SumerianGrammar-2.htm

Inflectional Equivalents (continued)

"Dative"



Sumerologists have labeled the nominal affix -ra as the "dative". A look at the examples on page 97 of Thomsen's book, will show that the use of -ra should be termed

1. The element -ra- occurs itself in the verbal chain. If a redundant reference to the benefactive object of the verbal action were desired, the natural element with which to do it would be -ra-; instead, Sumerologists label -ra- as "ablative"(!), and Thomsen writes on page 98 that it "occurs normally with inanimate beings only".

This seems odd, particularly in view of the fact that the comitative ('with'), -da– in the verbal chain, regularly corresponds to the comitative "case ending" -da after the noun to which it (-da-) refers — if the noun is marked at all. This same situation occurs with -ta-, the "ablative", and -ta.

2. We have seen above a plausible case for regarding ma, 'place', as a basis for adverbial elements in the verbal chain meaning 'there', and combination of ma + -î, i.e. mî, as an adverbial element in the verbal chain to indicate 'thither, to there'. I will defer a discussion of what I believe to be the better interpretation of -na- momentarily in order to take a look at the adverbial element -ri-, which, it should be noted, is not attested before Old Babylonian..

3. There is a discussion of the significance of -ri- in pages 237-238 (Thomsen 1984), on which a pitiful attempt (originated by Poebel) is made to link -ri- with the 2nd person singular; however, we will now see that the examples furnished are much better interpreted if we assume that -ra-¹³ means 'up/above' and that -rî- is considered to be derived from -ra- + the -î we analyzed from -mî, i.e. 'up to/above to'.

igi dug₃ hu-(better ku₆-)-mu-ri-du₈

A sweet [dug₃] eye [igi] verily [-mu-] had to [hu(better ku₆)] look [-du₈] up to(ward) [-rî-]. vs."He has indeed looked kindly at you".


Now, I do not doubt that the inclusion of an element meaning 'up' (-ra-) or 'upward' (-rî-) may, in some cases, be a way of honorifically suggesting a lower position for the speaker; and, hence, suggesting deference by the speaker to the person addressed, but the honorific usage cannot be its basal meaning for we see sentences like the one below, which cannot be connected in any reasonable way with the 2nd person:

me.e e₂-g[~]u₁₀-da mušen-gin₇ im-ma-ra-dal-en

With regard to [-e] me [me-], like a [-gin₇] bird [mušen-], then [i-] (there) will be [-e(n)] one [-n] flying [-dal-] up [-ra-] there [(m-)ma] at the side of [-da-] my [-g[~]u₁₀-] house [e₂-]. vs."I, like a bird, I will fly out of my house".

A smoother but better translation would be: Up there like a bird beside my house, I shall then fly.


The -ra- is the sentence above is supposed to be an "ablative", and is represented in the translation offered by Sumerologists as "out of" but, of course, in order to do this, they must neglect the -da. This selective suppression or non-acknowledgment of elements in the sentence is a sure sign that their overall theory of interpretation is suspect.

I will defer a discussion of what I believe to be the better interpretation of -na- momentarily in order to take a look at the adverbial element -ni-/-nî- to substantiate further the pattern we have observed in -mî- and -rî-.

An attempt has been made by Sumerologists to interpret Sumerian -ni- as a form related to a/en-e, the "ergative" form of the 3rd person singular personal pronoun (Thomsen 1984:236). While this may be true of some uses of -ni-, in a great number of examples, -ni-, or better-nî- rather clearly means 'into' as we shall see.

igi-ba šembi ba-ni-g[~]ar

At [-(b)a] their [-bi- + -a = -b(a)] eye(s) [igi-], kohl [šembi] had [ba-] been placed [g[~]ar] ) into [-nî-]. vs."he placed kohl on their eyes".


^(DIG[~]IR)Nin.g[~]ir₂.sû-kê₄ eš₃ numun i-a ša₃(better -g₄)-gê ba-nî-pad₃

As for [-(k)ê₍₄₎)] ^(GOD) Nin-gir-su [Nin.g[~]ir₂.su-], there had been [ba-] calling [-pad₃] near [-(g)ê] the heart [ša₃(better -g₄)] (=heartfelt) into[-nî] at [-a] the sanctuary [eš₃] (which) released [i-] seed [numun]. vs. "Ningirsu has called into (his) heart the shrine which let the seed go out". (This translation perfectly illustrates the type of nonsense which is too often offered; it is not capable of being reasonably interpreted! What could "call something into heart" mean?)

