- Sep 2, 2007I've been working my way through some of the Annals of the Kings of
Mainly because they have transliterations so I can check my own work
afterward. I'm using Labat's sign list. On occasion, however, I find
a sign that doesn't exist in Labat.
An example is on p. 103. line 55, the sign transliterated as 'su' in
"an-á¸«u-su-nu" is not in Labat's list.
A further interesting thing is that in one of the earlier annals,
Pudu-ili, p3, line 9, "Å¡arra-su" is written with an unusual sign
representing the "su." It is not the same as the one on p103 but it
looks, to me, as if it could be an earlier development of the same sign.
The sign does not appear to occur in the _List of Neo-Assyrian
Cuneiform signs_, based on Borger (with the caveat that I may have
missed a variant sign too different for my eyes to distinguish.)
Part of the impetus behind this letter is that I have discovered, here
and there, three different methods of writing the sign meaning
iá¹£á¹£uru, _bird_. These differences are radical differences, not simple
Clearly, signs change through the ages.
The question is, is there a "better" signlist to be using, or should I
just go on as I have been, making separate notes of each sign and its
apparent value as I come on it?
Or is there some other suggestion I have not thought of?
- Next post in topic >>