Language translations for leader sayings

[Kupe Navigator]

I just recall hearing it in a couple of historical dramas.

Yeah it is bit old fashioned that... not many people say it today. You might just hear it in historical texts or historical dramas... but it is rarely used these days.

 

[Guandao]

I was thinking that they would hire him to do Caesar dialogue, but alas. In the video he actually says that he is open for cooperation, so let's hope Firaxis contact him.

I think Ambiorix sounding French is intentional, because of substratum.

Do you have a link?

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/10zv4m1

You can find it here.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

now full quote of sejong has been uploaded I can comment on it... and it's bad...
voicework and animation is fine but line... oh dear the lines are just...

firstly like I said before... what "division?" By the time Sejong came to throne he had almost absolute power thanks to all political work done by his father Taejong. It is because of this abosulte power that Sejong could push for creation of Hangul despite protests from his servants. Korea was already "united" long before Sejong came to a throne.
and I couldn't find info on English version but on Korean version when Sejong accepts player's delegation he mentions Anapji Pond... which was left in ruins in early Joseon dynasty period and defiantly by the time of Sejong... I wounder why they didn't use more famous and historically correct Gyeonghoeru Pavilion of Gyeongbokgung Palace- which was main palace of Joseon dynasty.

honestly the quote "I am Sejong, the bringer of calm order where once was violent division." fits much better on his father Taejong who did just that.

so yeah lack of historical insight on the quote. I guess they wanted to convey scientist king but...

​

 

[leif erikson]

It is explained in this post, which you quoted in that thread.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

It is explained in this post, which you quoted in that thread.

and I have said already how wrong and misunderstand that was... and not to bring same old argument but... there is disagreement with Korean and if you look at historical evidence... that is just plane wrong.
And he has yet to give any historical evidence why Fraxis wrote that line. Because as far as Korean historical evidence suggests is that there was no "major" internal conflict during Sejong's region. Oh there were external threats like Japanese pirates raiding Korean cost and jurchens raiding on the northern Korean peninsula... but internally no.So no there was no "division of people" by the time Sejong" came to power because Taejong purged any threats to division.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Yes, the aim here was to highlight a period of stability after one of conflict - conflict placed in the past tense here. Sejong says "where once was" (at least in English), and not "where is." Taejong might say "where is now violent division." I envisioned Sejong as a re-builder after discord and challenges to his predecessors' claims, with the focus on moving towards a prosperous and united future in the wake of the conflicts during his predecessors' time. Not his. Compare with Lincoln, who speaks of division in the present tense.

Re: the palace, this is fair. I had been looking at the architecture of Joseon era generally. There are some mild anachronisms elsewhere - Bà Triệu references Hồ Hoàn Kiếm, which postdates her by quite a bit, and wears an áo dài, which postdates her by quite a lot, although these were conscious choices to highlight glories of medieval Vietnam in general, as her time there's less information, and especially non-Vietnamese audiences would just think of the American war there and little else. We weighed whether or not to have Thang Long as her capital (anachronistic) or just Hanoi (VERY anachronistic, but recognizable) and went with the one that might inspire some people to look into medieval Vietnamese history.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Sejong says "where once was" (at least in English), and not "where is." Taejong might say "where is now violent division." I envisioned Sejong as a re-builder after discord and challenges to his predecessors' claims,

problem with that is his father Taejong already cleaned up all of the division. sure Taejong can't say he rebuilt Joseon- that was done by Sejong but Taejong cleaned up the division completely and by Sejong came to throne there was no division whatsoever. Heck during first few years of young Sejong's regime he didn't rule alone but Taejong kept some of government power- like military power. So that there would NOT be a division of power. And when Taejong finally died all his power was successfully transferred to his son Sejong.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Right. I think we're saying the same thing. A re-builder after division. Not a keeper of unity during division, which would be Taejong.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Right. I think we're saying the same thing. A re-builder after division. Not a keeper of unity during division, which would be Taejong.

which is why me and Koreans are having a issue with Sejong mentioning word "division" in his introduction. We are wondering "huh? what division?" and one member in Korean civ internet cafe said "didn't Taejong handled most of division?" So Sejong shouldn't have mentioned the word "division"

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

The "where once was" doesn't make it clear that it's talking about before his time?
(asking because if it's a problem in translation, this is a bug)

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The "where once was" doesn't make it clear that it's talking about before his time?

nope it sounds like there was a division during EARLY part of his regime and he ACTIVELY solved the division....
and that sounds the same in Korean version as well which left a lot of Korean history buffs bit confused and lost... it sounds like Sejong is taking achievements of his father Taejong.
for example " 과인은 이 나라가 극심하게 분열되었을 때 " ( Gwaineun i naraga geuksimhage bunyeoldoeeosseul-ttae) suggests Sejong had active role in solving division. So for average Koreans who only heard/read Korean they would be confused as heck.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I see. The idea was for something like "here I am - before me, there was disorder, but now I will bring you decades of peace and prosperity". That was the intended meaning.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I see. The idea was for something like "here I am - before me, there was disorder, but now I will bring you decades of peace and prosperity". That was the intended meaning.

that unfortunately wasn't conveyed in Korean version and even in English translation that wasn't delivered strongly and if you hadn't added your explanation it kinda seems like Sejong was one who actively solved this "division" that prolonged Joseon dynasty.
if I had to literally translate Sejong's introduction it would be something like " I am the one called Sejong who solved the chaos when there was a worst division and brought peace to a nation,"

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Ah I see. Yes, that's not quite the intent.

