Re: Ugaritic Affiliations

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:06 pm, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Unicode is very much a case of GIGO.

Hurling abuse from outside the computing industry does not help. Timely, reasoned arguments are needed.

Why should I need a licence? Ideally one should have similar tables for
Hittite and Neo-Babylonian, and probably other stages.

Right, those are the only three "stages" you've ever heard of?

The Mesopotamian cuneiform repertoire in Unicode 5.0 is known to have significant coverage gaps for stages before Ur III, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning earlier stages. The Unicode charts represent the Ur III stage, with the ticklish problem that anything later should be projected back to an Ur III form.

2) It
is possible to make an alphabetic order using sign shapes.

I don't know what you mean. I've never discovered who first arranged a
signlist according to the arrangement that's standard today (followed
by von Soden, Labat, Borger, ..., with horizontals before angles
before verticals), but it is neither the ancient order (which you'll
find in the transcript of Syllabary A in WWS) nor the order used the
first time someone assembled a cuneiform signlist (1807).

You've just demonstrated that you understood what I meant!

3) I know where
to find a list of signs, moreover, one in alphabetic order of sign shapes.

Regardless of whether it reflects any sort of epigraphic,
philological, or linguistic reality!

So what convention are they working to then?

For Ur III forms one might hope to use the Unicode charts, though I don't
doubt that the shapes of some of the signs, signs that are not attested (and
don't exist) for Ur III, are Michael Everson's invention.

Oh, no, he's started meddling in cuneiform now, too???

He seems to steer clear of CJKV stuff.

Why can't you use Nissen and Green's signlist, with the corrections
from Steinkeller's review?

URL, please.

The 31st letter is clearly Colless's added 'sh'. I suspect the image in the
Wiki page is derived by taking Colless's list, the 31 characters in the
Ugaritic block of Unicode, putting 2 and 2 together, and making 5.

As opposed to going to ANY reliable source, such as a Ugaritic
grammar.

What use is a grammar that predates 'Colless's discovery'? I'm not even sure that he actually claims any such discovery.

Everything I've seen, apart from the image on the wiki page, tells me that
it is a variant of SHIN. I would not expect to see the two 'sh' letters in
the same abecedary.

Since when are "variants" included in the list of letters in an alphabet?

When it is not clear that the variation is free when it is not conditioned. Practical systems may be even more forced to include variants, as with the 'long s' in the Roman alphabet or the special final letters in the Hebrew and Greek writing systems.

I'm not sure how to quote an additional post, but the following post has
been accessed using URLhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/8910eba34d128d67:

A: On Sep 4, 11:30 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A> On Sep 4, 3:47 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A> > On Sep 4, 7:53 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A> > > If you don't know how similar Ugaritic and Arabic are (their
consonant
A> > > inventories are in fact identical), then you have no business making
A> > > any comments whatsoever touching on Semitic linguistics.

A> > according to my sources ugaritic has 3 non-emphatic sibilants but no
A> > Dad.

A> You haven't consulted a Ugaritic grammar. Dad was marginal but had a
A> letter.

[Richard again]

Classical Arabic has 28 consonants. The Ugaritic script has 28 characters.

Correction: The Ugaritic distinguishes 28 consonants.

Just how little is known about what SSU represents.

IT DOES NOT REPRESENT ANYTHING IN THE UGARITIC LANGUAGE.

So do you withdraw your claim that Ugaritic and Arabic have the same consonant inventory? Do you still claim that Ugaritic had a 'dad'? If so, what letter was it written with? (My understanding is that Ugaritic SADE corresponds to both Arabic sad and dad etymologically.)

Richard.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Grammar States and Tertiary Phonemes
    ... can be 'described' by a sequence of ... decimal base numbering system has 10 letters in its 'alphabet': ... Then, we derive a *grammar*, which is effectively a set of both ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: OT: Evolution of teaching Math
    ... Give nine rules for the use of capital letters. ... understand the practical use of the rules of grammar. ... Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Take this test honestly
    ... Give nine rules for the use of capital letters. ... you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar. ... A Real Eighth Grade Test From 1895. ... file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Re: "Having an eye in criticism is as important as having an ear in music. It means discerning the o
    ... grammar and antiquated vernacular -- definitely. ... Schiller's letters ...
    (rec.arts.fine)
  • Boycott *O.J.* (if I did it)
    ... If and when I find out just who the hell is sponsoring OJ Simpson's TV show ... "If I dad it" I will boycott their products, write letters of complaint to ...
    (rec.arts.tv)