For Hittite and Hurrian, Gary Beckman returned comments on a list
of additional Hittite cuneiform signs I submitted to him, and has given
permission to pass on his comments. After deleting a couple of items
which are no longer relevant, here they are, followed by the amended
original list. (A number of additional Anatolian signs were already
included in the PSL list.)
<< I've worked through your sign material and have only a few
comments. You don't seem to have missed anything Hittite or Hurrian.>>
He does not claim to be a specialist in Urartian, so does not comment
on signs used there.
***
The following is an example of Container x Infixed Sign alternating
with Container Sign followed by (elsewhere infixed) Sign.
A compilation of such examples is in the section "Container signs
with infixes", please click above. Gary writes the following, which
poses a challenge for us to encode the two the same way if we possibly
can.
<< HZL 28: Since Mesopotamian SI.SA2 has the same meaning as Hittite
SIxSA2, the latter sign is certainly derived from the former sequence.>>
***
HZL #23 UZ6 vs. #38 MASH2 Both go back to Labat #76, ABZ #76, but with
the original HI developing in two different ways. Friedrich did not
separate these two (his #58). The separation was introduced by H. G.
Güterbock, JCS 16, 1962 p.23, and adhered to by Rüster &
Neu. Gary writes:
<< HZL 38 is the better choice for a direct continuation of ABZ
76,
with HZL 23 as the variant. Note that most combinations employ HZL 38>>.
***
For HZL #69, despite the radically different appearance of two forms,
(a) the first 8 examples, something similar to SHU Labat #354
(b) the last four examples, matched with KU3 Labat #468.
Gary reports no distinctiveness between the two forms in usage.
<< HZL 69 does not represent two signs. See the OB examples of
Labat 468.>>
***
In response to this
HZL #88 SHUDUL2, SHUDUN2 'yoke'
(a) matches the whole of Labat #348 DUN4 after determinatve GISH (a
sign in a liver omen)
(b) matches the major part of Labat #549 as DUN,
with the first part of Labat #549 being SHU2, the whole after determinative
GISH ('yoke')
It appears that Labat #549 is not represented in Hittite, but that its
meaning is continued by HZL #88, which corresponds
in form rather to Labat #348 carrying a different meaning. On the basis
of continuity of form, HZL #88 should be unified
with Labat #549, and only this unification leaves open the door to discovery
of attestations in the line of descent of Cuneiform
to Hittite of the sign related to Labat #549.
Gary writes:
<< Labat 549 is $U2+DUN4 (348), that is, with a phonetic complement.
I don't see any difference in meaning; both are niru.>>
Since we are coding signs, not readings, and these two differ by a substantial
component, the addition of which in other cases
does create a new sign, it seems safest to recognize the traditional
distinction made for Mesopotamian cuneiform. The only question would
then be which of these the Hittite sign is to be equated to.
*********************************************************
Here is the full list, after making modifications indicated by Gary
Becker (see above).
Following are results of a careful combing of Rüster and Neu's
*Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon* (their abbreviation HZL)
as well as Friedrich's list, for signs which are not included in the
combination of Labat's Manuel, Borger's ABZ, or Ellermeier and Studt's
fonts. for NeoAssyrian signs and for Gudea signs.
These lists were not yet checked against Steve Tinney's name list, and
some were already included there, some not.
At first sight, Rüster & Neu appear to be an ideal source,
since they list many variant forms with each sign, thereby in most cases
rather clearly distinguishing between what are distinct signs and what
are variants of the same sign.
There are however some subtleties, and differences in the framework
of classification, which have significance both for careful sign unification
and for recognition of new signs.
***
Order of categories for listing:
A total of 22 (?) new signs are given in sections 1., 2., and 3.
1. New syllabary signs for Hittite and Hurrian
2. Further signs for which I have not found a match elsewhere.
3. Signs which split in Hittite
4. A distinction of signs still exists in Hittite *signs*, even if
they merged in later Mesopotamian cuneiform
5. A distinction of signs still exists in Hittite *signs*, even though
they are not distinguished in HZL numbers
6. One of a pair of closely related signs has disappeared from Hittite
7. Signs which originated as ligatures which in Hittite appear fused,
but still can be encoded as a ligature of a sequence of two signs.
8. (dropped)
9. Additional identifications of matching signs from ABZ etc.
10. Signs which are segmented differently in HZL and in traditional
sign lists, but which have matches.