 

[Guandao]

So Elizabeth I is straight up speaking in Modern English again.....Could've used some Shakespearean touches to her dialogue.

I wish one day to hear an Anglo-Saxon leader for England speaking in Old English.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I don't know if this belongs here but... The voice work for Sejong has been comfirmed in Korean namu wiki. Just like Seondeok, it is done by professional voice actor named Kim Youngsun. who like Seo Yu-ri before him is a veteran voice actor who worked in many Korean dubs of games and amines like One-piece and pokemon ( PS. He is Korean voice of James in Team Rocket from Pokemon: Advanced onwards)

 

[Zaarin]

In-game, Dido does not speak Phoenician. She speaks more or less Israeli Hebrew with some old-fashioned grammar and an archaicizing accent. So I decided to rewrite her dialogue in Phoenician.

A few technical notes before we get started: To begin with, my reconstruction of Phoenician is based primarily on the work of Charles R. Krahmalkov, supplemented by other scholars. I have Dido speaking classical Tyro-Sidonian Phoenician, not Punic; Punic would not be spoken until centuries after Dido's death. I have more or less worked to keep the meaning of the original dialogue, but not slavishly so where I could give it more Phoenician flavor. I have deviated from Krahmalkov on a few points that bear explanation, but feel free to skip it if you're not interested in the technical details.

Concerning Emphatics

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov is agnostic on the nature of the emphatics. Early twentieth century Semiticists like Zellig S. Harris, who wrote the first major grammar of Phoenician, generally assumed that the Canaanite emphatics were a contrast of aspirated plain consonants and unaspirated emphatics--what is termed a lenis/fortis contrast--like Ancient Greek θ vs. τ. Later, an overemphasis on the primacy of Arabic assumed that pharyngealization was the original nature of Semitic emphatic consonants and that South Semitic was an aberration. Modern Semitic studies tend to assume that pharyngealization was a secondary development and that pharyngealization was a secondary development--but when and where pharyngealization developed originally has remained an open question. Conventional wisdom has been that pharyngealization developed in Aramaic and spread to Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew under Aramaic influence. I still hold to this view in my educated but not professional opinion. A recent study has proposed that pharyngealization was an innovation of Central Semitic, but I find their argument flawed. The crux of their argument is based on assimilation of <ṢT> and <ṬT> to <ṢṬ ṬṬ> in the Hebrew Hitpael binyan, arguing that spreading of pharyngealization is normal and spreading of glottalization is not. In my own practice of Phoenician, I can tell you that /tʼtʰ/ is a very difficult sequence to pronounce and naturally tends to become /tʼtʼ/. More critically, however, if pharyngeal spreading is taking place here, it is highly illogical that there is no assimilation of qoph or, even more pointedly, the pharyngeal consonants. That being said, nothing in my reconstruction hinges on the nature of the emphatics.

Concerning Sibilants

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov proposes that šin merged with samekh as /s/ in Classical Phoenician. His basis for this argument is that Greek and Latin render šin as Σ and S respectively. My response to this is of course they do--how else would they render it? Greek and Latin had no /ʃ/ and no way to transcribe /ʃ/. Greek and Latin also transcribed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Old Persian /ʃ/ as Σ and S, but we are not in doubt those languages had /ʃ/. Phoenician script consistently distinguishes samekh and šin until Neo-Punic, at which time it seems that all sibilants became /s/. I follow Robert M. Kerr in maintaining that Phoenician distinguished all of samekh, šin, ṣade, and zayn; Kerr is agnostic on the phonetic values of these consonants, but I propose /s ʃ t͡sʼ d͡z/, which otherwise more or less follows Krahmalkov. That leaves śin, for which I believe there is a very parsimonious answer. Good evidence supports that the early Canaanite alphabet was developed by Northern Canaanites, forerunners of the Phoenicians. That there is no separate letter for śin suggests to me that it was lost in that dialect early on, and that šin was used to write it also suggests to me that it merged with šin. I therefore conclude that, unlike in Hebrew, Phoenician śin was pronounced /ʃ/, just like šin.

Concerning the First Person Independent Pronoun

Spoiler :

Poenulus clearly shows that the first person independent pronoun in Punic was /ʔaˈneːkʰ/ or /ʔaˈniːkʰ/; he proposes that this was the result of contamination from the short first person independent pronoun /ʔaˈniː/, well-attested in Hebrew but unattested in Phoenician except in one dubious inscription. I accept his reasoning, but I do not agree that it follows that this can be back-projected to Phoenician, whose vocalization is not attested. I accept the logic of Krahmalkov's argument: we have a vocalization from a later period and so project it backwards. My argument is that we lack vocalization and so accept a conservative reconstruction of /ʔaˈnoːkʰi/, as in Hebrew. (Krahmalkov also assumes the unstressed final vowel was present in Phoenician but lost in Punic based on its retention in other Phoenician pronouns whose vocalization is known.)

