1

In theory, cuneiform glyphs are numbered to distinguish homophones: if there are two common glyphs pronounced /u/, one will be named U₁ and the other will be named U₂. If a glyph has multiple readings, the number is attached to a particular reading, so the glyph BI₁ is also known as PE₂, PI₂, BE₂, and SA₁₈, among others.

So far so good. But sometimes, the numbering seems to carry over from one reading to another. For example, the glyph GU₁₀ can also be read as /ŋu/, and there are no other common glyphs with that reading. But its alternate name is ŊU₁₀, not *ŊU₁—in fact, the name *ŊU₁ doesn't seem to be associated with anything at all.

Why does this happen?

4
  • Related: linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/34498/…
    – Draconis
    Apr 26 '20 at 1:23
  • "The name ... doesn't seem to be associated with anything at all", well, with the character itself, isn't it? I mean the way we call P by the name "Pe" or that squiggly a-character in Greek by the name "alpha" that doesn't mean aleph "bullseye" or anything really.
    – vectory
    Apr 29 '20 at 0:17
  • @vectory No, what I'm saying is that the name *ŊU₁ is not associated with any cuneiform character (hence the star). Which is strange, because 1 is supposed to be assigned before 2, 2 before 3, etc.
    – Draconis
    Apr 29 '20 at 0:24
  • Maybe it's the way we call P by the name "Pe" or "Rho" depending on codepoint. I still say alpha although it's clearly an A written in a funny hand. And even writing alexander in Latin codepoint--I'm more pragmatic than hardcore philologists at that---I might refer to it as alpha depending on the context. So in my mind Alpha1 is A2 and vice versa. Seems an orderly and forward compatible notation.
    – vectory
    Apr 29 '20 at 0:29
1

I haven't found any authoritative source backing this up, but as best I can tell from perusing the ePSD: the numbering "carries over" from a reading using only Akkadian phonemes to a reading that contains non-Akkadian ones (particularly Sumerian ĝ/ŋ and ř/dr). Akkadian has always been the best-understood of the languages using syllabic cuneiform, and tends to set the standards for naming.

I speculate that this stems from a combination of uncertainty in the readings (since the phonetic transcriptions we have were written by Akkadian-speakers) and from typographical concerns (ĝ, ŋ, and ř aren't always easy to typeset). But if anyone can find a Sumerological source that actually explains this rationale, I'd gladly take that as the accepted answer.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.