A smoother but better translation would be: Nir-gir-su had earnestly called into the sanctuary, which released seed.


In spite of the fact that Thomsen (1984) writes on page 236: "but in fact (only) -ni- occurs and most often with inanimate reference", on page 237, she adopts the idea that -ni- can refer to a 1st person singular or 3rd person singular animate indirect object:

^(DIG[~]IR)Ni.saba-kê₄ g[~]eštug₂ gizzal šu dag[~]al ma-ni-in-du(n)g³₄

As for [-(k)ê₍₄₎)] ^(GOD) Ni-saba [Ni.saba], there [ma-] was an [-(i)n-] ordering [-du(n)g³₄] into[-nî] a wide [dag[~]al hand [šu] (of) knowledge [g[~]eštug₂] (and) wisdom [gizzal]. vs. "Nisaba has generously provided me with intelligence and wisdom".

A smoother but better translation would be: There Ni-saba has made a generous assignment of knowledge and wisdom.


It is no better with the supposed interpretation of -ni- for the 3rd person:

lugal(a)-ni-ir ud-dê₃ maš.g[~]i₆-ka (better -(g)a₍₁₄₎) Gu₃.de₂.a
en ^(DIG[~]IR)Nin.g[~]ir₂.su-ra igi mu-nî-du₈(better tûr_x)-am₃

It was [-am₃] for [-(i)r] his [(a)-ni-] king [lugal] , for [-ra] the Supervisor [en] ^(GOD)Nin-girsu [^(DIG[~]IR)Nin.g[~]ir₂.su-] that Gudea [Gu₃.de₂.a] (on) that [-(d)ê₍₃₎] day [ud-] verily [mu-] opened [-du₈(better tûr_x) the eye [igi] into [-nî-] at [-(k)a (better -(g)a₍₁₄₎)] a dream [maš.g[~]i₆- (better .gig-₂) = 'dark stag']. vs. "On this day Gudea saw his king, the lord Ningirsu, in a dream".


A smoother but better translation would be: It was for his king, for the Supervisor ^(GOD)Nin-girsu that Gudea on that day verily looked into a dream.


We have repeatedly seen that 'into X' has been rendered by the affixation of -a, 'at', to X and the inclusion of -nî- in the verbal chain. If -nî- is built on the pattern of -mî- and -rî, we should expect that -na- in the verbal chain means 'in(side)'; and we have an example that almost surely substantiates this:

e₂-a hul₂-la i₃-na-nî-ku₄(better kur₉)

Then [i₃-] (there was) an entering [ku₄(better kur₉)] into [-nî] at [-a] the house [e₂] in [-na-] at [-(l)a] joy [hul₂-]. vs. "He has happily entered the house." (Notice how any translation of -na- has been conveniently ignored!)

A smoother but better translation would be: Then there was an entry in joy into the house.


Here we see exactly the same pattern with -na- that we identified with -nî-, i.e. an object + -a being further qualified by a -na- element in the verbal chain. But hopefully having made a plausible argument for the interpretation of -nî- as 'into', and less comprehensively -na- as 'in(side)', it must be acknowledged that there are cases in which -nî- (or -ni-) appears to require a pronominal interpretation.

In order to understand why Sumerian -nV- might be able to refer both to the concept of 'inside' and to a person involved in the verbal action, we must investigate the significance of PL NA and P[?]A.


Animate and Inanimate vs. Definite and Indefinite

As can be seen from the meanings offered for NA, the basal meaning is 'naris/nares, i.e. nostril(s), (an) enclosed space(s)', which leads to meanings of 'inside, interior'. But since the oldest method of counting was body-counting, and the nose (nostrils) was chosen for whatever reasons to represent 'one', the same morpheme also serves as a way of isolating an example of a class of objects, i.e. making it definite.