Semiticist Transliteration

Spoiler :

I transliterate the texts in standard Semiticist transliteration: ʾ /ʔ/, ʿ /ʕ/, ḥ /ħ/, an underdot indicates an emphatic consonant except q for /kʼ/, vowels have their IPA values, a macron indicates a long vowel, an acute accent indicates a stressed syllable but is used only when stress does not fall on the expected final syllable.

THE LINES
Greeting
𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤇𐤉 𐤀𐤍𐤊 𐤃𐤃 𐤌𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤕𐤇𐤃𐤔𐤕 𐤀𐤐𐤎 𐤏𐤌𐤉 𐤉𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤍 𐤀𐤋𐤔𐤕 𐤁𐤓𐤊𐤕𐤊 𐤋𐤁𐤏𐤋𐤇𐤌𐤍 𐤅𐤋𐤓𐤁𐤕𐤍 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤐𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕𐤊 𐤍𐤔𐤀𐤕 𐤇𐤓𐤔 𐤄𐤄𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤆
Šalōm, ʾaḥī! ʾanṓki Dīdō, milkot Qart-ḥadašt, ʾips ʿammī yiqrúʾnī ʾeliššot. Birrektíka leBaʿlḥammōn weleRibbatēn Tinnīt Panē-Baʿl. ʾittéka našṓti ḥirš hāhelīkot ze.
"Hello, my brother! I am Dido, queen of Carthage, but my people call me Elissa. I greet you in the name of Baal Hammon and Our Lady Tannit the Face of Baal. With you I would share this shard of hospitality."

Note 1: It was formulaic in the Ancient Near East for kings to refer to other kings as their brother.
Note 2: Dido's names are definitely Semitic, but their etymologies are not entirely certain. Personal speculation: Dido was a historical queen who became conflated with a goddess named Elissa, who is perhaps a consort or feminine form of Il (Hebrew El). In this greeting she presents her name as Dido, with Elissa being an epithet.
Note 3: The formula "BRK le-DN" meaning "I greet you in the name of [a god]" is well attested in Phoenician and Punic.
Note 4: The final phrase is adapted from a phrase used in several variations in Poenulus and seems to be a stock expression.
Note 5: The origins of both Baal Hammon and Tannit are obscure. Baal Hammon was said to have been brought to Carthage from Canaan, but only one votive inscription to him has been found there. As for Tannit, she may have been an obscure Phoenician deity, an epithet of Ashtart, or a Phoenicianized Libyan (Berber) goddess. Dido's invocation of them is probably anachronistic, but they are also highly symbolic of Carthage.

Agenda Approval
𐤋𐤁𐤓𐤊 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤄𐤕𐤊 𐤄𐤀𐤋 𐤁𐤋 𐤀𐤑𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤃𐤋 𐤉𐤍 𐤃𐤋 𐤃𐤌 𐤏𐤑 𐤇𐤆 𐤐𐤍 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅𐤇𐤓𐤑 𐤅𐤊𐤋 𐤍𐤏𐤌
Librū́ki Baʿl ʾot qarhūtka--hāʾílle bal ʾiṣl yam. Dalō yēn, dalō dom ʿeṣ. Ḥazō panē kisp weḥarūṣ wekul nuʿm.
"May Baal bless your cities--that is, those not by the sea. May they have wine, may they have blood of the vine. May they have silver and gold and every good thing."

Note 1: Use of the infinitive construct to express the optative is characteristic of Phoenician, as is the use of a proleptic suffix pronoun. (The suffix pronoun is in the secondary form attached to nouns in the genitive case.)
Note 2: In Phoenician (but not Punic), the nota accusativi had complementary forms ʾet in most circumstances and ʾot before a noun with a suffix pronoun.
Note 3: As in Hebrew, the definite article could be used as a presentative particle.
Note 4: "See the face of" is a common Phoenician idiom for ownership.

Agenda Disapproval
𐤇𐤐𐤑𐤍 𐤁𐤋 𐤁𐤔𐤃 𐤆 𐤀𐤔 𐤋𐤊 𐤀𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤇𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤉𐤌 𐤎𐤊𐤓𐤍
Ḥapáṣnu bal bešade--zō ʾīš leka--ʾim ʾanáḥnu baʿlē yam weʾayyīm. Sukra-na!
"We do not delight in the land--that is yours--but we are masters of the sea and islands. Remember that!"

Note 1: I am doing my best to restrict myself to words attested in Phoenician so I chose "islands" rather than "shore."
Note 2: In Phoenician, šade, usually translated "field," also carries the meaning "inland."
Note 3: Phoenician SKR corresponds to Hebrew ZKR.
Note 4: This line is one of the weakest in the original: gender disagremeent, use of the Lʾ negative particle that is never attested in Phoenician, etc.

