Talk:Ugaritic

Untitled
I removed the words "and probably just used because of habit" employed in connection with the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet, because they didn't contribute anything very concrete. If an idea has been removed, someone p[lease put it back, perhaps more clearly. User:Wetman

New wikified links
A new user just added square brackets to wikify links. However, it appears that none of the pages exist yet. I hope this is a prelude to the inclusion of new pages. Cbdorsett 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
I'm thinking of adding a section on Ugaritic grammar into this article...if that's ok--Xevorim (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a section on Ugaritic grammar and will be expanding it hopefully soon.--Xevorim (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank u :)__Xevorim (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the grammar section is done for now...--Xevorim (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected the grammar section to a new article, Ugaritic grammar.--Xevorim (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

vowels
Main article states both: "The Ugaritic alphabet is a cuneiform abjad (alphabet without vowels), " and "Ugaritic has 28 consonantal phonemes, including two semivowels, and eight vowel phonemes ". I suspect one of these facts is incorrect but I lack any knowledge in this field (perhaps the explanation just needs expanding on to address this apparent contradiction). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.49.225 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The alphabet doesn't have any vowel letters as such when writing the Ugaritic language (though ʔa, ʔi, ʔu do provide some indication of vowels in a narrow range of circumstances); however, the language of course was pronounced with a number of vowels... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

update
Shouldn't the article be update after the new discovery? http://my.opera.com/macedonians/blog/?id=10241632 Mewoone (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another article claiming that the language was deciphered by a computer. Does anyone know about this news or can anyone provide enough info to add to the page? -- Dandekar (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's some more information on this link... If I understand it correctly, Ugaritic was already deciphered by scholars and this was only a demonstration of the potential of this algorithm in deciphering other yet undeciphered languages: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/51 Abvgd (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem in intro
The lede section now confidently states that Ugaritic has solved the puzzle of Ezekiel's Danel, endorsing it as if a fait accomplis. This is not at all consistent with what one reads if one clicks on the link for Danel, which is much more even-handed, balanced, compliant with npov, and studiously refrains from non-neutrally endorsing any ones hypothesis, but rather, cautiously attributes each of the schools of thought on this puzzle to its proponents. Furthermore, the WP:LEDE is supposed to outline the principal facts in the body, but this information appears in the lede. I therefore intend to move this statement out of the lede, and to make it more consistent with the linked, neutral article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddities in phonological reconstruction
The use of IPA [ˤ] in reconstructions for Ugaritic is a little odd, since there's no specific evidence that Ugaritic emphatic consonants are pharyngealized (as the Arabic emphatic consonants are). Some scholars would suggest that there's circumstantial evidence that emphatics were ejective consonants in Canaanite languages, and so likely also in Ugaritic. If the Ugaritic emphatics were ejectives, then they were likely voiceless also, so "[ðˤ]" would then be quite wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dating of language vs script
The article says that the Ugaritic abjad is known from the 15th C BCE, but the language itself is attested only from the 14th C. These dates are in conflict unless the earliest known use of the script was for a different language. Can anyone shed light on this? --Amble (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make much sense that I can see. According to the article by Dennis Pardee in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (ISBN 0-521-56256-2), the language is attested from around 1300-1190 B.C., and the script would be more or less the same (though there are a few isolated Ugaritic-script tablets found outside Ugarit itself). 1300 B.C. is the end of the 14th century B.C. -- not sure how the 15th century B.C. comes into it... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

An alphabet is not a language. Hence a copy of the alphabet may long predate anything actually written with it.Johundhar (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This may be a good general philosophical point, but it doesn't illuminate anything with respect to Ugaritic. AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ugaritic. 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/20031202023745/http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

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) 10:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Change in sentence (Ugaritic-Hebrew relationship)
Don't know why "Ugaritic is an inflected language, and its grammatical features are highly similar to those found in Hebrew, Classical Arabic and Akkadian" was changed to "Ugaritic is an inflected language, and its grammatical features are highly similar to those found in Akkadian, Classical Arabic and, to a lesser extent, Biblical Hebrew". Ugaritic is much more closely related to Hebrew than to Akkadian, and Akkadian is kind of worn down in some ways. Ugaritic shares with Arabic having merged few proto-Semitic consonants, but I'm not sure that there's any close positive resmblance. AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)