As also can be seen, P[?]A seems to have a basal meaning of 'buttock', which, in the view of the earliest speakers, apparently was considered a primary example of a 'part'. In some languages, it provides the regular term for 'half' but in terms of what we can see in Sumerian verbal morphology, it seems to be interpretable as 'partially', i.e. it points to the verbal action as only partially complete, i.e. imparts a partitive nuance to a transitively constructed verb, and a diminutive nuance to an intransitively constructed verb.

Though Black (1991:34) is not willing to go as far as I have here, he remarks: "this makes it look as if another difference between -ni- and -bi- is one of meaning: that -ni- is more definite and perhaps less remote than -bi-". He then asks: "Now, could the same distinction be drawn between -n- and -b-?"

I believe it can. And one of the primary indications of it is in the interrogative pronouns. Thomsen (1984:74) lists a.ba, 'who(sic!)', and a.na, 'what'; and remarks: "It is curious that in the interrogative pronouns the otherwise inanimate /b/ occurs in the animate pronoun and the normally animate /n/ in the inanimate pronoun." In fact, it is more than curious! It is prima facie evidence that the normally assigned meanings of 'animate' to -n- and 'inanimate' to -b- are almost surely incorrect.

As for the overall form of the interrogatives, the formant a- for interrogatives, meaning 'here is ...?', is fairly common; and, should present no complications to analyzing the morphemes in terms of -n(a) and -b(a).

So, since a definite/indefinite meaning is the only logical alternative to an animate/inanimate opposition, we must assume that a.ba means 'here is someone . . .?', and a.na means 'here is one thing . . .?'.

There is a second bit of crucial evidence. According to current Sumerological theory, for a transitively constructed verb in the hamTu (perfective) form, "the subject is denoted by pronominal prefixes (Thomsen 1984:142)" so that in a-ne sag[~] in-zig, 'he raised the head', the n- supposedly identifies the animate subject while in in gud-e sag[~] ib₂-zig, 'the ox raised its head', the n- supposedly identifies the inanimate subject (notice that an 'ox' is here considered 'inanimate').

However, the 1st person singular in the same series is supposed to be in g[~]a₂-e sag[~]
i(b)-zig, 'I raised the head'; and Thomsen (1984:142) remarks: "In those forms which have no prefix referring to the subject a pronominal element, /-b-/ or /-n-/ (=PRON), may occur, which refers to the object". This is obviously baldly inconsistent.

We find an even greater inconsistency in the supposed analysis of the marû (imperfective) form of the transitive verb. Here, according to Thomsen (1984:144): "The transitive marû have no pronominal suffixes denoting the direct object since the suffixes already refer to the subject, but a pronominal prefix (=PRON), /-b-/ or /-n-/, most often occurs immediately before the verbal root. These prefixes probably denote the inanimate and animate object, respectively, or they have simply the notion 'transitive' in order to distinguish the form from the intransitive conjugation."

So, for transitive verbs, the immediate position of a prefix before the verb either denotes the subject or the object! or nothing but transitive! This is, of course, wholly unsatisfactory. And in earliest Sumerian, Falkenstein (1978:I,160) tells us: "3. Das Personenzeichen -n- der 3. sg. 'persönlich . . .unterliegt in der Mehrzahl der Fälle dem totalen Schwund . . .", based presumably loosely on the idea of assimilation of -n- to a following consonant.

This is totally ridiculous! It should be obvious to any objective reader from earlier and simpler Sumerian (Falkenstein's Gudea inscriptions) that the indication of a 3rd person singular subject or object is simply not a necessity of the verbal chain; and that the occasional inclusion of -n/b in later Sumerian is due to a desire to more closely specify a nuance for literary purposes that was comprehensively included and not overtly differentiated in the earlier forms without it. The category of 'person' is not merely a nuance for a language that regularly expresses it overtly; and so, we must once again decisively conclude that the placement of -n- and -b- immediately before the verb does not indicate the 3rd person singular — animate or inanimate — of either the transitive subject or object.

Based on the clear meaning of the element -na-, 'one', from which we believe -n- is derived under the influence of stress-accent, the obvious meaning is to impart to the verbal action a singular aspect, the aspect which is normally termed 'punctual'. This is the meaning we propose for the -n- element whenever it is present, a proposal which relates loosely to Black's suggestion of a connection with definiteness.

