thompson somewhat reluctantly recognized the "otherness", as he called it, of the Anglo-Saxon runes but maintained his proposal. Page on the other hand adopted the term "otherness" and set out to define its contents. He did so in a long article on transliteration, which has now been reprinted among his collected essays (Page 1984; 1995:245-273), including a postscript which answers objections raised by Anne King (1986) and Bengt Odensted (1990:140-142)." (pg. 103)
- Source: Derolez, René (1998). On the "Otherness" of the Anglo-Saxon Runes and the "Perfect Fit" of the Fuþark in Runeninschriften Als Quelle Interdisziplinarer Forschung: Abhandlungen Des 4. Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Gottingen (Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Erganzungsbande , No 15) Berlin:de Gruyter. pp. 108-ISBN: 3-110-15455-2.
From Derolez' bibliography:
- Thompson, Claiborn W. (1981). "On Transcribing Runic Inscriptions." Michigan Germanic Studies 7:89-95.
- Dickins, Bruce (1932). "A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions". Leeds Studies in English 1:15-19.
- Page, Ray I. (1962). "A Note on the Transliteration of Old English Runic Inscriptions". English Studies 43:484-490. Repr. in: Page 1995:87-93.
- Page, Ray I. (1995). Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking Runes. Ed. David Parsons. Woodbridge, Suffolk/Rochester, N.Y.