Talk:List of cuneiform signs

Borger
Note that the Borger number given is from Borger 1981. Borger 2003 uses a completely different numbering scheme, including 907 signs. This list should, in the long term, be expanded to list all Borger 2003 signs and give a concordance of Borger 1981 to Borger 2003. dab (&#5839;) 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on this over at Unicode cuneiform. This list may be re-generated from there later. dab (&#5839;) 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unicode characters
Wouldn't it be useful to augment (or replace) the unicode code point column with the actual characters in the spirit of "U+12109" -> "U+12109 " (with cuneiform template)? This could be done programmatically in some ten minutes, but since I don't want to be reverted, I wait for feedback here. Is there a preference to numerical character references, or should I use utf-8 encoded characters?
 * sure, go ahead -- I was going to do the same sometime (augment, don't replace). --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It turns out that the cuneiform template does not work if used very often on the page. While it should convert to &lt;span style="font-size:125%;font-family:Akkadian, 'Free Idg Serif';" title="cuneiform text">𒊩&lt;/span>, it gives instead &lt;a href="/wiki/Template:Cuneiform" title="Template:Cuneiform">Template:Cuneiform&lt;/a>&lt;!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large --> for all invocations down from a given point in the document. It seems that the cuneiform template has a limitation which the unicode template does not have, so I'll use the latter.


 * I guess s UTF-8 fine? The Unicode cuneiform page has numerical character references, though. Thus I am somewhat uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Sortable
Why does adding "sortable" to the table classes not make them sortable? It would be extremely helpful to be able to look up by OB pronunciation. --Aquatiki (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DUN3gunû(gunû): Disambiguation
The Unicode names are really pertinent, because they ar only describing the composition of the sign. My problem were the sign names: DUN3 with gunû is the average sign for Shekel (giĝ4, conventionally GIN2), cf. PSD: sign-names D "DUN3@g" (g=gunû) versus tun3(ax), DUN3 alone, without gunation: 𒂅.

The sign MIR=DUN3 gunû gunû, aga/niĝir: "crown", "tiara" has no reading gin2, see also Volk, Sumerian Reader, page 73 "giĝ4", "aga3" versus page 63 "niĝir". The signs are distinguished also by Picker Old-Babylonian, see "GÍN=DÙNgunu=𒂆" and "MIR (DÙNgunugunu) 𒂇" --Edfyr (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

PNG cuneiform sign images
See my comment on Talk:Cuneiform_script ... AnonMoos 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These images are still on commons, B001ellst.png etc., but they were removed from the article by the uploader. --dab (𒁳) 10:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article needs image files restored but the person who was previously uploading the images didn't pay attention to the rights issue involved and was inexplicably successful in removing them, despite having already given up the rights by uploading them in the first place.


 * In particular, I'm not sure what's going on here but I wasted an entire day combing these lists because the EB9 article on China uses the glyph <𒃵] (visible as 685 here) where unicode has the completely dissimilar 𒉼 at that code point.


 * Similarly, it has the glyph 三|| (visible as 91 at the same source) where unicode has the completely dissimilar 𒈤 at that code point.


 * If Unicode has some good (or "good") reason for their variant depiction, fine, but we should have both visible here in pictorial form. — Llywelyn II   21:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

At some point...
...in addition to inclusion of the images, the unicode glyphs need to have a separate column from their U+ numbering and the glyphs need to be wrapped with linktext tags or  links to their Wiktionary entries. — Llywelyn II   22:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy in header of first table?
The headers for all but the first table are:


 * 1) MesZL
 * 2) ŠL/HA
 * 3) aBZL
 * 4) HethZL
 * 5) [blank column, for no apparent reason]
 * 6) Sign Name
 * 7) Unicode Codepoint
 * 8) Unicode Name
 * 9) Comments

However, the first table differs on the third- and second-to-last headers:


 * 1) MesZL
 * 2) ŠL/HA
 * 3) aBZL
 * 4) HethZL
 * 5) [blank column, for no apparent reason]
 * 6) Sign Name
 * 7) Script/Cuneiform Codepoint
 * 8) Script/Cuneiform Name
 * 9) Comments

Is this just an oversight? babbage (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cuneiform signs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723140931/http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/sign_lists to http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/doku.php/sign_lists

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ur III or Neo-Assyrian?
The shapes shown here look more like UR III than like Neo-Assyrian (cf. here, but the introductory paragraphs in the article seem to be claiming the opposite.--79.100.144.23 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see now that the paragraphs actually say that the signs are arranged according to their Neo-Assyrian shape, not that the shapes displayed are Neo-Assyrian; I suppose that the arrangement can indeed be based on the Neo-Assyrian shape even while the signs themselves are displayed in an Early Babylonian, Ur III or Early Dynastic shape, although, of course, that makes the arrangement far less helpful for actually finding a sign. However, it would still be useful to point that out and to specify which period and area the actually displayed shape originates from.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Table Update
When Dr. Rykle Borger originally built his comparative table, which was adapted to this Wikipedia entry, Cuneiform block wasn't completed yet. Since then, several signs were added, and a entire new block (Early Dynastic Cuneiform) was created. Some signs that appear lacking in his table gained equivalent unicode characters, but the table was not updated to include them. Here they are:

67 | U+1237F | KA TIMES ASH3

156 | U+1238D | MUSH3 TIMES ZA

224 | U+12370 | AB TIMES NUN

243 | U+12376 | DUB TIMES SHE

254 | U+1219A | KAM2

265 | U+12290  & U+1219A | RAB & KAM2

269 | U+12217 & U+1219A | LUGAL & KAM2

278 | U+12377 | EZEN TIMES GUD

282 | U+12378 | EZEN TIMES SHE

334 | U+1252A | NINDA2 TIMES U

335 | U+1252B | NINDA2 TIMES U PLUS U

355 | U+1253A | TUM TIMES GAN2 TENU

385 | NA4 (NI.UD) | U+1238E | NA4

386 | DÀG (NI.ERIM) | U+12374 | DAG3

408 | 257 | U+1237A | GA2 TIMES ASH2

436 | U+1224C & U+12111 | NI PLUS GISH

439 | U+12056 & U+121A8 | DAG PLUS KISIM5

518 | U+12389 | LU2 SHESHIG TIMES BAD

520 | U+1251E | LU2 TIMES TAK4

524 | U+1238B | LU2 TIMES SHU

532 | U+1238A | LU2 TIMES ESH2 PLUS LAL

615 | U+1226D & U+12016 | NUNUZ PLUS AB2

616 | U+1226D & U+121A8 | NUNUZ PLUS KISIM5

640 | U+1212D & U+12041 | HI PLUS BAD

831 | U+1222B  & U+1230D | MIN & U U U

886 | U+12390 | NIN9

887 | U+1238F | NIN

Sairjohn (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)