Talk:πππ
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by Sartma in topic Transcription
Transcription
[edit]@Sartma The source provided on this page lists "Ninurta" as the first reading of the signs. Why are you so insistent that it's Ninurtak? Moreover, the sign π , meaning "ear of barley," is urta, not urtak. So I truly don't know why you're so insistent that there's a final /k/. Vergencescattered (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Vergencescattered! The source I provided clearly says Ninurtak [1] (DN), so forgive me for not quite understanding why you are so surprised. The genitive -k was not generally spelled out in older Sumerian texts when no suffix followed, but it's common practice to write it in normalisations. "Ninurtak" is analysed as [nin [urta-k]], litterally [lord [of the barley]]. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with basic Sumerian grammar before starting edit wars with me on Sumerian entries. β Sartma γπΎπ β π ππππ²γ 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the entry is at "Ninurtuk" but the actual transcription listed by the source is "Ninurta." Why would we add in a suffix that doesn't actually appear in the extant corpus? It makes sense that the -k would be there but it seems irresponsible to make that assumption. However, if it's common practice, I'll drop it, even though it makes little sense to me. Vergencescattered (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Vergencescattered: I can't find "Ninurta" anywhere in the source I provided. I see transliterations like dnin-urta, dmaΕ‘, dnin-urta-ka, etc., but no "Ninurta", so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've also never said that the genitive suffix doesn't appear in the extant corpus, I've written that the genitive -k is not generally spelled when no suffix follows, but it's spelled out otherwise. When Ninurtak is marked by the ergative -e suffix, for example, it is spelled πππ
π€ (dnin-urta-keβ /β Ninurtakeβ /). Sumerian cuneiform being the first written language ever to appear on earth (that we know of, at least), it wasn't at all precise and didn't represent all sounds, especially in older documents and especially if they represented grammatical elements that a native reader could easily supply. The only reason why it makes little sense to you is because you clearly don't know much about Sumerian to begin with. Again, I strongly suggest you deepen your knowledge of the language before editing any Sumerian entry. β Sartma γπΎπ β π ππππ²γ 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Like you said, the very first entry is dnin-urta, so I don't know why you're unsure what I'm referring to. Regardless, it's not a big deal, I'm moving on. Vergencescattered (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Vergencescattered - I'm unsure because you wrote Ninurta, not dnin-urta. The first is a normalisation, the second a transliteration: they are not the same thing. Both dnin-urta and dmaΕ‘, for instance, are transliterations of the cuneiform signs used to spell out "Ninurtak", which in turn is a normalisation. Nowhere in the link I provided "Ninurta" is given as either a transliteration or a normalisation. I hope you can appreciate why I'm quite baffled that you are surprised by my difficulties understanding what you're referring to... β Sartma γπΎπ β π ππππ²γ 11:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Like you said, the very first entry is dnin-urta, so I don't know why you're unsure what I'm referring to. Regardless, it's not a big deal, I'm moving on. Vergencescattered (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Vergencescattered: I can't find "Ninurta" anywhere in the source I provided. I see transliterations like dnin-urta, dmaΕ‘, dnin-urta-ka, etc., but no "Ninurta", so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've also never said that the genitive suffix doesn't appear in the extant corpus, I've written that the genitive -k is not generally spelled when no suffix follows, but it's spelled out otherwise. When Ninurtak is marked by the ergative -e suffix, for example, it is spelled πππ
π€ (dnin-urta-keβ /β Ninurtakeβ /). Sumerian cuneiform being the first written language ever to appear on earth (that we know of, at least), it wasn't at all precise and didn't represent all sounds, especially in older documents and especially if they represented grammatical elements that a native reader could easily supply. The only reason why it makes little sense to you is because you clearly don't know much about Sumerian to begin with. Again, I strongly suggest you deepen your knowledge of the language before editing any Sumerian entry. β Sartma γπΎπ β π ππππ²γ 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the entry is at "Ninurtuk" but the actual transcription listed by the source is "Ninurta." Why would we add in a suffix that doesn't actually appear in the extant corpus? It makes sense that the -k would be there but it seems irresponsible to make that assumption. However, if it's common practice, I'll drop it, even though it makes little sense to me. Vergencescattered (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)