Talk:Boustrophedon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

Are you sure that the letters themselves are supposed to be drawn backwards? I think they are supposed to be in backwards order, but the individual shapes stay the same. (I am referring to the image.)

I read a lot on boustrophedon writing in the past but when it came to doing an illustration for this article I did not remember if the shape of the letters was supposed to be reversed (as in the image I finally did) or in normal configuration, as you suggest. I looked it up on the Web, and all the examples I could find at the time showed the letter images inverded on the lines where the writing was right to left. A few minutes ago I looked it up again and once more, all the examples (ancient as well as modern) I could see in that image search, had imverted letter images on the lines that run right to left.AlainV 02:57, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

I've always seen it with reversed letters, just as you've made it. Doops 11:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I find it personally easier, when doing boustrophedon writing on a blackboard or whiteboard, to always keep the letters in their normal position.

I was not sure if the letters within the reversed text were themselves also reversed or normal. I was quite some time before I finally reached a good example on the Web. AlainV.

• Why don't you mention this web reference as well? Mikkalai 08:37, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a matter of personal edit style. I avoid placing any non-Wikipedia Web link in any of the articles I start or modify, because I find Web pages outside Wikipedia are too unpredictable and short lived and I do not want to lead a reader to an infuriating dead end. But I do not take out links placed by others. Their style, their link! On the other hand maybe I should have put it in this meta page with an indication that it was here today but that it might be gone tomorrow, so here it is: http://www.translexis.demon.co.uk/new_page_2.htm. AlainV.

It would be nice to have an English illustration in Rongorongo, also. That style almost might be readable.

[edit] Magic square

How do we know the magic square was made to be read in boustrophedon? Is everyone so sure it's that and not e.g. "the sower Arepo holds the wheels with force"? Marnanel 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose to delete most of the Sator arepo section here and point instead to Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas article. If no one objects, I will do the edit in one week. --Aethralis 09:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did the article: Graffito (archaeology), mainly because of the "Magic Square", (though I tried to use other examples in the article), which I had first read about in C. W. Ceram's book the "March of Archaeology". ....(And I am glad I didn't know about the article: Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas). Michael in-the-Sonoran DesertofARIZONA-Mmcannis 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Myself, the person who put it there objects. I assume C. W. Ceram is correct (in agreeing with the others of the interpretation). The Luwian / Luwian language, would be a more informative item to add to the "Boustrophedon" Article, since it is a stand-out example of a Hieroglyph, not Egyptian, and was used boustrophedonically. I say that, since that predates the 0-dating(BC vs AD) time by some number of centuries. Luwian is the only use of Cuneiform in Indo-European, and their hieroglyphs were the Stone-writing (inscribing) form of it....

Michael in the Desert, (of Arizona)-Mmcannis 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The magic square section is disproportionate here, there are already several articles dealing with it (which I find to be WP:POVFORK, but this is another matter already) and it's connection with the theme of boustrophedon is not something everybody agrees on. Any other opinions? --Aethralis 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As a very clever palindromic word square, it's not really a good example of boustrophedon: it's too atypical. Most boustrophedon writing wasn't palindromic, couldn't be made into word squares, didn't contain obscure words like arepo, etc.; it was characterized by alternating directions of writing and nothing else. A depiction, transcription, and translation of an ordinary boustrophedon inscription (something like this, but freely-licensed) would be better; the one that's there now is okay but not great (irregular and damaged).

Also, Ceram's reading of the square as boustrophedon writing is minority at best, certainly not the only interpretation, as the presentation implied. (The view that it's Christian is, though more widely-supported, also not unanimous.) The article on the Sator square has the usual reading and translation, and its talk page has a number of citations for the reading and my minute breakdown of the translation. I say cut the material from here and include, at most, a one-sentence pointer to the main article, which could certainly explain Ceram's thesis.

I'm also going to do this for Graffito (archaeology); large amounts of detail on this one piece of writing are as inappropriate there as they are here. I am, of course, open to discussion; let's try to keep it in one place, i.e. here. —Charles P._(Mirv) 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C language

does boustrophedon format have to alternate over lines? I ask as I have just found a reference to the C programming language where the type declarations are described as being boustrophonic but in fact these are all on the same line: ie starting from the identifier you alternate left to right with right to left reading, is my understanding that this is not true boustrophedon format correct? cheers 193.62.199.25 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited your post to have a heading. This is a interesting remark, but I'm afraid you are correct saying that boustrophedon is alternating between lines. → Aethralis 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)