Please choose  from the categories below
Cuneiform Signs

Analysis and reports to support an international standard for computer encoding of the Cuneiform writing system

Research on the development of Cuneiform signs

 

The "Cover" Container in Cuneiform Signs

Chinese characters have a "Roof" radical, which covers but does not literally surround the other component(s) of the characters in which it occurs. In just the same way, Cuneiform signs have a "Cover" component used as a container in signs of the type [container x infixed components]. The origins of this sign component include the range "cover", "vault of the sky" etc.

The original sign split into components named "SHU2" (wider, two wedges) and "SHU4" (narrower, one wedge, a Winkelhaken), the split based apparently on the width of the contained components, which were originally below it, and after the 90-degree rotation were to the right of it. The one-wedge form SHU4 merged with the sign U which had another origin, from the small circlar end of a stylus, whether used for the numeral ‘10’ or otherwise. (GE23, a single diagonal wedge, also merged into the sign U.) For clarity of discussion across historical stages, we can retain the name SHU4 for those components which look like SHU4 in older Cuneiform and look like U in later cuneiform.

In Cuneiform signs just as in Chinese, the "Cover" container does not fully surround the contained component. But the relation is sufficiently intimate that it may not be possible to draw a vertical line entirely through white space, separating the two. . In Chinese characters, the "roof" radical has small vertical wedges which descend around the upper edges of the contained component(s). In Cuneifom, unlike Chinese, characters do not all fill a square block of constant size. But even in Cuneiform, the spacing is much closer than would be true in most typographic styles if the "Cover" and the contained component were really independent signs. Since both SHU4 and SHU2 are thin, it is hard to imagine any motivation to split them apart from the remaining components of the same sign in order to fill out the end of a line before a line break. So such line breaks in the middle of a this type of sign should be exceedingly rare, if indeed they occur at all. (The occurrence and frequency or absence of such line breaks can of course be determined empirically.) This would simply be a result of cuneiform users considered these to be single signs, not sequences of two signs. Encoding them for computer use as single signs gets us just the results we expect and want. Encoding them as a sequence of components would give us undesired results, putting line breaks through the middle of these single signs just as readily as in the spaces between signs. It would require that we then fix the problem elsewhere, by interposing a ligaturing code in every occurrence of every sign of this type, or something else keeping the parts together.

Borger has assigned single sign numbers to many signs of this type, but by no means all, perhaps simply because the criterion used included frequency, and the goal is to represent glyphs rather than all signs as distinctive characters. Labat listed a higher proportiion of these small lists under SHU2 than SHU4. I argue that all signs in the lists below are single signs, not sequences of two signs. The NAMES for these signs of course reflect a dynamic *componential* analysis even though our analysis shows these are single *signs*. There are quite a number of additional signs which are of the form SHU2 x (component) or SHU4 x (component) which should for similar reasons be encoded as single signs. Can we distinguish cases in which we have really a simple sequence of a sign SHU4 (or U) and some other sign, perhaps with a separate reading as a text element, but not a single sign? Can we tell in the best typography through spacing of the signs, with more space between individual signs than between components of a single sign? (See separate discussion of that question).

Here follow lists of some signs including the two "Cover" components:
Borger and Labat numbers are given before each sign, including extended-Labat numbers.

 

SHU2, the wide "Cover" container

Borger signs in the range B870 to B880
B870 L546 SHU2 x AN = EN2
B871 546_6 SHU2 x AN lig.(SHAR2 x GAD) = KESH3
B875 L548 SHU2 x ASH2 = GIBIL2
B876 L549 SHU2 x DUN4 = SHUDUN
B879 L553 SHU2 x ESH = LIL3
B877 L550 SHU2 x KISAL (in Fara still drawn, mistaken for SHU4 = U)
B872 L547 SHU2 x MUL = KUNGA
B873 L551 SHU2 x NAGA = SHEG8
B874 L552 SHU2 x NE = LIL5
B878 551v SHU2 x (SHE.KU.KAK) = SHEG9
B880 L550a or L553a SHU2 x (UR sheshig) = HUL2

 

SHU4, the narrow "Cover" container,
Later merged with U, earlier same as SHU2

Borger signs in the ranges B663 to B671 and B698 to B700, B710, B745 to B746
**** L430 SHU4 x AD = GIR4
B666 L413 SHU4 x BURU14 = SHIBIR
B667 L415a SHU4 x DIM = GAKKUL3
B668 L416 SHU4 x (DIM x KUR) = GAKKUL
**** L416v SHU4 x (DIM x SHE) = GAKKUL
B670 L418 SHU4 x DAR
B700 L443 SHU4 x GA = UTU2
**** L428 SHU4 x GAN = SHAGAN
B710 L448 SHU4 x GIR3 / PIRIG = KUSHU
B698? L441 SHU4 x GUD = UL
B669 L417 SHU4 x GUR
B664 L414 SHU4 x ITI
B663 L412 SHU4 x KA =UGU
B699 L442 SHU4 x KID = SHITA4
B746 L469 SHU4 x GAR = PAD
B665 L415 SHU4 x MU = UDUN
B671 L419 SHU4 x SAG
B707 L447a SHU4 x UD.KID = NIGIN3
B700a L443an SHU4 x ZAG

 

Other signs which had a convex curve or peak in their original more iconic form also later had a single Winkelhaken or a pair of angled wedges. Examples of this are
B737 L461 KI not proposed as SHU4 x KU
B745 L468 KUG not proposed as SHU4 x LIMMU5