Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| ugaritic [2012/07/12 14:00] – [The Writing System] dahl | ugaritic [2015/01/07 11:02] (current) – [The Writing System] hawkins | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ͗a    b    g    ḫ    d    h    w    z    ḥ    ṭ    y    k    š    l    | ͗a    b    g    ḫ    d    h    w    z    ḥ    ṭ    y    k    š    l    | ||
| + | |||
| The last letter, ś, is rare and usually only occurs in loanwords (such as śśw from Indo-European ‘horse’) but can also interchange with s.  It has been posited that ś represents s plus long or short /u/, in other words su or sū (Huehnergard 2002, 1).  Another theory is that ś represents the evolution of the phoneme s, corresponding to Hebrew samekh, where the former expressed an affricate when the later had become, or was in the process of becoming, a fricative (Pardee 2007, 183; Tropper 1995, 505-528).   | The last letter, ś, is rare and usually only occurs in loanwords (such as śśw from Indo-European ‘horse’) but can also interchange with s.  It has been posited that ś represents s plus long or short /u/, in other words su or sū (Huehnergard 2002, 1).  Another theory is that ś represents the evolution of the phoneme s, corresponding to Hebrew samekh, where the former expressed an affricate when the later had become, or was in the process of becoming, a fricative (Pardee 2007, 183; Tropper 1995, 505-528).   | ||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
| In conclusion, the cuneiform writing system at Ugarit can be seen as straddling the two prominent cultures of writing in the ancient Near East: alphabetic and syllabic-logographic cuneiform.  | In conclusion, the cuneiform writing system at Ugarit can be seen as straddling the two prominent cultures of writing in the ancient Near East: alphabetic and syllabic-logographic cuneiform.  | ||
| - | L. Hawkins | + | |
| ===== Bibliography ===== | ===== Bibliography ===== | ||
    