| 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 |
Kerned Signs vs. Single Signs This page clarifies *one* aspect of the problem of distinguishing between a sequence of two signs SIGN-1 and SIGN-2, and a sequence of two components COMPONENT-1 and COMPONENT-2 within a single sign. Some of these same signs can be shown to need a distinctive encoding via other kinds of evidence, such as historical equivalents from different time periods. For more generality on the problem of one vs. two signs, please click here. There is a contrast between the Han (Chinese-Japanese-Korean) character encoded as Unicode U+67F4 and the sequence U+6B64 followed by U+6728, which has the identical components, but as two separate characters, instead of visually squashed into one. The only principled difference is the spacing, which is why this issue is much more difficult for Cuneiform. The signs IGI , SAL, and RU enter into etymological compounds which in different instances may or may not have fused into single resultant signs. Because of their shapes, IGI having the tail of a single wedge pointing to the right, SAL being a triangle pointing to the right, they tend to combine more closely with following components. Is this merely a kind of kerning? Or did new single signs arise historically in this way? If they did, there can have later developed even a contrast between the sequence of single signs and the single sign whose glyphs look like its origins. The sign RU is concave to the left, so it also accepts a number of signs pointed on their right sides, and again the question is whether the best analysis is as kerning of two independent signs or as a single sign. There is a real difference between different approaches. There are real consequences for text on computers, in line breaks, in typography, and in possible kludges needed if these signs are understood, analyzed, and encoded wrongly. A simple sequence of two independent signs is not acceptable for at least most examples listed below, since the spacing would be so obviously wrong. A treatment as ligatures is also not appropriate, since that also would preclude a contrast between two signs in sequence and the single sign. Ligaturing is not intended to create a distinctive contrast. Ligatures are in Cuneiform altenating forms with their unligatured correspondents. The Ellermeier catalog has an entire section listing ligatures and While the relations between spacing and kerning are the focus of this page, there are many other considerations, discussed on other pages as noted above. |
SAL as Component EL or SIKIL B899 L564 appears to have components SAL 'woman' and SI 'horn'. At Uruk, the SAL is nested inside the curve of the SI. In Gudea and "classical" forms, the SAL is strongly kerned into the SI. In none of these does vertical white space separate the components. At the NeoAssyrian stage, the two are clearly fused, and the elements are no longer evident except to someone who knows the history. In the light of the patterned development of other signs, the nesting of the Uruk period already suggests this is a single sign, not a sequence of signs. SAL x KUR, also read GEME2 B890 L558, has components SAL and KUR 'mountain'. The two form a group at the Uruk period, while in Gudea and classic periods, the point of the SAL extends into the KUR, is not merely adjacent to it. In the following signs, the point of the SAL touches the following component, and no white space occurs between them (as rendered in fonts imitating standard usage). I write these all with the descriptor "x" to signal probable status as single signs: NIN = SAL x NAM2 or SAL x SHE3 B886 or B887 L556, Ligatures: In contrast to the above, Ellermeier lists a form similar to SAL x NAM2 as a ligature of SAL and MA. This may constitute an example of minimal contrast, in that the ligature can have either reading, while the sequence of two signs has only the reading SAL.MA, not the reading NIN. |
IGI as Component IGI+MIN B724a L449 is a true ligature of IGI and the numeral MIN '2'. It is one of several dual signs formed by this kind of ligature. Despite the Borger numbering, assuming this is indeed a ligature, it will therefore not be an independent character. PAD3 = IGI x RU B725 L449n Fara423 looks in one NeoAssyrian font like a simple sequence, but in all of Gudea, Fara, and Uruk, it has the point of the IGI touching the farthest right point of the angle of the RU. The form of RU in NeoAssyrian does not have such a large space on the left side, which may be one factor in a lack of overlap. AR = IGI x RI B726 L451 Fara 422 has the trailing wedge tail of the IGI actually overlapped with the initial wedge of RI. In addition, the Gudea and Fara forms are missing one of those two wedges, or they are overlapped so as to become one. Whether it is simply a closer combination of the two components, or a clue that the etymology suggested by the late form is misleading, no claim is made here to choose one of those analyses. (IGI.SHIR.UD) OVER (IGI.SHIR.UD) Ellermeier The IGI overlaps the SHIR in the same way as for AR. AGRIG = IGI x UM ~ DUB B727(v(2)) L452(v1) Fara 427 has the trailing wedge tail of the IGI touching the heads of the wedges of the component UM / DUB. Also earlier. The variation of UM ~ DUB does not occur in all independent forms of those two characters, though it does sometimes occur in other complexes, so that may suggest treatment as a single character. Other examples where adjacency is presumably closer than for a sequence of two independent signs. Some of these only occur in Fara, but are not any less candidates. U3 = IGI.DIB B731 L455 Fara422-3 Components touch each other in Gudea
and in Fara The following are given by Labat not as separate numbered catalog entries,
but as entries under IGI, therefore one might infer Labat regarded them
as sequences of signs rather than a single sign? Or it could be that
there was no status difference implied, merely a difference of frequency? |
RU as component This can be regarded as a "container" sign because signs nestle inside it to such a degree. "Container" signs need not completely enclose their infixed components. Please click here for a full range. RU with IGI inside (see above under IGI) |