Keywords:
             Cuneiforms,Mesopotamia,Akkadian,Sumerian,language,ideographs,
             naturalism,abstract,structuralism,pseudo-object,repression,
             analysis,computer science,machine vision and recognition,
             psychology,linguistics,anthropology,archaeology,cognition,
             semantics,philosophy.
 --
   Introduction:
       My subject is language, and my material the cuneiforms.
     Our theory is that language is sounds, and that the sign is arbitrary.
     Those two points have been much argued, since the Greeks.  What would
     have been the case further back, near the beginning of writing ?
 --
   Methods:
      We will look at the strange system of writing discovered in the ruins
     of Babylon.    From 2000 until 500 B.C. the Akkadian language, a
     mother-tongue of the Semitic family, was written phonetically using
     about 120 signs from the cuneiforms, a larger system of some 500 signs
     invented by the Sumerians, from about 3000 B.C., in Mesopotamia.

      Archaeologists point out the beginnings of the system as ideographs
     of animals or objects, changing at the hands of the scribes over
     centuries of use into abstract forms which are no longer familiar.

      They report also (KRAMER, for example) that the meaning is in the
     spoken sound, represented by the symbol.   This should be queried.
 --
   Results:
      Both those ideas appear wrong, when the signs are studied.

     Drawings (and objects, of course) convey ideas easily; so it is more
     likely that they carried meanings, and the sounds named the signs
     written by the scribes.      A mix is possible, also.
      E.DHORME remarked that the Sumerian ideographs give the meanings;
     there is no need for them to be "read out".

      In spite of spelling their words phonetically, the Akkadians used the
     old Sumerian system sometimes, and maintained a full set of signs.
        Why do that ?      This system lasted 2500 years.
      Was there a feature of the cuneiforms that we have not understood ?

      We need apply the methods of F.de SAUSSURE and of structural ling-
     uistics to appreciate that the original drawings changed towards a
     closely inter-related system (of similarities and contrasts) which
     conveys meanings.    Thus signs must be studied in the full system.
      Looking at single items, like symbols, no longer succeeds.

      At that point the analysis takes a dramatic turn.   It turns out that
     an "actual" meaning lies behind, and the given (formal, or translated)
     is only a substitute, or "pseudo-object".

      The scribes were being discreet.    In theory we had not thought of
     that (but LEVI-STRAUSS did).  Where a meaning was indiscreet it was
     disguised behind a culturally-acceptable replacement.

      You could say too meaning was implied or indirect, the actual not
     said being the meaning of the pseudo-object which is given.

      That is a complex feature for language, culture-dependent, necessary,
      and extremely civilized.
  --
   Implications:
      Our language theory is naive.    If discretion operates (such can be
     shown in the cuneiforms) then there are things we know, fundamental
things,
     that we deny, by cultural imperatives.     There may be repression..

      We must become aware of, and assess with care, this barrier of our
     own making, before acquiring skill in the language of the cuneiforms.
     The necessary "vocabulary" of some 500 signs is also a difficulty.

      Many matters follow.   The basis has to be set out by examples as a
     deduction from evidence.  This will be part of the submission.

     An analytic notation is required for the graphics, and catalogue
     revision might be considered.    Again, extension into links and
     structures in other tongues and application of the whole in
     state-of-the-art  computer methods is required.    The consequences
     and philosophy of a revised theory of sign and meaning related to
     our times should be developed, and published.

      Finally, for the immediate and foreseeable future of this work,
     sponsorship is being sought, as "The Cuneiform Project"
 --
   References:

   1. R.BORGER,1988,"Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste",NK Verlag,452pp
   2. R.HARRIS,1980,"The Language Makers",Dkwth,Lndn,194pp
   3.     "    1981, "The Language Myth",   "     , 212pp
   4.     "    1987,"Reading SAUSSURE",     "     , 248pp
   5. S.KRAMER,1961(1958),"History begins at Sumer",T.&.H.,347pp
   6. R.LABAT,1988,1976,1963,"Manuel d'Epigraphie Akkadienne",Geuthner
   7. E.LEACH,1989(1970),"Claude LEVI-STRAUSS",UCP,146pp+
   8. P.LINAKER,1998,"The Structure of Cuneiform",unpub.,36pp+Sign
          Catalogue(Research Study,Archaeology,UniMelb.)
 --
   Author:
      The author is a Mechanical Engineer (graduating from Ballarat), and a
   Teacher (Victorian Technical Colleges).   After a B.Sc. at Melbourne
   (Maths, Physics, with two years of Psychology), he became a Computer
   Specialist, in Paris, France, for many years.
    He is English-French  bilingual.
    Among selected subjects studied in mature age at Melbourne, he
   recently completed a topic "The Structure of Cuneiform", as research in
   Archaeology. In his views the cuneiforms contain a record of remarkable
   value for the understanding of language and cognition.
 --