Attacked
𐤀𐤌 𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤕𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤋𐤁𐤍𐤉 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤌 𐤍𐤃𐤓 𐤆 𐤍𐤃𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤆𐤁𐤇 𐤏𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋 𐤉𐤊𐤍 𐤋𐤊 𐤆𐤓𐤏 𐤔𐤌𐤊 𐤁𐤇𐤉𐤌 𐤕𐤇𐤕 𐤔𐤌𐤔 𐤅𐤌𐤔𐤊𐤁 𐤀𐤕 𐤓𐤐𐤀𐤌
ʾim gadūd tigdud lebanay Kᵉnaʿn, weʾilīm, nidr ze nadárti: ʾizbuḥ ʿalka leʿaštart! ʾal yikīn leka zarʿ šimka beḥayyīm taḥt šamš wemiškob ʾet rapʾīm!
"If you truly will wage war against the sons of Canaan, by God, I swear this oath: I will sacrifice you to Ashtarte! You will not have descendents of your name among the living under the sun or resting place with the infernal gods!"

Note 1: Similar curses are found on a number of Phoenician coffin inscriptions.
Note 2: The tautological infinitive intensifies the meaning of the verb, a rhetorical device also found in Biblical Hebrew.

Declares War
𐤕𐤔𐤀𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤉𐤕𐤉 𐤁𐤔𐤏𐤓𐤊
Tišʾul ʾatta ʾilḗka lešalōm. ʾoniyyatī bešaʿrḗka.
"Ask thou thy gods for mercy. My ships are at your gates."

Note 1: Fascinatingly, for a maritime culture, no word for ship is attested in Phoenician, but there's no reason to believe it was not cognate to its Hebrew counterpart.
Note 2: I've written Dido as a little bombastic; I wanted her declaration of war to be solemn and clipped in contrast.
Note 3: The use of periphrastic imperatives is characteristic of Phoenician.

Defeated
𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤅𐤌𐤐𐤇𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤕 𐤋𐤊𐤌 𐤍𐤒𐤌𐤍𐤍 𐤏𐤁𐤃𐤊𐤌
Baʿl, Tinnīt, ʿaštart, wemipḥarūt ʾallōnīm weʾallōnūt, qarṓti lekom! Nuqmūnanna ʿabdēkom!
"Baal, Tannit, Ashtart, and all the gods and goddess, I invoke you! Avenge your servants!"

 

[Patine]

In-game, Dido does not speak Phoenician. She speaks more or less Israeli Hebrew with some old-fashioned grammar and an archaicizing accent. So I decided to rewrite her dialogue in Phoenician.

A few technical notes before we get started: To begin with, my reconstruction of Phoenician is based primarily on the work of Charles R. Krahmalkov, supplemented by other scholars. I have Dido speaking classical Tyro-Sidonian Phoenician, not Punic; Punic would not be spoken until centuries after Dido's death. I have more or less worked to keep the meaning of the original dialogue, but not slavishly so where I could give it more Phoenician flavor. I have deviated from Krahmalkov on a few points that bear explanation, but feel free to skip it if you're not interested in the technical details.

Concerning Emphatics

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov is agnostic on the nature of the emphatics. Early twentieth century Semiticists liek Zellig S. Harris, who wrote the first major grammar of Phoenician, generally assumed that the Canaanite emphatics were a contrast of aspirated plain consonants and unaspirated emphatics--what is termed a lenis/fortis contrast--like Ancient Greek θ vs. τ. Later, an overemphasis on the primacy of Arabic assumed that pharyngealization was the original nature of Semitic emphatic consonants and that South Semitic was an aberration. Modern Semitic studies tend to assume that pharyngealization was a secondary development and that pharyngealization was a secondary development--but when and where pharyngealization developed originally has remained an open question. Conventional wisdom has been that pharyngealization developed in Aramaic and spread to Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew under Aramaic influence. I still hold to this view in my educated but not professional opinion. A recent study has proposed that pharyngealization was an innovation of Central Semitic, but I find their argument flawed. The crux of their argument is based on assimilation of <ṢT> and <ṬT> to <ṢṬ ṬṬ> in the Hebrew Hitpael binyan, arguing that spreading of pharyngealization is normal and spreading of glottalization is not. In my own practice of Phoenician, I can tell you that /tʼtʰ/ is a very difficult sequence to pronounce and naturally tends to become /tʼtʼ/. More critically, however, if pharyngeal spreading is taking place here, it is highly illogical that there is no assimilation of qoph or, even more pointedly, the pharyngeal consonants. That being said, nothing in my reconstruction hinges on the nature of the emphatics.

Concerning Sibilants

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov proposes that šin merged with samekh as /s/ in Classical Phoenician. His basis for this argument is that Greek and Latin render šin as Σ and S respectively. My response to this is of course they do--how else would they render it? Greek and Latin had no /ʃ/ and no way to transcribe /ʃ/. Greek and Latin also transcribed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Old Persian /ʃ/ as Σ and S, but we are not in doubt those languages had /ʃ/. Phoenician script consistently distinguishes samekh and šin until Neo-Punic, at which time it seems that all sibilants became /s/. I follow Robert M. Kerr in maintaining that Phoenician distinguished all of samekh, šin, ṣade, and zayn; Kerr is agnostic on the phonetic values of these consonants, but I propose /s ʃ t͡sʼ d͡z/, which otherwise more or less follows Krahmalkov. That leaves śin, for which I believe there is a very parsimonious answer. Good evidence supports that the early Canaanite alphabet was developed by Northern Canaanites, forerunners of the Phoenicians. That there is no separate letter for śin suggests to me that it was lost in that dialect early on, and that šin was used to write it also suggests to me that it merged with šin. I therefore conclude that, unlike in Hebrew, Phoenician śin was pronounced /ʃ/, just like šin.

