Language desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 30

What is this hieroglyph?

What's the doughy, ugly glyph on the upper right and lower left? https://i.postimg.cc/KzWSv8fr/IMG-3692.jpg ^[1] Temerarius (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D19, maybe? AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it; when a symbol is anthropomorphic it's unmistakably so.

Temerarius (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be a reasonably good fit (the only one among the "standard" signs) if only the side of the nose is shown, but I won't insist on it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I found was F161. Never seen that weird glyph before.

Temerarius (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In "the essential Gardiner Middle Egyptian sign list", the F series only goes to F52, while in an extended listing that I have ("ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1944") it only goes to F156, so F161 must be a lesser-used (possibly rather obscure) hieroglyph... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obscure I'm sure; jsesh is where I found it. The inventor of the app claims to be fairly conservative on inclusion but it can't be that exclusive. I wish they'd refer to a relief photo on the rarer ones.

Temerarius (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pinch, Geraldine (2010-03-01). Magic in Ancient Egypt. Austin: University of Texas Press. p. 19. ISBN 0-292-72262-1.

Is there a generic term for "speaker or signer" yet?

It is uncontroversial both that signed language is truly its own modality distinct from speech, and also that much linguistics work limits itself to the latter and will be up-front about that. That's fine in most cases—they are very different modes, so it's hard to write about both!—but it struck me just now that every interdisciplinary work I've read has to go out of its way to repeat "speaker or signer" if desiring to explicitly indicate both spoken and signed language. What would we choose if we had to invent one? Utterer? Seaker? Spigner? Remsense诉 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Communicator"? Maybe still not clear outside of context... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another term that does not depend on the modality of the communication channel is sender. Yet another modality-independent term is messager, but sender has the advantage of having a modality-independent term for the counterpart, namely receiver.

--Lambiam 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sender seems particularly suited for general interdisciplinary linguistics discussion, thanks!. Remsense诉 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! @Lambiam et al., what would senders and receivers together be? I think interlocutor is almost perfect, but it implies a dialogue dimension to written language that doesn't necessary line up. Remsense诉 07:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone putting up a billboard with a message and people reading this message are generally speaking definitely not interlocutors. (An ancient Roman would have understood the word interlocutor as meaning someone interrupting a speaker, such as a heckler.) The term may be appropriate for the sender and receiver of a personal mail message, in which case the receiver can usually respond when they so choose, but not for one-way communication channels. Since reading a message involves a form of agency, you might write that you'll use the word "agent" in this communication context as a term encompassing both senders and receivers of messages. --Lambiam 10:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen "text users" in this context in scholarly works about "text production", but I like the suggestion of "agent" even better. Folly Mox (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Once again, agent is perfect. Remsense诉 11:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these cuneiform signs?

This may be a follow-up on my question of Ishtar spellings. Is dingir "Ur" here, and the glyphs to the side are Istaran? Or is the dingir "ra" in Istaran?

https://i.postimg.cc/9X119kHK/istaran.png

Temerarius (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The eight-pointed asterisk is a version of the "star" or "heaven" sign (see article An (cuneiform)), and likely is a determinative sign indicating that a deity name follows, without itself having any pronunciation in this context (that's what the superscript "d" means). The signs which actually write the name itself seem to be loosely sketched in. This image has a rather low relevant information content for its 1.9 megabyte file size. I'm not sure why you're seeking the Akkadian goddess name "Ishtar" in a Sumerian context. I have a scan of a page from a 19th century book which lists Akkadian deity names in 1st millennium B.C. Assyrian versions of cuneiform signs, and it gives several alternative spellings for Ishtar, none of which look anything like the vague rectangles in the 1.9 megabyte image. I'm not sure of the source or where I downloaded it from (in 2006), so can't upload it here... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I want to know every spelling, all attestations of Asherah, Ishtar, Astarte, and anything that can be confused for them. I'd love to see that page of yours if you can think of anywhere to upload it. Temerarius (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a reverse Google image search later today to see if I can track down its source. I don't know anything about image hosting services (have never used one as uploader). Also, the name Asherah has nothing to do with the others: in Hebrew and similar languages it begins with an Aleph or voiceless glottal stop, while `Ashtaroth (singular `Ashtoreth) begins with an `Ayin or voiced pharyngeal consonant. In the older non-Eastern Semitic languages, these are two completely separate consonants, as distinct as "p" and "k", though this can be obscured by the confusable apostrophes often used in Latin alphabet transcriptions. I doubt that the two goddess names were confused in Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye didn't find anything, and Google Images search by image found a lot of "related" stuff not specifically relevant. If you can recommend an image upload site with a minimum fuss, muss, and required personal information, I might upload it there. AnonMoos (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at postimages, the one I used above, you just have to load the page and ctrl-v after copying the image and it'll upload.

Temerarius (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's apparently at https://postimg.cc/87wk6Ts5 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Leonard William King's First Steps in Assyrian (1898). GalacticShoe (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Temerarius (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was Asherah an actual name, or a title that could be applied to female consorts of Caananite gods in general? (I'm sure I've seen a passage translated as ("X and his Asherah.")

Either way, did it perhaps derive (in changed form) from an older name of a particular goddess in Mesopotamian (or another) mythology? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.235 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word sometimes referred to a goddess (with different characteristics in different cultures), sometimes to a tree or pole, but was still basically a name (proper noun)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the logic behind the existence of the "his" and its implication is quite forced and not unanimous.

Temerarius (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]