Hieroglyphic Luwian Research Articles

The Hieroglyphic Luwian -si Again

The Hieroglyphic Luwian -siAgainWe recognize three attestations of the element -siattached to a verbal ending in KARKAMIŠ A11b, A12 and ALEPO 2. The author has already regarded this -sias another reflexive element comparable to the reflexive -ti. Furthermore, we can also point out four more attestations of a similar element -siin the inscriptions recently discovered at TELL AHMAR 6:huhasata-si"he himself ran" (vii and xix) and at ÇINEKÖY:iziya-si"they themselves made" (vi and vii). It should be noted that the element -siin ÇINEKÖY is attached directly to an irregularly omitted verbal formiziyaof *iziyanta"they made".

Discovering the linear writing order of a two-dimensional ancient hieroglyphic script

This paper demonstrates how machine learning methods can be applied to deal with a real-world decipherment problem where very little background knowledge is available. The goal is to discover the linear order of a two-dimensional ancient script, Hieroglyphic Luwian. This paper records a complete decipherment process including encoding, modeling, parameter learning, optimization, and evaluation. The experiment shows that the proposed approach is general enough to recover the linear order of various manually generated two-dimensional scripts without needing to know in advance what language they represent and how the two-dimensional scripts were generated. Since the proposed method does not require domain specific knowledge, it can be applied not only to language problems but also order discovery tasks in other domains such as biology and chemistry.

Notes on the Present Tense in Hieroglyphic Luwian

Notes on the Present Tense in Hieroglyphic Luwian

SOME ASPECTS OF HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN

Terumasa OSHIRO, Some Aspects of Hieroglyphic Luwian: The purpose of this brief paper is to clarify some obscure linguistic aspects of Hieroglyphic Luwian, a member of the Luwian branch. This language, which is used in the Hieroglyphic inscriptions of the 1st millennium B. C., was formerly recognized as ‘Hieroglyphic Hittite’, but this term is now abandoned. It is important to note that there should be a clear distinction between the cultural use of the term ‘Hittite’ and its linguistic use. Thus Hieroglyphic Luwian obviously inherited various linguistic elements from Pre-Luwian. However, we can point out some peculiar elements in this language. Especially we shall be concerned with the linguistic characteristics compared with Hittite, such as the -hi conjugation of -i/-ia, -tisa, subordinate conjunctions of kuman, REL-i, REL-a, and the local adverb INFRA-ta.On the -hi conjugation we might suggest that Hieroglyphic Luwian first inherited the contrast between -mi and -hi conjugations from Common Anatolian and then lost it, except the -ti/-i contrast (prs. sg. 3). Incidentally -tisa (prs. sg. 2) and -ta (prt. sg. 2) endings might be considered as the remains of -hi conjugation. The -ti/-i contrast in Hieroglyphic Luwian will be similar to that in Hittite. But it is difficult to understand why the -mi/-hi contrast is preserved only in the third person singular present in this language. Further, kuman is clearly compared with kuitman in Hittite, which can be analyzed into *kuit and *man, though the Hieroglyphic Luwian form is different from the early compound form as the result of the linguistic Luwoid innovation. And we can indicate two forms of the local adverbs meaning “under”: SUB-na-na (*anan) parallel to annan in Cuneiform Luwian and ene in Lycian, and INFRA-ta (*kata) compared with katta in Hittite. The distinction between the two forms can't be clearly defined from the functional point of view, but it is probable that there is a functional contrast between them.The evidences mentioned above ought to suggest one of the two posibilities: either Hieroglyphic Luwian inherited some archaic elements from Common Anatolian, or Hieroglyphic Luwian originally created and innovated them, perhaps under the indirect influence of Hittite. Therefore, this problem will be discussed in future from the viewpoint of the comparative study.

象形文字ルウィ語の言語的諸相

象形文字ルウィ語の言語的諸相

Analogy and the -an Datives of Hieroglyphic Luwian

The basic morphology of Hittite is now relatively well known — for the classical period at least; that of the minor Anatolian languages still calls for continuous reassessment whenever new data become available. The need is particularly great in the case of the languages of the Luwian group: Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian and Lycian. In what follows I shall try to collect some data which concern the nominal inflection of Hieroglyphic Luwian. This can only be a small return for all that I owe to Oliver Gurney, to his teaching and to his unrestrainable kindness and generosity; it is good to know that I share this debt with all those who have worked in this country on the Indo-European languages of Anatolia — and with innumerable others.

The logogram “LITUUS” and the verbs “TO SEE” in Hieroglyphic Luwian

The logogram “LITUUS” and the verbs “TO SEE” in Hieroglyphic Luwian

On the Problems of Karatepe: the Hieroglyphic Text

The great bilingual of Karatepe is one of the best understood inscriptions in Hieroglyphic Luwian, though not all problems have yet been solved. On the one hand some readings remain uncertain, since no full set of photographs is available, and on the other hand the grammatical and semantic interpretation is not always clear in spite of the help provided by the Phoenician version. In this paper we propose to tackle some of the problems still open, taking as a starting point the text and interpretation published by Piero Meriggi in his Manuale (II/1, 69 ff.), which at present offers the most complete and up-to-date version of the inscription.In transliterating we adopt the values listed in Anatolian Studies XXV (1975), 153–5, which we also used in our transliteration and discussion of the last part of KARATEPE (JRAS 1975/2, 124 ff.). We here use the same section and word numbering as in the latter contribution.

The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian

The reading of the Hieroglyphic signs had from the early days of decipherment been linked with that of other signs, in particular with , and with the two forms of the RELATIVE, an association based on similarity of appearance as well as the parallelism of the distinction by means of the double stroke at the base. The evaluation of as the “vowel series” i/ī/a/ā by Meriggi, and the recognition of the RELATIVE signs as such by Forrer, divided the way between these two groups. The phonetic reading of the relative remained long in doubt. An earlier reading as ia etc., based on a confusion with the “vowel signs” was rejected by Gelb, while Gelb's own reading of ki was discarded by Bossert, who on largely invalid grounds postulated a phonetic development kwa > hwa > wa. In spite of the dubious points in his argument, Bossert has generally been followed, at least in his reading hwa, especially since the identification of a number of Hieroglyphic verbs employing in their writing the signs REL/REL2 with corresponding cuneiform Luwian verbs written with a hu or ku(-wa). Most recently it has been argued that the relative belongs to the class of -i-stems with a presumed reading hwi-.

Negation and Disjunction in Anatolian—and elsewhere

1. In the article which precedes Mr. Hawkins has proposed the readings NEG2and NEG3for the signsof Hieroglyphic Luwian and has argued that these logograms had the phonetic valuesnaandnirespectively. These readings are supported by internal evidence and do not require any further justification, but it is necessary to see how plausible their consequences are from the linguistic point of view.1.1. The discovery of two negative particles, a prohibitiveniand a factualna, is welcome. Hieroglyphic now joins Cun. Luwian (prohibitivenis, factualnawa), Lycian (prohibitiveni, nipe, factualne, nepe) and Hittite (prohibitivelē, factualnatta). It is not as yet absolutely certain that Palaic does not make any distinction between prohibitive and factual negatives: the particlesniandnitare relatively frequent, but it is not altogether clear whether they occur or not in prohibitions. On the other hand it is normally assumed that Lydian has generalized one negative (nid“not”,nik“and not”) for both types of sentence.