User talk:Tom 144/Akkadian verb inflection
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sartma
- Hi! I've noticed that there is a mistake with the cuneiform of I-a and I-e verbs. The all forms that start with a vowel are never spelt like, for example, "am-ma-ar", but only either "a-am-ma-ar" or "a-ma-ar", so I guess that we could write them as "a-(am)-ma-ar" instead. Also, why are feminine forms given before masculine ones? It's a bit confusing... Sartma (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sartma, Hi. Unfortunately, I've been too busy to contribute lately. There is no particular reason for the ordering, other than ladies first I guess. Feel free to fix any issues with my templates. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 13:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom 144 Hi! No problem at all... The thing is that... I just wouldn't know how! f(^^;;;; Templates here on Wiktionary have always been a big mystery for me. Anyway, I saw you did a lot of really great work on the structure of Akkadian entries. Are you sure you don't want to publish the entries in your user page? It would be a great starting point for whoever (like me) would like to add more Akkadian entries but doesn't really know much about how to deal with the technical part... Are there tutorials or documents where I can learn more? Sartma (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, never mind! I've found the following page about templates. I'll start from there!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Templates#Writing_templates
- @Tom 144 Hi! No problem at all... The thing is that... I just wouldn't know how! f(^^;;;; Templates here on Wiktionary have always been a big mystery for me. Anyway, I saw you did a lot of really great work on the structure of Akkadian entries. Are you sure you don't want to publish the entries in your user page? It would be a great starting point for whoever (like me) would like to add more Akkadian entries but doesn't really know much about how to deal with the technical part... Are there tutorials or documents where I can learn more? Sartma (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sartma, Hi. Unfortunately, I've been too busy to contribute lately. There is no particular reason for the ordering, other than ladies first I guess. Feel free to fix any issues with my templates. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 13:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sartma I would like to publish my entries, but I wanted them to be ready. In part I had been putting it off because I intended to lemmatize them at Latin script. However that idea faced a lot of opposition in the community. My plan was to migrate all Akkadian entries in my user namespace, clean them up, and then pass a vote to move all entries to their transcription. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to finish that idea. Feel free to publish them if you want.
- If you need other resources I'd recommend John Huehnergard's book. It provides a very thorough description of Akkadian grammar. Additionally, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary is the most complete source of vocabulary. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom 144 I actually agree with you that the main entry should be the word's transliteration in the Latin alphabet. The same word could be written in cuneiform in many ways, so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily choose one. I like what you did with the "attested" variations. I have studied the whole Huehnergard's manual already, and half way on my second pass during which I've been rewriting most of the sentences in the exercises in cuneiform. If you give me permission to go through the entries on your page to proof read them and then eventually publish them, I'll do so.
On a different note, what would you think of marking the mimation (the final -m of Old Babylonian that got lost in later stages of the language) with a superscript <m>, like "iluᵐ"? It's not orthodox, but it would avoid having double parentheses if we used the system used in the CDA and the word were to be between brackets, like: (ilu(m)). I saw that you give two "pronunciations" (Old and Middle Babylonian), but the truth is that they were two different words, not just "pronunciations". You would find the final M in the Old Babylonian word written in cuneiform, while you wouldn't find it afterwards. I was thinking that if the superscript ᵐ is too much of a stretch, maybe we could just write the form with mimation in the "Alternative forms" field. What do you think? I might experiment a bit. Would it be OK if I asked for your opinion every now and then? As far as I can see, you're the one who put the biggest effort into this, I'd like to hear your opinion before I start changing everything. XD Sartma (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)- @Sartma You have my permission. In fact, I think you're probably more qualified than me. I would be Ok with the superscript. If you need anything, I'm happy to help. I'll get to fixing the issue you pointed out with I-a and I-e verbs in a couple of days. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom 144 Thank you! I see what I can do! Sartma (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sartma You have my permission. In fact, I think you're probably more qualified than me. I would be Ok with the superscript. If you need anything, I'm happy to help. I'll get to fixing the issue you pointed out with I-a and I-e verbs in a couple of days. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom 144 I actually agree with you that the main entry should be the word's transliteration in the Latin alphabet. The same word could be written in cuneiform in many ways, so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily choose one. I like what you did with the "attested" variations. I have studied the whole Huehnergard's manual already, and half way on my second pass during which I've been rewriting most of the sentences in the exercises in cuneiform. If you give me permission to go through the entries on your page to proof read them and then eventually publish them, I'll do so.