Concerning the First Person Independent Pronoun

Spoiler :

Poenulus clearly shows that the first person independent pronoun in Punic was /ʔaˈneːkʰ/ or /ʔaˈniːkʰ/; he proposes that this was the result of contamination from the short first person independent pronoun /ʔaˈniː/, well-attested in Hebrew but unattested in Phoenician except in one dubious inscription. I accept his reasoning, but I do not agree that it follows that this can be back-projected to Phoenician, whose vocalization is not attested. I accept the logic of Krahmalkov's argument: we have a vocalization from a later period and so project it backwards. My argument is that we lack vocalization and so accept a conservative reconstruction of /ʔaˈnoːkʰi/, as in Hebrew. (Krahmalkov also assumes the unstressed final vowel was present in Phoenician but lost in Punic based on its retention in other Phoenician pronouns whose vocalization is known.)

Semiticist Transliteration

Spoiler :

I transliterate the texts in standard Semiticist transliteration: ʾ /ʔ/, ʿ /ʕ/, ḥ /ħ/, an underdot indicates an emphatic consonant except q for /kʼ/, vowels have their IPA values, a macron indicates a long vowel, an acute accent indicates a stressed syllable but is used only when stress does not fall on the expected final syllable.

THE LINES
Greeting
𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤇𐤉 𐤀𐤍𐤊 𐤃𐤃 𐤌𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤕𐤇𐤃𐤔𐤕 𐤀𐤐𐤎 𐤏𐤌𐤉 𐤉𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤍 𐤀𐤋𐤔𐤕 𐤁𐤓𐤊𐤕𐤊 𐤋𐤁𐤏𐤋𐤇𐤌𐤍 𐤅𐤋𐤓𐤁𐤕𐤍 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤐𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕𐤊 𐤍𐤔𐤀𐤕 𐤇𐤓𐤔 𐤄𐤄𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤆
Šalōm, ʾaḥī! ʾanṓki Dīdō, milkot Qart-ḥadašt, ʾips ʿammī yiqrúʾnī ʾeliššot. Birrektíka leBaʿlḥammōn weleRibbatēn Tinnīt Panē-Baʿl. ʾittéka našṓti ḥirš hāhelīkot ze.
"Hello, my brother! I am Dido, queen of Carthage, but my people call me Elissa. I greet you in the name of Baal Hammon and Our Lady Tannit the Face of Baal. With you I would share this shard of hospitality."

Note 1: It was formulaic in the Ancient Near East for kings to refer to other kings as their brother.
Note 2: Dido's names are definitely Semitic, but their etymologies are not entirely certain. Personal speculation: Dido was a historical queen who became conflated with a goddess named Elissa, who is perhaps a consort or feminine form of Il (Hebrew El). In this greeting she presents her name as Dido, with Elissa being an epithet.
Note 3: The formula "BRK le-DN" meaning "I greet you in the name of [a god]" is well attested in Phoenician and Punic.
Note 4: The final phrase is adapted from a phrase used in several variations in Poenulus and seems to be a stock expression.
Note 5: The origins of both Baal Hammon and Tannit are obscure. Baal Hammon was said to have been brought to Carthage from Canaan, but only one votive inscription to him has been found there. As for Tannit, she may have been an obscure Phoenician deity, an epithet of Ashtart, or a Phoenicianized Libyan (Berber) goddess. Dido's invocation of them is probably anachronistic, but they are also highly symbolic of Carthage.

Agenda Approval
𐤋𐤁𐤓𐤊 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤄𐤕𐤊 𐤄𐤀𐤋 𐤁𐤋 𐤀𐤑𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤃𐤋 𐤉𐤍 𐤃𐤋 𐤃𐤌 𐤏𐤑 𐤇𐤆 𐤐𐤍 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅𐤇𐤓𐤑 𐤅𐤊𐤋 𐤍𐤏𐤌
Librū́ki Baʿl ʾot qarhūtka--hāʾílle bal ʾiṣl yam. Dalō yēn, dalō dom ʿeṣ. Ḥazō panē kisp weḥarūṣ wekul nuʿm.
"May Baal bless your cities--that is, those not by the sea. May they have wine, may they have blood of the vine. May they have silver and gold and every good thing."

Note 1: Use of the infinitive construct to express the optative is characteristic of Phoenician, as is the use of a proleptic suffix pronoun. (The suffix pronoun is in the secondary form attached to nouns in the genitive case.)
Note 2: In Phoenician (but not Punic), the nota accusativi had complementary forms ʾet in most circumstances and ʾot before a noun with a suffix pronoun.
Note 3: As in Hebrew, the definite pronoun could be used as a presentative particle.
Note 4: "See the face of" is a common Phoenician idiom for ownership.

