Talk:Sumerian language

Translating, etc?

Well, I'm just wondering how translating sumerian can be done? Or more like, from english to sumerian? I've searched with google but can't find any existing translators; only dictionaries. Because I'm highly interested in all ancient things, naturally am also interested in at least partially learning sumerian and other languages like that. PS: I know this is a question, which probably people don't like, but I don't intend this as spam or anything like that, it's a serious question. SekoIdiootti (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OR? Verification?

This is Prof. Dr. Osman Nedim Tuna's work: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind0308&L=language&P=2828626&E=2&B=--------------050000000408020202070501&N=Sumerian-Tuna.pdf&T=application%2Fpdf This may be added to external links section. --78.191.47.19 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Has your list been looked at by some of the linguists that regularly look over Wiki? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Categories

I would suggest to remove all categories (except for the Category:Sumerian language of course) and write them into the category rather than into the article, so that Category:Sumerian language is a subcategory of all of them, as probably all pages in the Category:Sumerian language could also fall within the scope of the other categories. Opinions? --Thogo (Talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of language extinction date

I would like to know what evidence has been presented to indicate when the languae had died out. A lot of tlk but no dosh is indicated. So by whom and when did this date come up? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's not an exact date, it's more like a "the first half of the second millenium BCE" thing (or 1800 BCE +/- 200 years if you like). The land of Sumer has been conquered by Akkadians and Sumerian primary texts ceased to be produced sometime after that. They continued writing Sumerian texts, but these were copies of older texts or religious/ceremonial/liturgic texts, not any every-day stuff like administrative texts or new literature anymore. So it's obvious that there were either no or at least not many native speakers by then. There might have been some folks who still used Sumerian at home, but there is no indication at all that this was the case after the time mentioned. IIRC the latest native-looking Sumerian texts (texts with more or less the full range of vocabulary and grammatical forms and more or less correct grammar) are from the Nippur area from about 1700 BCE or so (don't nail me on that, it's long ago when I learned that stuff ;) ). --Thogo (Talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERA

While WP:ERA states that one style BC/AD or BCE/CE should not be changed to the other style without consensus, when an article is mixed--half BC/AD and half BCE/CE--it is necessary to standardize on one style. Since there is no evidence here of past consensus-building on this issue, I have standardized the dating in this article on BCE/CE since that is the current academic standard for usage in Near Eastern studies. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Since that is the current academic standard for usage in Near Eastern studies"? That is news to me.[1][2][3][4]

As far as I know, "BCE/CE" is a product of political correctness. I doubt any serious scholar would waste time with prancing around with political correctness. Also compare this to this. If I was asked which style was "more common" in literature published during the past 20 years, I would say the AD/BC style, by a ratio of roughly 3:2. This doesn't surprise me in the least, as the attitude of "omg Christian bias" takes place within the culture war in the USA, not within scholarship.

Our best practice is, rather, to revert to the system used by the primary contributor to the original article. Going back to 2008,[5][6] and further[7][8][9], I see that this was clearly AD/BC. I began contributing to this article in 2004, and I have been significantly involved with it. I am by no means the primary contributor, but at least I have a history of being involved in building it. Apart from transient attempts, I can only assume for ideological motivations, the article has used the common AD/BC style for more than six years now.

I have seen lots of attempts to sneak in era changes by first introducing some mixed styles and then later "standardize" in the desired direction (or sneak in a change and then be all for "WP:ERA" when people change it back[10][11]). I am not saying that this is what you intended to do, but it is in effect what you have done. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, please practice WP:AGF. Contemporary Near Eastern usage is, indeed, moving toward BCE/CE in most cases. However, when I made my edit back in November, the article was mixed in usage. This was no "ideological motivation" or "attempts to sneak in era changes", it was a standardization based on common usage. Please do not attribute motivations to my action that were not there. This standardization was made nearly 6 weeks ago. --Taivo (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. We should use here what people *nowadays* are more accustomed to, and that's (B)CE. It's just scientific standard meanwhile. We aren't in 2004 any longer. That the article has used that system for six years now, well, that's fine (and sad in that case), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be like that forever. If you don't want anyone to update the article, then print it and keep it as it is. But this is a wiki and that means that any sort of modernization is possible at any time by anyone, with or without approval by any author of the previous revisions. --Thogo (Talk) 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"The attitude of 'OMG Christian bias'", just like the attitude of 'OMG whatever kind of bias' should, in fact, be a legitimate concern for scholarship, because scholarship is traditionally opposed to bias. So is Wikipedia. While BC/AD are more common, the suggestion that "no serious scholar" would ever use BCE and CE is laughable. And the use of the term "political correctness" as a cussword in reference to any attempt at removing symbolic Christian/Western/right-wing/male/white/hetero bias (but, interestingly, never for the reverse) is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. dab should restrict himself to discussing the application of Wiki policy (in this case, WP:ERA) to the current situation and not lash out at perceived commie hippies. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the moral support, but I doubt that Dbachmann has read any of it or even cares. It was six weeks between the time I standardized the usage of BCE/CE in the article from the mix it was before to his "outrage". He's not a regular here. --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to take positions, no matter who reads them. For the record, I personally use "BC" and "AD" and attach no religious significance to that, but I think Bill O'Reilly-esque rhetoric should be confined to politics pages, not spread into pages about the Sumerian language.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)