Re: Writing Babylonian Numbers in Unicode

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:33:53 +0100

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:27 +0200
Michael Probst <> wrote:

> Am Samstag, den 28.04.2012, 15:56 +0100 schrieb Richard Wordingham:
> > However, there does not appear to be anything for *CUNEIFORM NUMERIC
> > SIGN TWO U, for which one might expect *CUNEIFORM SIGN MAN (Borger
> > 2003 no. 708).
> One is not compelled to construct U+3039 (〹) ,twenty' from two U+3038
> (〸) ,ten', so a CUNEIFORM TWO U may well be missing.

It looks as though it is. It was present in Proposal N2664
SIGN NISH, but is missing from the next revision, Proposal N2698
( Between these two, the
sign for '30' changed from CUNEIFORM NUMERIC SIGN USHU2 to CUNEIFORM
SIGN U U U. It could be an accidental omission of *SIGN TWO U/SIGN MAN
- the Unicode Cuneiform list does not appear to have been archived, so I
can't work out why it should have been deliberately removed.

The numerical values also seem unusual. The values of SIGN FOUR U to
SIGN NINE U should be 40 to 90, not 4 to 9. If no expert can take over
the task, I'll have raise a fault report on my own. One of my
supporting documents will be Marget Studt's list referenced from and apparently
endorsed by Borger. Mind you, for FOUR U and FIVE U, I can cite
modern practice!

Received on Mon Apr 30 2012 - 17:41:04 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 30 2012 - 17:41:20 CDT