Talk:šamû

@Tom 144, Fenakhay Hello! I've seen that we have different views about Pronunciation and how to handle the cuneiform signs (where they should appear, transliterations, etc). Shall we have a discussion here? I'm open to anything that makes sense, is not redundant and possibly it pleases the eyes. :D I think it would be better to discuss these things instead of a back and forth of changes. If we all agree on something, then we can all work together and create/fix entries faster and more efficiently! :D I added my point on view below in the corresponding sections. Sartma (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuneiform transliteration

• To some degree, I agree with User:Tom 144 that cuneiform should be accompanied by its transliteration. My way of going around that was to link every cuneiform sign, so one could always go to the cuneiform sign entry and see what its transliteration would be for the corresponding language (Akkadian, Sumerian, Hittite, etc). Judging by the edits I got, I guess this idea wasn't received very well, lol. XD It did look awful, to be honest, and I wasn't happy with it either. What I would like to have is an Akkadian specific template that gives entries a format like this:
  • šamû (𒊭𒈬𒌑, ša-mu-u₂) m pl (base šama) <-- info about the base is necessary, since there is no other way to know what it would be from the main entry only.
  • ilum (𒄿𒈝, i-lum) m (plural ilū or ilānū)
  • ēkallum (𒂊𒅗𒀠𒈝, e-ka-al-lum) f (construct state ēkal, pronominal state ēkalla, plural ēkallātum) <-- info about the construct state would be needed in all cases where it is different from the entry form minus the ending -um. We also need an entry for pronominal state, since they vary from term to term (there are some regularities, but the rules are too many to remember, it's easier to give the form straight away) + absolute state, when different from construct state (like for sinništum: construct state sinništi, pronominal state sinništa, absolute state sinniš).

etc.

If we go for Latinised entries, those should always be the one we refer to. The cuneiform following the entry would ALWAYS be a phonetic transcription, not a logographic one, following the principle that every Akkadian word could always be written phonetically, while the logographic version was a question of choice (in the same text we find the same word spelled phonetically or logographically, depending on the scribe preference at the moment of writing the word)

What do you guys think? Does this seem reasonable? If it does, it would be great to create a template to keep the format consistent.

• Two more options I thought about:

1. šamû 𒊭𒈬𒌑 (ša-mu-u₂) m pl (base šama-) or
2. šamû m pl (base šama-)

The last option would be just giving up having any cuneiform next to the Latinised entry. In the end, all cuneiform will appear down below in the "attested spelling" (even though I like it from a visual point of view, to have the phonetic cuneiform spelling next to the Latinised entry. It makes the Latin look a bit more "Akkadian"...). I'm mostly persuaded to go with this last option. I'll wait a couple of days to hear if anyone has strong arguments not to, and then I'll change all the new Akkadian entries accordingly. Sartma (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

• Hi @Tom 144! Sorry, I didn't see your edits last night and re-edited them later on! I've realised only now when checking the history. I thought Wiktionary would let you know if there are edits to articles you're watching? Anyway, I used the brackets to link the cuneiform signs/words thinking that it would have been a good way to help the user move around entries that are in the Latin script but that actually contain cuneiform signs. Ideally, each cuneiform sign should have its own page where one can find how to read it in each language (Akkadian, Sumerian and Hittite, at the moment). Was that a bad idea? Should I just type in the cuneiform and let it to the user to "copy-paste" and search it in case they don't know the sign? Maybe naively, I thought that the more the links, the better... Sartma (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma A couple of corrections. Cuneiform should always include its transliteration. The phoneme 'š' was traditionally interpreted as /ʃ/, but it is modernly accepted that it represented /s/. Also, s, z, ṣ, and q were pronounced as /t͡s/, /d͡z/, /t͡s'/, /k'/ respectively. You can read more about it here — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 04:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tom 144 Hi! I'm reading pages 51 and 99 of the book you linked, and it clearly says that Old Babylonian š was pronounced /ʃ/. Are you sure you're not confusing Old Babylonian pronunciation with the older Assyrian or Old Akkadian one? We can add those as well, but I wouldn't delete the current one. As for /q/ vs /k'/, or /ṣ/ vs /s'/, I don't think there's much difference, since they are both reconstructed pronunciation and there's no strong evidence to favour one over the other. I would stick with what Huehnergard states on pag. 587 of his A Grammar of Akkadian and keep /q/ and /ṣ/ for Old Babylonian. Sartma (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)