The difference between a-ne sag[~] i₃-zig, 'then he raised the head', and a-ne sag[~] in-zig, 'then he made a raising of the head', will be that the first sentence should be interpreted as an action which had a duration in the past during which something else could be happening. The second sentence marks a point in time at which the raising of the head commenced; and, it, though this sense is difficult to detect in Sumerian, probably is ingressive ('he started to raise the head'). It contrasts with a-ne sag[~] ba-zig, 'he had raised the head', which marks a point in time which is after the completed raising of the head. This ba- (from P[H]A) has nothing to do with the verbal modifier -b- (from P[?]A).

These, in turn, contrast with a-ne sag[~] ib₍₂₎-zig, 'then he raised the head somewhat', which marks a point in time which is after the commencement but before the completed raising of the head; we might term this 'durative'.

By interpreting the verbal chain elements in this fashion, we avoid the inconsistencies and discrepancies that are inherent in the current 'explanations' offered by Sumerologists: ingressive (-n-); durative (-b-); and egressive or perfect (ba-).

One of the most important conclusions to be drawn from all this is that the earliest Sumerian we have, in which -n- and -b- are notably absent as Falkenstein observed above, are not defectively written as claimed by Sumerologists but merely represent a simpler, less specific (non-literary) but nonetheless correct style, which was used before an elaborate literary style was developed: they wrote as they spoke; and the niceties were supplied by the context in the same way that spoken and literary forms of any modern language can be differentiated.

All of the forms discussed above, hamTu, are essentially perfective. They look at the verbal action as completed whether they designate a period while it is being completed, or a point after which or before which it is completed. This contrasts with the marû aspect which was formed by addition of the formant -î (incorrectly indicated by Sumerologists as -e), which indicated the imperfective aspect, a verbal action yet incomplete in the present or future, i.e. imperfective.This differs from durative in that no assertion is made that the goal of the action will actually be completed whereas the durative assumes completion of the action but merely brackets a period during the progress towards completion.

It is established Sumerological doctrine that -n(V)- and -b(V)- in the verbal chain are permutations of the n and b of the personal possessive pronouns. Thomsen (1984) writes on page 150: "/-n-/ represents the 3. sg. animate. It is probably the same morpheme as in /-ani/ 'his, her' and /ane/, /ene/ 'he, she';" and on page 151: "/-b-/ denotes inanimate, and is probably the same morpheme as in the poss. suffix /-bi-/ 'its'."

However, from a PL point of view, the distinction between the two would be expected to be along the lines of determinacy and indeterminacy.

The forms of the singular 3rd person personal pronouns are familiar from other languages as demonstrative pronouns: older Sumerian an.ê is obviously PL ?A, 'here' + NA, 'one' (IE *an-) + ?A-¿E, 'nearby', 'this one nearby (ergative)'; the later Sumerian ên.ê begins with ?A-¿E, 'here-like' (IE *ei- + -n- = *ein-, 'one'), the preference of a different dialect within Sumerian. Sumerian an.î is simply the same elements + î, '-like', a familiar way of forming an adjective that acts as a possessive.

There are a certain number of examples of sentences containing -ni-, in which the -ni- might be interpreted as indicating the second subject of a causative sentence.

Thomsen (1984:145-7) gives a few examples of sentences but I believe that other interpretations are far better:

E₂.an.na.tum₂ (...-e) e-bi Id₂.nun-ta Gu₂.eden.na(-)še₃(**-) ib₂-ta-ni-e₃

With regard to [(...-ê)] Eannatum [Ê₂.an.na.tum₂], so [(-)še₃(**)-] then [î(b₂-)] its [-bî)] ditches [ê-] were extended ('caused to go forth') into [-nî] at [-(n)â] the Guedenna [Gu₂.eden.na] from (-ta) some places [(i)b₍₂₎-], from (-ta) the Tigris [Id₂.nun-]. vs. "Eannatum let its ditch go out from Idnun to Gu-edena." (I reject a causative interpretation here as unnecessary except to maintain the fiction of -ni- representing the second subject [the ditch(!)]; for še₃- as an Old Sumerian verbal prefix, see Thomsen (1987:206).)