11. Distinct signs in Labat and archaic, though not numbered separately
there or in ABZ
12. Ligatures, not to be encoded as separate signs
***
1. New syllabary signs for Hittite and Hurrian.
In these complex signs the first part is not a "container sign",
in the circular sense that it does not surround the second part making
it a "contained sign", but the parts are nestled together
and function as a single syllabary sign, so should be encoded each as
a single unit.
HZL #31 Hurrian GE x E
HZL #76 Hurrian NE2 x E
HZL #318 Hurrian WA x AP
HZL #319 Hurrian WI x I
HZL #320 Proto-Hattic WI x PI2
HZL #321 Hurrian, Proto-Hattic WU x U2
HZL #322 Hurrian, Proto-Hattic WE x E
HZL #323 Hurrian, Proto-Hattic WU x U
HZL #324 Hurrian WU x PU
HZL #325 Hurrian WI x IP
HZL #326 Hurrian, Proto-Hattic WA x A
***
2. Further signs for which I have not found a match elsewhere. If no
match exists, they should be added as new signs?
HZL #28 = Friedrich #22. R&N's suggest comparing the "container"
part of these with ABZ #112. They match HZL #86 SI with ABZ #112. They
match the "contained" part with HZL #312 SA2 = DI, ABZ #457.
R&N do not suggest a match for the complex in ABZ etc., and I cannot
suggest one. So a new sign. (similarly below).
HZL #94 NIB 'leopard' ( = PIRIG x KAL). For the first part, compare
Labat #444 GIR3. R&N suggest no match for the particular fused complex
in Mesopotamian cuneiform, and I can suggest none.
HZL #107 EZEN x SHE 'festival' ( = EZEN4) appears always in Hittite
where Mesopotamian cuneiform would have EZEN.
HZL #137 KA x UR2 (object made of wood)
The next two signs may be scribal variants of each other, or may be
distinct signs. Tentatively, add two new signs?
Or use "variant selector" so it can be either distinguished
or disregarded later as turns out to be necessary?
HZL #138 KA x PA (container? of copper)
HZL #139 KA x GISH (container of wood)
HZL #140 KA x GAG = KIR14 'nose'
HZL #142 KA x LUM (but attested only once, with entire surrrounding
context broken away)
HZL #150 KA x ASH3 (designation of some body part)
HZL #276 AMAR x KU6 (Labat #437 x KU6)
***
3. Signs which split in Hittite. What does one do in each of these cases
for unification? Which of the Hittite signs is to be equated with the
Mesopotamian cuneiform sign?
HZL #23 UZ6 vs. #38 MASH2 See Gary Beckman's comments above, together
with part of what originally appeared here.
HZL #220 GUG2 vs. HZL #221 LU3 (both ABZ, Labat 345). There is some
overlap of forms, but a large number of forms
clearly one or the other, if we judge from HZL citations. Reference
to H. G. Güterbock, FsOtten 1973 p.72f
Hittite signs ##222-3 also are very similar, but are distinguished
both in HLZ and by Borger and Labat.
***
4. A distinction of signs still exists in Hittite *signs*, even if they
merged in later Mesopotamian cuneiform
HZL #231 SANGA, SHID 'count, recite'; SANGA 'priest' = Labat #314a
HZL #99 KISHIB, DUB 'thumb' and 'tablet' = Labat #314c
HZL #112 MISH = Labat #314d
PISAN2 'container' = Labat #314b
PISAN3 = PISAN2 x A 'container' x 'water' = Labat #317
HZL #315 URU5 'deluge' = Labat 58d (one of at least three merged as
later Labat 58)
***
5. A distinction of signs still exists in Hittite *signs*, even though
they are not distinguished in HZL numbers
(for example because functions have fallen together, even if the signs
themselves remain clearly distinct without intermediates)
HZL #69 (see discussion above after Gary Beckman's comments; here the
two forms are not distinctive).
HZL #332 contains two signs OR VARIANTS. The two forms are strongly
and clearly distinct, but if mere variants both in Hittite and in Mesopotamian,
they do not need distinct codings.
(a) the first 9 examples = Labat #397 = simplified variant of #398a
(b) the last 2 examples = Labat #398a unsimplified form
***
6. One of a pair of closely related signs has disappeared from Hittite
Labat #103b appears to be unattested ? in Hittite, while Labat #103a
survives as HZL #27 SHE12 etc. (MUSH3 x A).
