Wiktionary talk:About Sumerian

Classifiers

@Fay Freak is there a guideline for including classifiers in cuneiform entry names? --{{victar|talk}} 19:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar I don’t think there are any guidelines whatsoever, it’s only some that the individual editors have in their minds by reasoning themselves. After repeatedly, though rarely, adding spellings (which goes also for Akkadian regardless of that exitiable vote since the cuneiform are supposed to be made hard redirects so one can link cuneiform; and the question you pose is by the way there alike if one does not sort under cuneiform Unicode but transliterations or transcriptions) I tended to assume that probably not, perhaps because it is not a part of the word (say if a spelling is syllabically, this is not the pronounced part, and also one can see analogies to Chinese, but I deal too little with both cuneiform languages and Chinese to have much a say). So how would one look up in a dictionary of the future (that does not have the transliteration/transcription baggages but where one looks up a cuneiform bit like a Chinese sign that one does not know and reads in a printed book, with an IME)? If one reads Akkadian 𒄑𒄢𒁍 (^GIŠGUL.BU /⁠dulbu⁠/) (Arabic دُلْب (dulb, “Platanus”)) one would think “okay, 𒄑 (^GIŠ) is a tree, so let’s see what 𒄢𒁍 is”? Also one can have the entries at the shorter variant and hard-redirect the classified one but not do the reverse. A discussion for the future, I guess. Fay Freak (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)