A smoother but better translation would be: So then Eannatum extended some of its ditches from the Idnun (Tigris) into the Guedenna.


^(DIG[~]IR)En.lil₂-e gaba.šu.g[~]ar nu-mu-ni-tuku

With regard to [-ê] ^(GOD)En-lil [En.lil₂], there was never [nu-] a taking [-tuku] into [-nî-] possession [-tuku] (of an) equivalent [gaba.šu.g[~]ar]. vs. "Enlil did not let him have a counterpart."

A smoother but better translation would be: Enlil never acquired an equivalent (to him? for himself?).


Nonetheless, Sumerologists have relied in the past for this interpretation of -ni on several Old Babylonian grammatical texts, in which forms with -ni- (and -bi) are paired with causative Akkadian forms. After a selective demonstration that -nî- is, in all cases that I have personally investigated, better interpreted as a dative of -*na-, '*inside', I will quote Black (1991:34): "All in all, the Sumerian of the causative sections of the paradigms is complicated and awkward. We can only say that the Babylonian grammarians seem to have tried to force Sumerian into a straitjacket by devising un-idiomatic forms which would correspond to those of the complex and productive causative system possessed by their own language. Sumerian has no specific 'causative' morphemes, but expresses instrumental agency where necessary by means of instrumental or locative infixes. Often it does not incorporate into the verb all the persons present in an action (emphasis added)."

Now almost every verbal action may be considered to have been performed for the benefit of 'someone' so that any sentence, with or without a foregoing phrase of person + -ra, with -na- in the verbal chain, might be interpreted as meaning 'for him' however the logic of the language argues against it. In addition, some examples of -(a)na attached to a noun may be representing '-in' rather than the standard Sumerological interpretation of -a.ni, 'his', plus "locative" -a; similarly, some cases of -(a)ni may represent '-into' rather than simply '-his/hers'.


The following table sums up the conclusions reached:




na 'inside'	verbal "locative" unmarked?/+-a	verbal dative + -î	nominal (case)?	nominal (case)?
	-na/â-, 'inside'	-nî-, 'into'	-na/â , inessive, 'in(side)'	-nî, illative, 'into'







ra 'above'	verbal "locative" unmarked?/+-a	verbal dative + -î	nominal (case)	nominal (case)?
	-ra/â-, 'over'	-rî-, 'up to'	-ra/â , 'for' (benefactive) 'up(on)'	-rî, 'up to'




ba/bi/bi₂

According to standard Sumerological doctrine, "It is generally assumed that /ba-/ and /bi-/ contain the pronominal element /b/ for inanimate plus a case element, i.e. locative /a/ and locative-terminative /i/, respectively (Thomsen 1984:183)."

This is plausible only if we totally ignore what can be learned about Sumerian from the facts of the Proto-Language.

We have seen above that ba- in the verbal chain has no connection with -b- or, in most cases with -bi, when translated as 'its'. If it is, as we believe, an adverbial element meaning 'over', it would be expected that we could find it after nouns and nominal clauses.

Any -ba after a noun or clause is automatically interpreted by Sumerologists as a contraction of -bi, 'its' + -a, "locative"; and, in some cases, it appears to be just that but there are other examples where it clearly can be discerned as an adverbial meaning 'over, past':

mu-un-du₃-a-ba mu-un-du₃-a-ba
Eridu^{(KI) (DIG[~]2IR)} En.ki-kê₄ im-ma-an-il₂-a-ba
hur-sa(n)g³[~] galam kad₅-dam a-e ba-dirig
zag-ga-a-ni ^(G[~]IŠ)gi-a ba-an-ku
^(G[~]IŠ)kiri₆ šag₅-ga gurun il₂-la-a-ba
mušen-e haš-bi mu-un-g[~]a₂(r_x)- g[~]a₂(r_x)

Verily, after (-ba) the start of building, verily, after (-ba) the start of building,
and then after (-ba) the start of raising up Eridu thereon by Enki,
it had become the peak of a artfully secured mountain,
which had (ba-) floated nearby the water,
he had (ba-) started to clear his (sacred) precinct in the cane,
a pleasant garden had (ba-) borne fruit,
the birds verily began to make a home in its branches.