Agenda Disapproval
𐤇𐤐𐤑𐤍 𐤁𐤋 𐤁𐤔𐤃 𐤆 𐤀𐤔 𐤋𐤊 𐤀𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤇𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤉𐤌 𐤎𐤊𐤓𐤍
Ḥapáṣnu bal bešade--zō ʾīš leka--ʾim ʾanáḥnu baʿlē yam weʾayyīm. Sukra-na!
"We do not delight in the land--that is yours--but we are masters of the sea and islands. Remember that!"

Note 1: I am doing my best to restrict myself to words attested in Phoenician so I chose "islands" rather than "shore."
Note 2: In Phoenician, šade, usually translated "field," also carries the meaning "inland."
Note 3: Phoenician SKR corresponds to Hebrew ZKR.
Note 4: This line is one of the weakest in the original: gender disagremeent, use of the Lʾ negative particle that is never attested in Phoenician, etc.

Attacked
𐤀𐤌 𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤕𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤋𐤁𐤍𐤉 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤌 𐤍𐤃𐤓 𐤆 𐤍𐤃𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤆𐤁𐤇 𐤏𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋 𐤉𐤊𐤍 𐤋𐤊 𐤆𐤓𐤏 𐤔𐤌𐤊 𐤁𐤇𐤉𐤌 𐤕𐤇𐤕 𐤔𐤌𐤔 𐤅𐤌𐤔𐤊𐤁 𐤀𐤕 𐤓𐤐𐤀𐤌
ʾim gadūd tigdud lebanay Kᵉnaʿn, weʾilīm, nidr ze nadárti: ʾizbuḥ ʿalka leʿaštart! ʾal yikīn leka zarʿ šimka beḥayyīm taḥt šamš wemiškob ʾet rapʾīm!
"If you truly will wage war against the sons of Canaan, by God, I swear this oath: I will sacrifice you to Ashtarte! You will not have descendents of your name among the living under the sun or resting place with the infernal gods!"

Note 1: Similar curses are found on a number of Phoenician coffin inscriptions.
Note 2: The tautological infinitive intensifies the meaning of the verb, a rhetorical device also found in Biblical Hebrew.

Declares War
𐤕𐤔𐤀𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤉𐤕𐤉 𐤁𐤔𐤏𐤓𐤊
Tišʾul ʾatta ʾilḗka lešalōm. ʾoniyyatī bešaʿrḗka.
"Ask thou thy gods for mercy. My ships are at your gates."

Note 1: Fascinatingly, for a maritime culture, no word for ship is attested in Phoenician, but there's no reason to believe it was not cognate to its Hebrew counterpart.
Note 2: I've written Dido as a little bombastic; I wanted her declaration of war to be solemn and clipped in contrast.
Note 3: The use of periphrastic imperatives is characteristic of Phoenician.

Defeated
𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤅𐤌𐤐𐤇𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤕 𐤋𐤊𐤌 𐤍𐤒𐤌𐤍𐤍 𐤏𐤁𐤃𐤊𐤌
Baʿl, Tinnīt, ʿaštart, wemipḥarūt ʾallōnīm weʾallōnūt, qarṓti lekom! Nuqmūnanna ʿabdēkom!
"Baal, Tannit, Ashtart, and all the gods and goddess, I invoke you! Avenge your servants!"

You've returned! (Again).

 

[Zaarin]

You've returned! (Again).

Probably not long-term until Civ7 is announced and we have something worth speculating about, but for the moment I am here.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

In-game, Dido does not speak Phoenician. She speaks more or less Israeli Hebrew with some old-fashioned grammar and an archaicizing accent. So I decided to rewrite her dialogue in Phoenician.

A few technical notes before we get started: To begin with, my reconstruction of Phoenician is based primarily on the work of Charles R. Krahmalkov, supplemented by other scholars. I have Dido speaking classical Tyro-Sidonian Phoenician, not Punic; Punic would not be spoken until centuries after Dido's death. I have more or less worked to keep the meaning of the original dialogue, but not slavishly so where I could give it more Phoenician flavor. I have deviated from Krahmalkov on a few points that bear explanation, but feel free to skip it if you're not interested in the technical details.

Concerning Emphatics

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov is agnostic on the nature of the emphatics. Early twentieth century Semiticists like Zellig S. Harris, who wrote the first major grammar of Phoenician, generally assumed that the Canaanite emphatics were a contrast of aspirated plain consonants and unaspirated emphatics--what is termed a lenis/fortis contrast--like Ancient Greek θ vs. τ. Later, an overemphasis on the primacy of Arabic assumed that pharyngealization was the original nature of Semitic emphatic consonants and that South Semitic was an aberration. Modern Semitic studies tend to assume that pharyngealization was a secondary development and that pharyngealization was a secondary development--but when and where pharyngealization developed originally has remained an open question. Conventional wisdom has been that pharyngealization developed in Aramaic and spread to Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew under Aramaic influence. I still hold to this view in my educated but not professional opinion. A recent study has proposed that pharyngealization was an innovation of Central Semitic, but I find their argument flawed. The crux of their argument is based on assimilation of <ṢT> and <ṬT> to <ṢṬ ṬṬ> in the Hebrew Hitpael binyan, arguing that spreading of pharyngealization is normal and spreading of glottalization is not. In my own practice of Phoenician, I can tell you that /tʼtʰ/ is a very difficult sequence to pronounce and naturally tends to become /tʼtʼ/. More critically, however, if pharyngeal spreading is taking place here, it is highly illogical that there is no assimilation of qoph or, even more pointedly, the pharyngeal consonants. That being said, nothing in my reconstruction hinges on the nature of the emphatics.

