On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:51:27 +0200 Michael Probst <michael.probs...@web.de> 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 (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2664), as CUNEIFORM NUMERIC SIGN NISH, but is missing from the next revision, Proposal N2698 (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/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U U U. It could be an accidental omission of *SIGN TWO U/SIGN MAN - the Unicode Cuneiform list does not appear to have been archived, so I can't work out why it should have been deliberately removed.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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cuneiform_signs and apparently endorsed by Borger. Mind you, for FOUR U and FIVE U, I can cite modern practice! Richard.
