This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm deleting the Ancient Egyptian banner, as this article is not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Evertype 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: Hieroglyphic Luwian is not a writing system. Its the name given to the variant of Luwian that was written in Anatolian Hieroglyphs. This article should be eliminated and included in a larger one about Luwian (both Cuneiform and Hierogliphic). At the moment, there are quite a few differences between HL and CL, actually i can think only of one (C.vb. iya- vs. vb. iziya- = "to make/do"). An article specifically about Anatolian Hieroglyphs should be written, within thh project about Writing Systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgiusfredi (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page at Anatolian hieroglyphs. -- Evertype·✆ 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, he is right that this article isn't properly part of the writing systems project. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reference here to the work of Rieken in dividing the <ta> signs for example, and demonstrating that they are not completely interchangeable[1]. Nor to the (rather interesting) theory of Kloekhorst on the division of <a> and <á>, and their interpretation as /a/ and /ʔ/ respectively[2]. I trust I am not missing anything and that this would be an appropriate place to add these? Arkitype (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation at the end of the first sentence argues that the term Hieroglyphic Luwian can be applied only to a corpus of texts, since it does not define a particular dialect. Yet later we are told that "Cuneiform Luwian" is a "sister language". Are these just different writing systems or are there different language varieties at play? Srnec (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, it appears to be that Ilya Yakubovich, who is a scholar of Luwian studies, is the one that argues for no distiction between them. As seen in Mouton/Yakubovich (2021): "Developing some observations that are already found in Melchert 2003 and van den Hout 2006: 236, Yakubovich (2010) argued that these foreign words in Hittite cuneiform texts essentially reflect the same dialect as that of the hieroglyphic inscriptions." I think other sources I used for Indo-European vocabulary list cognates between HLuwian and CLuwian, as in, they are distinct dialects. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]