Concerning Sibilants

Spoiler :

Krahmalkov proposes that šin merged with samekh as /s/ in Classical Phoenician. His basis for this argument is that Greek and Latin render šin as Σ and S respectively. My response to this is of course they do--how else would they render it? Greek and Latin had no /ʃ/ and no way to transcribe /ʃ/. Greek and Latin also transcribed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Old Persian /ʃ/ as Σ and S, but we are not in doubt those languages had /ʃ/. Phoenician script consistently distinguishes samekh and šin until Neo-Punic, at which time it seems that all sibilants became /s/. I follow Robert M. Kerr in maintaining that Phoenician distinguished all of samekh, šin, ṣade, and zayn; Kerr is agnostic on the phonetic values of these consonants, but I propose /s ʃ t͡sʼ d͡z/, which otherwise more or less follows Krahmalkov. That leaves śin, for which I believe there is a very parsimonious answer. Good evidence supports that the early Canaanite alphabet was developed by Northern Canaanites, forerunners of the Phoenicians. That there is no separate letter for śin suggests to me that it was lost in that dialect early on, and that šin was used to write it also suggests to me that it merged with šin. I therefore conclude that, unlike in Hebrew, Phoenician śin was pronounced /ʃ/, just like šin.

Concerning the First Person Independent Pronoun

Spoiler :

Poenulus clearly shows that the first person independent pronoun in Punic was /ʔaˈneːkʰ/ or /ʔaˈniːkʰ/; he proposes that this was the result of contamination from the short first person independent pronoun /ʔaˈniː/, well-attested in Hebrew but unattested in Phoenician except in one dubious inscription. I accept his reasoning, but I do not agree that it follows that this can be back-projected to Phoenician, whose vocalization is not attested. I accept the logic of Krahmalkov's argument: we have a vocalization from a later period and so project it backwards. My argument is that we lack vocalization and so accept a conservative reconstruction of /ʔaˈnoːkʰi/, as in Hebrew. (Krahmalkov also assumes the unstressed final vowel was present in Phoenician but lost in Punic based on its retention in other Phoenician pronouns whose vocalization is known.)

Semiticist Transliteration

Spoiler :

I transliterate the texts in standard Semiticist transliteration: ʾ /ʔ/, ʿ /ʕ/, ḥ /ħ/, an underdot indicates an emphatic consonant except q for /kʼ/, vowels have their IPA values, a macron indicates a long vowel, an acute accent indicates a stressed syllable but is used only when stress does not fall on the expected final syllable.

THE LINES
Greeting
𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤇𐤉 𐤀𐤍𐤊 𐤃𐤃 𐤌𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤕𐤇𐤃𐤔𐤕 𐤀𐤐𐤎 𐤏𐤌𐤉 𐤉𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤍 𐤀𐤋𐤔𐤕 𐤁𐤓𐤊𐤕𐤊 𐤋𐤁𐤏𐤋𐤇𐤌𐤍 𐤅𐤋𐤓𐤁𐤕𐤍 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤐𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕𐤊 𐤍𐤔𐤀𐤕 𐤇𐤓𐤔 𐤄𐤄𐤋𐤊𐤕 𐤆
Šalōm, ʾaḥī! ʾanṓki Dīdō, milkot Qart-ḥadašt, ʾips ʿammī yiqrúʾnī ʾeliššot. Birrektíka leBaʿlḥammōn weleRibbatēn Tinnīt Panē-Baʿl. ʾittéka našṓti ḥirš hāhelīkot ze.
"Hello, my brother! I am Dido, queen of Carthage, but my people call me Elissa. I greet you in the name of Baal Hammon and Our Lady Tannit the Face of Baal. With you I would share this shard of hospitality."

Note 1: It was formulaic in the Ancient Near East for kings to refer to other kings as their brother.
Note 2: Dido's names are definitely Semitic, but their etymologies are not entirely certain. Personal speculation: Dido was a historical queen who became conflated with a goddess named Elissa, who is perhaps a consort or feminine form of Il (Hebrew El). In this greeting she presents her name as Dido, with Elissa being an epithet.
Note 3: The formula "BRK le-DN" meaning "I greet you in the name of [a god]" is well attested in Phoenician and Punic.
Note 4: The final phrase is adapted from a phrase used in several variations in Poenulus and seems to be a stock expression.
Note 5: The origins of both Baal Hammon and Tannit are obscure. Baal Hammon was said to have been brought to Carthage from Canaan, but only one votive inscription to him has been found there. As for Tannit, she may have been an obscure Phoenician deity, an epithet of Ashtart, or a Phoenicianized Libyan (Berber) goddess. Dido's invocation of them is probably anachronistic, but they are also highly symbolic of Carthage.