Since Labat #103b SHED7 is MUSH3 x A x DI, might DI have functioned
as phonetic for the syllable-final of SHED7 ?
No dilemma posed by this one.
HZL #88 SHUDUL2, SHUDUN2 'yoke'. See discussion with Gary Beckman's
comments above.
HZL #201 GU2 'nape of the neck; tribute', GUN 'burden'; 'Talent (measure
of weight)'
(a) matches Labat 106 GU2
(b) matches Labat 108x GUN burden, tribute, etc. and is a combination
of GU2 and UN 'people' the last presumably used as phonetic. The second
of these, more complex, appears not to be attested as a sign form in
Hittite usage, but its functions are carried by the simpler sign.
***
7. Signs which originated as ligatures which in Hittite appear fused,
but whose fusion is exceptional when viewed in the context of cuneiform
generally, so still can be encoded as a ligature of a sequence of two
signs.
HZL #64 SHU.NIGIN2, ligatured version of Labat #354 with NIGIN2.
HZL #66 SIG2.SAL, ligatured version appears in HZL #210
UDU.SIG2.SAL 'female sheep', SILA4.SIG2.SAL 'female lamb'.
***
9. Additional identifications of matching signs from ABZ etc.
HZL #141 KA x U 'mouth' = Labat #30x 'mouth'
HZL #143 KA x UD (or U4) = ZU9 'tooth' ?= Labat #28 ZU5
HZL #232 KAHTA (E!.KISIM5 x LA) = Ellermeier #282
UTUA2 x LA, perhaps [LA] used as phonetic?
***
10. Signs which are segmented differently in HZL and in traditional
sign lists, but which have matches. For this issue, please see the section
on "Decomposition" of signs into parts. Click on the button
on the top of this page to go there. [that section not yet posted as
of Friday morning 24 October]
The first of these all have a base UTUA2 'bull' Labat #281, or in or
with the second half of that in exactly the same shape,
but historically descended from a second half with one more wedge originally,
KISIM5 ('fly, wasp, bee')
HZL segments the second halves of these signs, catalogs them separately.
The best example for this is LAHTA (Labat #282) vs. LAHTAN (with NUNUZ
as its first half, Labat #394b)
Labat, ABZ etc. treat the total complexes as combinations of E!.UTUA2
or E!.KISIM5 and then infix the remainder.
HZL #278 KISIM5 occurs in Labat #281
HZL #281 KISIM5 x GU4 occurs in
HZL #188 E!.KISIM5 x GU4 = Labat #289 cowherd, shepherd
HZL #280 KISIM5 x LA occurs in
HZL #232 LAHTA = Ellermeier #282
HZL #282 KISIM5 x GA occurs in
HZL #189 <DUG>UBUR 'breasts' = Labat 291 'breasts'
HZL #285 KISIM5 x A.MASH occurs in
HZL #190 E!.KISIM5 x A.MASH = Ellermeier 294b
HZL #35 = Labat #77. A separate case, where it is merely (?) a reading
which is different (and here supported by only a single unusual writing
which may be a contamination of 'tail' with 'sheep' in the case of fat-tailed
sheep.) Rather here encode simply
as the sequence of component signs, with KUN 'tail', HZL #35 = Labat
#77.
HZL #252 therefore do not encode separately, but only as the parts.[UDU]
LU."HUL2"+KUN.
***
11. Distinct signs in Labat and archaic, though not numbered separately
there or in ABZ
HZL #336 GASHAN 'noble lady' = Labat #350b (not #350a)
HZL #345 TE3, NIDABA = Labat #375a NIDABA, not #367
HZL #335 HI = Labat #396 vs. NIMIN = Labat #473
These are linked only because in one reading they both are used for
'4' (besides '40'). But that is a later merger of one sign for '40'
with HI. Part of the distinction between numerals and other signs.
HZL #370 LIMMU '4' = Labat #597a bottom pp.242-243
***
12. Ligatures, not to be encoded as separate signs (in the case of the
numbers, clearly not, in the other cases, possibly not).
HZL #287 'll', compound of '10' and '1', and similarly '12', '13',
'14', etc.
HZL #359 '70' = '60' + '10'.
HZL #363 SHUR4 = HZL #362 SHUR4 (=Labat #482) + SAR
HZL #365 ID2 = HZL #364 A (=Labat 579) + ENGUR (The question of which
signs to decompose into parts and not encode as atoms will be discussed
elsewhere.) |