The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian

Bibliographic Data

ID10961002
AuthorsJ D Hawkins (corresponding author)
Year1975
Volume25
Pages119-156
Publication date1975-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAnatolian Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0066-1546 • E-ISSN: 2048-0849
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3642579
OpenAlexW2165597468
LanguageEN
Citations received15
References cited2

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/REL 2 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

Argument (complex analysis · Confusion · Decipherment · Linguistics · Reading (process · Vowel · Ancient Egypt and Archaeology · Ancient Near East History · History · Linguistics and language evolution · Medicine · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub