In the following sign names, I retain the traditional cuneiformist naming system, so that the list will be most usable to specialists who we believe should be able to evaluate this, but add some clarity of distinctions. Here are differences from naming practices in N2664(R).

  (  )  parentheses -- not used in N2664 -- clarifies grouping of sign components, can simply be dropped   

  Lowercase rather than uppercase -- distinguishes SIGN component names from other descriptors

  x  -- rendered as "TIMES" in N2664 -- relation of container to infix, or overlap of components, etc.

  +  -- used only when discussing true ligatures, which are not to be encoded. Not = "PLUS" in N2664

  .  period -- rendered as space in N2664 -- ambiguous in Cuneiform names, separates either signs or mere components

  paired  -- rendered as "SIGN OVER SIGN" in N2664, but the two SIGN are always identical (1 exception)

Entries in the Tables:

The entry "fragment" means that the fragmentation of a single sign into parts must then be fixed by linking the parts together again, by kerning, and often in addition by substituting a single glyph for the purported sequence of parts. A very indirect way of not encoding the actual characters of Cuneiform. The entry "sequence" in quotes means that the sign has been misanalyzed as a sequence.

If there is no independent sign ("no"), it means further that the supposed component does not even exist in that way, in addition to not being a part of a particular sign which N2664 intended it to represent. "Yes" entries are omitted, since any sign proposd to be added "Add" is attested as an independent sign.

The entry "does not occur elsewhere" means that the purported sign does not occur as a component of other signs than the one which replaces it in these listings of needed changes. It is possible that a component might occur in several distinct signs, yet not be attested as an independent sign, and this entry is to allow the possibility of distinguishing those cases. This entry is based on the best information I have been able to gather from standard sources. It may in one or two instances not be correct. Proposal N2664 does not permit us to judge that, because of its mixture of the real and the artificial.

Traditional sign catalogs are abbreviated respectively "B", "L", "C" "G" "F", and "Z" -- Borger's most recent, Labat's standard, "Classical" Font by Steve Tinney, Gudea font by Margret Studt, Fara (LAK) and Uruk (ZATU) lists. Attestation in these lists for the most part should be taken to imply status as a single sign, since the 150 years of scholarship has been very well done, and these lists certainly do try in general to distinguish between single signs and sequences of signs. Borger's is the most recent and comprehensive, and his work is rather universally respected. Ellermeier has also recently published a comprehensive catalog. Citations in this column are normally only B and L. Occasionally other citations show that a sign is unitary in origin, not compound, or that it has an earlier form in which it is complex, with parts overlapping or infixed, and that later scribes reanalyzed these into glyphic parts more familiar to them (a process noted in N2664R). These citations are not attempting to be comprehensive, but only sufficient to document judgement of professionals that a single sign is in question or illustrations which make that self-evident. I obviously do not include examples where I believe such judgements were wrong, but can list them separately at a later date. Any proposal should highlight such a list of exclusions so the assyriological community can see what is omitted and judge whether those choices are correct.

Arbitrary Fragmentation into Non-Existent Components

This first example shows how far wrong proposal N2664 went. It is partly corrected in N2664R (see illustrations there), but the name used for the real sign falsely implies the sign is composite. In this case there are not even any independently existing signs to use as components for it. Artificial ones were invented in order to permit decomposition. This should be one of several indicators that the fundamental conception of N2664 was wrong, and that many other problems are present (they are).

Glyph Frag-ment or se- quence

Tradi- tional List?

B713, L474

Fragmentation into Wrong Components; Omission of Unitary Container & Sign

In this section I give a set of five lines each to illustrate three sets of signs. Most of the individual signs with infixes were proposed for addition in the N2664R corrrectionn to N2664, but the independent signs were omitted, and those independent signs are also the container for the complex signs with infixes. The infixation is into the unitary sign, not into the artificial component of it which was fragmented in N2664. There are thus three signs added here beyond N2664R, TUR3, HUBUR, and UTUA2. These unitary signs were probably omitted from N2664 purely because there happen to exist single signs which look like the glyphic parts of these single signs. The names TUR3 and UTUA2 are the only names given in Labat for these signs. While the name HUBUR used below is not a common one, and not in Labat, that name could be replaced by any other unitary name, so as to not be misleading as to sign structure.

A sign list intended for human use can perfectly well include more commonly known names, reflecting the language of glyph description used to name many signs.

Glyph Frag-ment or se- quence

Tradi- tional List?

B440

B441, L282

Fragmentation; Glyph Description Instead of Standard Names and Unitary Signs

This example shows the disregard of the standards of the standard names of the field, and how N2664 would have forced a known sign to be encoded wrongly as a sequence, before the revision N2664R. Consequences include incorrect spacing and glyphic forms, and incorrect line breaks. Even after the revision, many signs are fragmented this way. A long list is in preparation, examples here are merely selected from the few corrected in N2664R.

Glyph Frag-ment or se- quence

Tradi- tional List?