| 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 |
Spacing in the Gudea Statues and in the Codex Hammurabi This note reports that the treatment as single sign vs. as "lexical item" (a sequence of signs) was *already* taken full account of decades ago in Labat and other sign lists of the scholarly tradition. There is no need to revisit that issue, except to refine it. Where evidence is available, in lines with enough space to see distinctions, both in the Gudea Statue texts and in the Codex Hammurabi, the evidence correlates very strongly with the choice by Labat and Borger to classify as single sign vs. as a sequence of signs (implied for those glyph combinations which are not classed as single signs). This is a part of the confirmation that the traditional sign catalogs knew what they were doing, and for the most part *correctly* differentiated between single signs and sequences of signs. Best wishes, *** Citations from the Gudea Statues are in the form A to N followed by column and register ("line") in "Arabic" numbers. Citations from the Codex Hammurabi are in the form of Roman numerals (column) followed by register ("line") in "Arabic" numbers. Already, there is a very high correlation between spacing behavior and the treatment of the standard traditional catalogs as a single sign. The treatment of the traditional catalogs probably took this into account, consciously or unconsciously. Those items marked by Labat as lexical items rather than as single signs all have loose spacing, and in one case where the opportunity presented itself, do split across end of line. Few exceptions: Of the 16 items first studied, there are only three
real exceptions. Two place names GIRSU and ABZU are written with glyphs
touching yet considered lexical items rather than single signs by Labat.
In reverse, one item SA4 is catalogued as a sign, yet has close spacing
only once out of eight occurrences, has loose spacing in six, and is
split across end of line ("indent") once. The way I scanned was to look for unusually close spacings of parts which do exist otherwise as independent characters. This is by no means complete (not in such a short time), and I will have missed some spaced forms precisely because they did not stick out as having closer spacing of components relative to the wider spacing around them. If a line was too crowded with signs to distinguish closer vs. looser spacing with some reliability, then I disregarded it. Despite the limitations, this small survey still gives some indication. It also shows a very small amount of fluctuation. Most items examined are consistently treated one way or the other, are not a mixture. First, both justification and "stretching" of signs can occur. The best example of stretching I found in the Gudea statues is on Statue B at B.7.49 (column 7 line 49), the sign ALAN. [Heimpel adds: <<Note that two registers earlier the same sign is unstretched even though spatial conditions are identical.>>] A good example from the Codex Hammurabi is the sign EL at viii.57 (less stretched) vs. at viii.60 (both more stretched *and* with more white space around it). The etymological parts of this sign (SAL and SI or its lookalike) are not separated during the stretching. Normally in the Gudea statues, justification is used if a box contains
only one line, while if it contains two lines, the second one is normally
aligned right. The signs within a single line are normally spaced out
to fill it, as for example even SIPA at F.4.7 (see below for other writings
of SIPA) [Heimpel emphasizes that the context is identical in one of
these other instances.] ********************************************** E-11 = "SU.DU" most common in sequence -TA-E11 E3 = UD.DU ********************************************** Now two items with minor fluctuation, but mostly appear visually *as
if* a single sign. These *are* listed as signs in the scholarly tradition. Because of the loose spacing of the majority of examples, I am ambivalent about what *this* set of evidence should lead us to conclude. The sign is treated as a single sign in the standard catalogs B138, L82. The close spacing of one example may be the anomaly. Or the line break in the other case may be the anomaly, a substitution of two different characters for the single character whose parts look like those two. That last is a resoning I do *not* like, it adds a layer of complexity between character sequence and surface representation which is precisely what should not ever be done unless there are good and necessary reasons. I am just leaving that option open in case it turns out to be verifiable in some way. I would normally take the line break as determinative, and then argue in this case the catalogs made a mistake? What is the normal treatment elsewhere? Also fluctuating, and allowing line breaks? More common in some eras or styles, rare in others? We don't know until we tabulate actual data. Or we can take the word of the catalogs, if they otherwise correspond. ********************************************** SIPA occurs with full loose justification on Statue F: F.4.7, which is precisely what one would expect if this is a sequence of characters. However, it occurs on F.4.3 with rather close spacing, identical to that of the components of MASH2 in line F.4.6, which is known as a single character, and presumably by the same scribe. In F.4.6, the components of SIPA are both at the left end, then a large amount (!!!) of white space, then the only other character at the right end. Is SIPA a text unit or a single sign? It occurs with tight spacing and touching parts (looks like a single character) in the Gudea statues at B.2.8, D.1.11. In the Codex Hammurabi, SIPA occurs with parts touching, or no significant spacing between parts (spacing less than what are clearly spaces between signs) at Prol.iv.45, xv.46,56,75 and in the main text at xxii.61,78,82,84 and xxiv.43. In several of these there is signficant space around it which separates it from neighboring signs. It is divided by space just barely greater than inter-sign space only once, in the main text at ix.60. This last is a crowded line of the kind not normally providing clear evidence. One way of treating this is to say that the character SIPA is present in most occurrences, but the sign PA followed by the sign LU (or SI6) in that order are present in the one occurrence where the parts are greatly separated (and in the CH main text at ix.60, the components might be loosely written, or it might be another writing of separate signs. This could manifest precisely that ambiguity of interpretation by scribes mentioned by Tinney across time periods, in which they may reinterpret single signs as sequences of familiar components and write those signs instead. Are the divided writings anomalies? What evidence do other texts bring, in lines where there is sufficient spacing to distinguish treatments? Another way of interpreting this is that SIPA is a lexical item but not a single sign. That is to say, one might argue that the keeping together of the parts is keeping a "text unit" together, not keeping together the components of a single character. I do not want to bias the consideration in either direction. Borger (B468) and Labat (L295m) treat this as a single sign, not a sequence of signs.