Thomsen's (1984) offered translation may be found on page 181 of her book.


It is clear from the context that all the lines with ba-/-ba are setting the stage for the final main clause: "the birds verily began to make a home in its branches". It is obvious that ba- is being employed with "finite" verbs and -ba with "non-finite" subordinate clauses in -a but essentially both are serving the same purpose: to define verbal actions which have been completed prior to the action of the main clause (". . . began to make a home . . .").

The major problem in interpreting -ba- is that, like -na, it has two origins: an adverbial particle meaning 'over, past, after', derived from PL P[H]A, and another meaning 'part, partly' from PL P[?]A; and the two cannot be distinguished by the writing system alone.

It is much more problematic to be able to show that -ba attached to a noun might mean something like 'over' especially since a so-called demonstrative employment for -bi has been recognized (Thomsen 1987:82): "lú-bi 'this/that man'", which, on the basis of the distinction we have discussed between determinate and indeterminate, is probably better translated as 'someone's man'. But with a common phrase like ud-ba, 'on this/that day', supposedly from *ud-bi-a, how can we ever really know whether it also might be derived from ud-ba, 'over/during the day/on the past day'? However, there are a few sentences that suggest this interpretation slightly more persuasively: mu.šar.ra-a-ba šu bi₂-ib₂-ra(g_x)-ge(-a), 'he who erases this inscription'; could this not also mean: 'he who erases over any of the inscription'? This, unfortunately, is on the same order of probability as za.gin₃-na šu u₃-ma-ni-ta(n)g³, translated by Thomsen as 'when you have decorated it with lapis lazuli', meaning: 'when it has been inlaid there in (-na) lapis lazuli'. It really depends on how much latitude we are going to allow for -a in translation; translating it 'with' seems unjustified to me here. Similarly, is it more likely that ša₃(g₄)-ba represents 'at their center' (-bi-a) or 'over the center'?

However problematical a theoretical -bî (**ba + -î, 'over to') may frequently be, there are circumstances in which 'its' or 'this/that' simply do not seem possible.

There is a formation in Sumerian composed of Adj(ective)[Noun] + -bi, which seems to produce an adverb:

. . . lu₂ banda₃ gibil-bi e₂ du₃-gin₇

. . . like a young man building a house anew.


If 'over to new(ness)' seems like a semantically acceptable paraphrase for 'anew', it may be that these constructions tend to verify the existence of -bî, '**over to'.

Similarly, we have a construction of Verb + -a + -bi. Since -a, 'this', is a method of nominalizing a verb, this is apparently virtually the same construction since it is highly dubious that adjectives existed as a word class distinct from nouns:

3 udu . . . ul₄-la-bi ha(better ku₆)-mu-na-ab-sum-mu

he must verily quickly ('over to quickness') turn over¹⁴ any 3 sheep.


What supports this analysis is that there is a comparable construction of Adj(ective)[Noun] + -eš (a combining form of -še₃, 'toward'), which seems to produce a comparable adverb: gal-le-eš, 'greatly' ('toward greatness'). This seems to show a pattern of Noun + Adposition perhaps analogous to Noun + -bî.

There are also a few examples of sentences with -ba- that suggest a meaning of 'over':

ga-ba-ab-tum₂-mu-de₃-en

We want to be the ones guiding (him) over.




gu₂ nam-ba-an-g[~]a₂(r_x) -g[~]a₂(r_x)-an-de₃-en

Now we will not be the ones to make a put-down of
(our) necks over there (i.e. submit).


Based on these examples, the following table is suggested:




ba 'over'	verbal prefix	verbal (-ba-/-bî-)	nominal (case)?	nominal (case)?
	ba-, perfect ('had . . .')	not yet identified	-ba, 'over (on)' 'after'	-bî, 'over to', adverb





bî₂-(better: pî₅-), 'around'

To be distinguished from bi, discussed above, is the formant pî₅-, transcribed by Sumerologists as bi₂-.

