Comments on: Ugaritic

By: Novum Testamentum Blog » Biblical Studies Carnival XVI

Novum Testamentum Blog » Biblical Studies Carnival XVI — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:20:31 +0000

[...] Halton has some helpful notes on Wolfram von Soden’s Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Simon Holloway talks about learning Ugaritic and its interpretive openness. Judy Redman addresses Coptic grammar [...]

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:50:53 +0000

I’d never heard of Logos before (I don’t think); funny how everyone is choosing a foreign-language adaptation of Microsoft’s “Word”! And, yes, I do run Accordance. I don’t use it so often (only when I’m too lazy to use my Even-Shoshan; most of the searches that I’ve done lately have been lexical) but it was invaluable during my Honours year. Finding every instance of a locative-heh according to classification is impossible without a program. Makes me feel rather humble when I consider the scholars who worked on these things in the pre-computer age.

By: lonelymanofcake

lonelymanofcake — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:27:24 +0000

If the Logos guy had seen that we were just discussing Mellel, he probably would have thought twice before posting.

I assume you run Accordance…

By: Zack

Zack — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:13:31 +0000

I happened across your website today and noticed you discussed Ugaritic. Recently, we at Logos Bible Software have acquired a number of Ugaritic works, with the intention of developing an electronic version of each. You can see what we offer here: http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2954. The Logos editions will be fully searchable, and all references and footnotes will operate as hotspots, immediately presenting the cited information whenever the cursor rolls over them. All this and more make these esteemed works even more useful for study. And you can help us see these products get the attention they deserve! Contact me for more info: zrock [at] logos [dot] com.

By: lonelymanofcake

lonelymanofcake — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:04:40 +0000

I did work with a professor who did comparative Semitic linguistics, and though he wasn’t very computer literate, he found that DavkaWriter of all things had the easiest interface for diacritics.

Thanks for your response on my Esther comment. I’ll be checking back here often, from now on.

God bless Mellel, indeed!

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:56:05 +0000

God bless Mellel, but I’m afraid I had to add them all manually. There probably is a way of doing it, but if there is I don’t know how. Let me know if you find one: it would save a lot of time.

By: lonelymanofcake

lonelymanofcake — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:15:43 +0000

Is there a special font in Mellel for the transliteration with the diacritics, or you had to add all those manually?

By: Duane

Duane — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:58:50 +0000

Simon,

I started to write a comment addressing a couple additional issues that you mentioned but it got a little out of hand, so I decided to post it at my place.

Joe,

The idea that this text might be a recipe would be more intriguing where it not for the fact that we know many of the “ingredients” to be military personnel.

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:17:07 +0000

How about a recipe? Each number would refer to the number of “parts” of the ingredient added. And, depending on how you read the numbers the total comes reasonably close to one hundred. Maybe the second last line is something like “make it up to one hundred parts”.

By: Simon Holloway

Simon Holloway — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:00:46 +0000

This is, indeed, KTU 4.173! I meant to have mentioned that: my apologies. Thankyou for your observations; this isn't real homework, so neither of us need feel guilty about you assisting me! (*whew*). Now, when I add all the figures together (and assume that the number at the start of line 7 is a 90), I get 173. Clearly, I have miscalculated 11 somewhere or other: do you get a total of 162?