********************************************** GIRSU (with components GIR2 and SU) passim Labat treats this as a lexical item, listed under GIR2 L010, not as a single sign. Another relevant consideration is that NIN occurs in lots of contexts.
When written in the sequence NIN GIRSU, the NIN is kept together and
the GIRSU is kept together, but there is much space between each of
these two complexes. So it is not simply that NINGIRSU is a single lexical
item, a text element, even though NINGIRSU will be listed in dictionaries,
as will also NIN and GIRSU. ABZU = "SU.AB" = AB X SU (AB with SU above) ********************************************** 5. Other items which are always kept together, and which are almost certainly single signs. First ones which are treated as single signs in N2664R. U3 ("IGI.DIB" components look like IGI followed by DIB /
LU) * * AR = "IGI.RI" * MUL = "AN OVER AN AN" ********************************************** 6. Other items which are always kept together, and which are almost certainly single signs. In this group, ones which are *not* treated as single signs in N2664R. PA3 = "IGI.RU" = IGI x RU B.2.8 and D1.11 both contain the kind of situation Wolfgang Heimpel
was discussing, in which there would have been plenty of room for IGI
at the end of the first line of the box, but the entire PA3 is on the
second line. Since there would also have been room for the entire PA3
on the first line, perhaps there is a syntactic reason for the line
division, namely keeping several signs together which spell the same
*word* (and not leaving the second line with too few signs in it? several
other boxes on these statues do not keep words together even when they
could). The following two occurrences have space between the parts.
Despite this, PA3 is *not* split across line boundary, even though that
would produce a more balanced line density, and even though it would
make no difference to word boundary. It therefore seems that a variant
glyph is the best way to understand these, a glyph which because it
is unitary cannot be split across the line break. Certainly better than
forcing all of the ordinary cases to be more complex to handle. * AGRIG = "IGI.UM" varying by one wedge with "IGI.DUB" * NIN (with components SAL and NAM2) passim * NA4 * "SAL.KUR" (used for male and female together, thus people
etc.) ********************************************** 7. Other items which are always kept together, and which are almost certainly single signs. In this group, ones which are *not* treated as single signs in N2664R. There is every reason to assume that all signs with "U" = SHU4 or SHU2 as first component are single indivisible signs as reflected in the correlated spacing behavior and standard sign catalogs. These act as "container" components just as much as do components which completely surround an infixed component. Just as does the closely corresponding "roof" radical among Han CJK characters. GUL = "U.URUDU" = SHU4 x URUDU or SHU4 x (AB x U) * SHAGAN = "U.GAN" or = "SHU4.GAN" (etymologically
a "covered GAN jar-stand?). * SHUDUN = "SHU2.DUL4" = SHU2 x UR $e$$ig * * Some items which are universally treated as single signs (and already in N2664) EL = SIKIL = "SAL.SI" ALAN (12034) [Heimpel adds at the end, revising to a much more limited statement: <<That some diri compounds do not get separated at line ends may be a matter of restricted convention. I am pretty sure I have seen the ru of the pa3 sign indented. Now, that I looked at what you observed, I must correct myself half-ways: I have never seen, and do not expect, separation of diri compounds across registers and unindented lines. >>] *** [On the next item, which is a complex case and from which I do not draw any immediate conclusions, Heimpel adds: <<The writing is syllabic and ideographic at the same time: gish PI tug2 (not nam2) = PI which goes back to the drawing of an ear and gish tug2, its pronunciation>> He later adds <<the different spacing of gish pi tug2 may not be meaningful>>] A possible distinction of reading depending on spacing. (This may even
be a typo in the book, leaving off a "g" in the I am very suspicious of this kind of evidence until experts confirm it, and as I have written several times, it is hard to find such contrasts even when a symbol system has them in measurable frequency, because we do not mentally register them... But if valid, it is quite conclusive. Our group has not been looking for it yet. To be valid, it would have to be confirmed in other texts too. Otherwise, this is merely an example of fluctuation. F.2.9 GESHTUG2 = |