--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

> First of all, Hittite scribes did not have a "Unicode Standard";

it's entirely reasonable that different scribes or different
generations used slightly different forms of a sign.

The Unicode standard allows considerable glyph variation. The same
sign may have many different forms, which is why am I phrasing the
question as I have. If the standard did not allow considerable
variation, I would be asking which Akkadian sign it derived from.

> What is "Old Borger"? The numbers you use are Labat's, and they go

back to Deimel.

The earlier of two books by Borger, but if there is a good way of
designating these numbers, please advise.

> For Hittite paleography, use a manual of Hittite cuneiform!

WWS represents the cuneiform of different languages by neo-Assyrian
glyphs. Are you repudiating this practice even where it is feasible?
It seemed to work well enough for Hittite.

Richard.