There are a number of instances for which a reading of pî₅- in the meaning 'around' seems appropriate:

e₂ (...) muš.huš.gin₇ ki šur₂-ra bi₂( better pî₅)-du₃

the house was built like a terrifying ['bowel-loosening'] snake {=dragon}
around (pî₅-) a frightening ['hair-raising'] place.


gud ul maš₂ ul-du g[~]iš bi₂(better pî₅)-ta(n)g³

a (ritual) tether (g[~]iš) was put around (pî₅-) the splendid ['joy-bringing']
cattle and goats {to dedicate and prepare them for sacrifice}.


kar Siraran^(KI)-na-kê₄ ma₂ bi₂(better pi₅)-us₂

the ship was driven around (pî₅-) {=steered} towards the quays of Siraran.


Compare the translations cited by Thomsen (1984) on page 185.



še₃-/ši-/ša-/šu-/ša₃-


Thorkild Jacobsen in an article in Assyriological Studies (1965:73) defined what is essentially the correct interpretation of še₃, which I believe is better read as sü₅: "contrapunctive, correspondingly"; and, in Note 3 on that page, he writes: "We base our suggestions about the meaning of the profix on the remarkable frequency with which two entities are found in counterpart relation with each other in these examples."

I believe that this sü₅ represents PL S[H]O-¿E, 'follow-ing'.

(. . .) te-me-nam ^(KI)bur₃ a še₃(for better sü₅)-ma-si

(. . .) there is a wall, an excavation, so (sü₅-) water filled there (-ma-).


ur.sa(n)g³[~] (. . .) ^{(DIG[~]2IR)(AŠ)}Aš₇-gi₄-gin₇ rib-ba ama
ši(for še₃; better sü₅)-in-ga-u₃.tu

So (sü₅-) (some) mother will also (-in-ga-) bear a hero {'chief-hunter'}
who is great like ^(GOD)(ONE)Aš-gi?






u/u₃-, 'again, repeatedly'


Currently, Sumerologists term u/u₃- as the "prospective". In an odd mixture of attributes, Gragg (cited in Thomsen 1984:209) first characterizes it as having the ability "to designate the first of a succession of events"; undoubtedly, this stems, at least in part, from a conscious or unconscious connection of u- with u₄ (Jaritz Sign #684), which is more commonly read ud, and means 'day, time' — implying a meaning like 'when' or 'while' ("It is thus similar to the 'conjunctive' or 'gerund' . . ."). But then he goes on to add: "In many contexts the relation between the ù-clause and the main clause can be rendered by a simple 'and then'," relying on a supposed relationship between Akkadian -ma, loosely, 'and then', used to translate a different Sumerian introductory formula for letters (du(n)g³₄-ga-na), that later replaces u₃-na-a-
du(n)g³₄.

All this grand theorizing leads to poor and misleading translations of Sumerian. A prime example is given in Thomsen (1984:209), with "PN" standing for "personal name":


PN₁ na-bê₂-a PN₂-ra u₃-na-a-du(n)g³₄



Thomsen has this translation: " 'this is what PN₁ (=the sender) says — after you (=the messenger) have said it to PN₂ (=the addressee) (he may do so and so)' "

In order to make this 'work', a "this is" has been introduced when nothing in the Sumerian sentence corresponds to it; the na- is left untranslated; and what recipient of a letter would not be offended to learn that after its reading, he "may do so and so"? I offer this translation:


What (-a) PN₁ now (na-) has dictated (-bê) [is] read (-na- + du(n)g³₄ ['inside' + 'say']) here -a- again (u₃-) for (-ra) PN₂.


I will trust the reader to decide which translation has the greater merit.

One of the keys to unlocking the meaning of u/u₃- is the circumstance that the earliest form of the Sumerian logogram for u- is a simple circle (Jaritz Sign #750), which corresponds well to the meanings postulated for Proto-Language FA and F[H]A .

Sumerian u₃ (**wê), on the other hand, has been analyzed earlier as F([H])A-¿E.

These two forms (u- and u₃-) correspond well to alternative forms for 'again, repeatedly', found in other languages, based on PL F[H]A and F[H]A-¿E.

The following sentences will demonstrate, I trust, that 'again, repeatedly', is an interpretation for u- and u₃- that makes semantic sense.


ki sur.ra in-dub libir-ra ka-bi um-mi-tum₄

At ([libir]-(r)a) the former (libir-) place (ki) (where) this ([sur-]-(r)a) flow (sur) was collected (dub), its (-bi) [of the Tigris] mouth (ka-)
again (u(m)-) penetrated (tum₄) to there (-mi-).