Agenda Approval
𐤋𐤁𐤓𐤊 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤄𐤕𐤊 𐤄𐤀𐤋 𐤁𐤋 𐤀𐤑𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤃𐤋 𐤉𐤍 𐤃𐤋 𐤃𐤌 𐤏𐤑 𐤇𐤆 𐤐𐤍 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅𐤇𐤓𐤑 𐤅𐤊𐤋 𐤍𐤏𐤌
Librū́ki Baʿl ʾot qarhūtka--hāʾílle bal ʾiṣl yam. Dalō yēn, dalō dom ʿeṣ. Ḥazō panē kisp weḥarūṣ wekul nuʿm.
"May Baal bless your cities--that is, those not by the sea. May they have wine, may they have blood of the vine. May they have silver and gold and every good thing."

Note 1: Use of the infinitive construct to express the optative is characteristic of Phoenician, as is the use of a proleptic suffix pronoun. (The suffix pronoun is in the secondary form attached to nouns in the genitive case.)
Note 2: In Phoenician (but not Punic), the nota accusativi had complementary forms ʾet in most circumstances and ʾot before a noun with a suffix pronoun.
Note 3: As in Hebrew, the definite article could be used as a presentative particle.
Note 4: "See the face of" is a common Phoenician idiom for ownership.

Agenda Disapproval
𐤇𐤐𐤑𐤍 𐤁𐤋 𐤁𐤔𐤃 𐤆 𐤀𐤔 𐤋𐤊 𐤀𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤇𐤍 𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤉𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤉𐤌 𐤎𐤊𐤓𐤍
Ḥapáṣnu bal bešade--zō ʾīš leka--ʾim ʾanáḥnu baʿlē yam weʾayyīm. Sukra-na!
"We do not delight in the land--that is yours--but we are masters of the sea and islands. Remember that!"

Note 1: I am doing my best to restrict myself to words attested in Phoenician so I chose "islands" rather than "shore."
Note 2: In Phoenician, šade, usually translated "field," also carries the meaning "inland."
Note 3: Phoenician SKR corresponds to Hebrew ZKR.
Note 4: This line is one of the weakest in the original: gender disagremeent, use of the Lʾ negative particle that is never attested in Phoenician, etc.

Attacked
𐤀𐤌 𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤕𐤂𐤃𐤃 𐤋𐤁𐤍𐤉 𐤊𐤍𐤏𐤍 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤌 𐤍𐤃𐤓 𐤆 𐤍𐤃𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤆𐤁𐤇 𐤏𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋 𐤉𐤊𐤍 𐤋𐤊 𐤆𐤓𐤏 𐤔𐤌𐤊 𐤁𐤇𐤉𐤌 𐤕𐤇𐤕 𐤔𐤌𐤔 𐤅𐤌𐤔𐤊𐤁 𐤀𐤕 𐤓𐤐𐤀𐤌
ʾim gadūd tigdud lebanay Kᵉnaʿn, weʾilīm, nidr ze nadárti: ʾizbuḥ ʿalka leʿaštart! ʾal yikīn leka zarʿ šimka beḥayyīm taḥt šamš wemiškob ʾet rapʾīm!
"If you truly will wage war against the sons of Canaan, by God, I swear this oath: I will sacrifice you to Ashtarte! You will not have descendents of your name among the living under the sun or resting place with the infernal gods!"

Note 1: Similar curses are found on a number of Phoenician coffin inscriptions.
Note 2: The tautological infinitive intensifies the meaning of the verb, a rhetorical device also found in Biblical Hebrew.

Declares War
𐤕𐤔𐤀𐤋 𐤀𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤊 𐤋𐤔𐤋𐤌 𐤀𐤍𐤉𐤕𐤉 𐤁𐤔𐤏𐤓𐤊
Tišʾul ʾatta ʾilḗka lešalōm. ʾoniyyatī bešaʿrḗka.
"Ask thou thy gods for mercy. My ships are at your gates."

Note 1: Fascinatingly, for a maritime culture, no word for ship is attested in Phoenician, but there's no reason to believe it was not cognate to its Hebrew counterpart.
Note 2: I've written Dido as a little bombastic; I wanted her declaration of war to be solemn and clipped in contrast.
Note 3: The use of periphrastic imperatives is characteristic of Phoenician.

Defeated
𐤁𐤏𐤋 𐤕𐤍𐤕 𐤏𐤔𐤕𐤓𐤕 𐤅𐤌𐤐𐤇𐤓𐤕 𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤌 𐤅𐤀𐤋𐤍𐤕 𐤒𐤓𐤀𐤕 𐤋𐤊𐤌 𐤍𐤒𐤌𐤍𐤍 𐤏𐤁𐤃𐤊𐤌
Baʿl, Tinnīt, ʿaštart, wemipḥarūt ʾallōnīm weʾallōnūt, qarṓti lekom! Nuqmūnanna ʿabdēkom!
"Baal, Tannit, Ashtart, and all the gods and goddess, I invoke you! Avenge your servants!"

By Tannit you’ve finally returned!