Talk:Linear Elamite

message: This page should be deleted or redone in its entirety as it does not live up to the standards in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies. It has too many contested and unproven claims, and links to unrelated items.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLDahl (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give specific examples? "Does not live up to the standards in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies" is just as bold as wishy-washy. Desset's readings are flagged as such. So there's no neutrality issue. If they are contested, I would be good have sources about it. If not, then we can present these readings as a major potential (with necessary caveat, cf. Epi-Olmec) step forward by a mainstream scholar, based on already published sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I too don't see the problem. Wiki editors have recently done a fine job of improving this article. I just reread it and see no problems. True it doesn't have the usual religious, ethnic, and nationalist slants that many ANE articles do but I consider that a plus. As for Dessets work, I watched the video and while it may not turn out to be correct, being research, it is scholarly and hangs coherently together.Ploversegg (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Improvements to the article are of course very welcome, as long as they are referenced from Reliable Sources. There is probably much more to say on the subject of Linear Elamite, and the more knowledgeable contributors the better. It is generally not a very good idea to "delete everything" and try to impose one's own version, and usually better to try to improve content in a manner respectful of the contributions of others (as long as they are also Reliably Sourced...), in a collaborative spirit. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  quality 

message: Just so that everybody knows, and in order not to duplicate efforts, I am working on a Public Domain "Linear Elamite alpha-syllabary" table (attached), referenced from Desset et al. (2022) of course. It will take some time to complete with my own typography, maybe a week or two. Any comment welcome (the sooner the better), especially regarding the adequacy of the table structure. I will update regularly as I move forward. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always been under the impression that the "Black-Headed" Sumerians formed an ancestral substrate upon which Semitic-speaking people (Akkadians) only encroached later, hence the huge cultural and linguistic differences, and the fact that Sumerian and other geographically close languages appear to us as "isolates", i.e. ever-shrinking linguistic islands against the major languages which are known and related to us today. But I'm no expert on the question... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: LINEAR ELAMITE TABLE

message: You restored your addition of "erroneously" after Ploversegg removed it; could you explain why? Does the the reference provided state that the identification is false? If so, could you provide the page? If not, do you have another source which does say so? – Scyrme (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but my intention was not to initiate an "edit war" at all. I just wanted to correct an error that has been perpetuated, particularly in secondary literature, over many years based on Hinz's well-intentioned but mostly incorrect reading of the Linear Elamite inscription on the goddess statue. Hinz's was indeed a valiant effort but the small corpus of the Linear Elamite inscriptions at the time was an insurmountable barrier to success. I would be very happy to provide additional information if needed. Awanir (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: the identification of the goddess statue as Narundi is wrong because the inscription on the statue itself explicitly identifies her as Peltikalim, an Elamite form of Akkadian Belat-ekallim, "Lady of the Palace" a well-known byname of Innana/Ishtar, see Desset et al. (forthcoming). Awanir (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "erroneously identified" 

message: I'm confused about the LE articles "new" way of classifying the corpus (east/west/lowland) vs the usual alphabetic way which every paper I have read, even recent ones use. Even the main online text depository . I see the ref for this is a tertiary source, and an "encyclopedia" even. If this really is the new official way for handling the corpus (and not a single researcher trying to shop a new way) then that is fine but I am just perplexed as for me it comes out of left field.Ploversegg (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that information was added by Y-barton. Perhaps they know more about it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corpus 

message: Look at his latest articles at Academia, like this one: https://www.academia.edu/76550129
"The title of the dedicatee on the Marv Dasht vessel bearing Late PIW inscription Q suggests that she may come from the East. The beginning of the inscription reads: za-na | ma-ra-p2-š-ša-i-r | šu-wa-r-a-su, “(I?) the lady of Marapša(y)i, Šůwar-Asu”." 5.106.253.44 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Froncois Desset reads "Shuwar-asu", not "Shumar-asu"