What is being described is that the Tigris had shifted its course; and a ruler recorded that he excavated a course so that the Tigris again was flowed in its former channel. This is, I believe, a particularly convincing example to support the idea that u / u₃ should be understood as 'again, repeatedly'.



ša₃ im ugu abzu-ka u₃-mu-e-ni-in-šar₂ . . .

(when) the viscera (ša₃) are verily (-mu-) re-(u₃-)made into (-ni-) a mixture (-šar₂) there (-e-) with (-(k)a) the clay (im)
belonging to (-k(a)) the Abzu (abzu) . . .


Here, the nuance of repetition is included more easily in the verb (re-).



e₂ nig₂-ga-za kišib u₃-mi-kur₃ . . .

(when) the seal (kišib) of (-(z)a) your (-z(a) [for **-zu + -a] treasury (nig₂-ga-) has again (u₃-) fallen (kur₃) thither (-mi-) . . .


The idea is that the seal has been pried off and fallen to the ground. What supports the translation of 'again' for u₃- is that it is hard to imagine a man who has not opened his treasury at least several times before this reported occurrence.






mu-, 'verily'


It is in the nature of asseveration that its presence or absence in a suspect morpheme is extremely difficult to conclusively establish.

So it is not with great surprise that we see Thomsen (1984:175-76) devoting a page to mu- without defining its function. She does, however, return to the subject in a section headed "The Functions of /mu-/, /ba-/ and /bi-/", beginning on page 178 and ending on page 185. Thomsen first assures us that: "/mu-/ is preferred before case prefixes referring to animate beings" and that "/ba-/ is preferred before case prefixes referring to inanimate beings" but the examples given do not support this view (ba-an-na-sum, "was given (to)", where Thomsen believes -na- indicates the animate recipient of a gift).

A paragraph that suggests a little more strongly the asseverative nature of mu- is the following:
maš₂ bar₆-bar₆-ra šu mu-gid₂-de₃
maš₂-a šu i₃-gid₂; maš₂-a-ni šu i₃-šag₅

the white kid was verily being examined;
this kid was examined; his kid was good


The idea suggests itself that a thorough examination was indicated, to the thoroughness of which the speaker attests; but when this had been accomplished, the determination of its suitability could be reported without special assurance.


I believe Thomsen errs by insisting on a contrast between mu- and ba- since she admits that "both of them can be replaced by /i~/" (i.e. the [incorrectly reconstructed] nasalized interpretation of i₃-).

After reading the section "Various Theories about the Meaning of /mu-/", it becomes abundantly clear that the experts cannot agree among themselves on its function. The view closest to our own is that of Thorkild Jacobsen who suggests that mu- "adds to the implications of emotional involvement of the speaker, of his being personally engaged". The most positive certainty we can attain about the past is the reporting of those actions and occurrences in which we personally participated; and Jacobsen's view is very close to mine, which assigns mu-¹⁵ the function of a personal affirmation of the validity of the report.



al-, 'preserve, **persist, **always, **ever'


Sumerian al is written with Jaritz Sign #564, which includes among its meanings "preserve", which I interpret as a causative construction of "persist". The compound ab₂.al, 'sexually mature cow', suggests the al has the meaning of 'growth to maturity', i.e. a state reached by growth beyond which no further growth is expected.

This idea is contained in the PL word ?A-N[H]A, 'move to the top', which is the basis of Sumerian al and also IE *2. al-, 'grow, make grow', which has derivates like Anglo-Saxon ealdor, 'life', which resumes the idea of a 'persistent state reached by growth', which we have suggested is also part of derivations from ?A-N[H]A. The notion of persistence can be detected better in IE *1. al-, 'above and beyond', from which Old Irish ol(l), 'further' is derived; cf. also an IE ali, 'currently'.

Sumerian al- is rather unusual in that it is rarely combined with other prefixes or interior adverbial elements in the verbal chain. Thomsen states: "It is generally agreed that the meaning of /al-/ is approximately that of the stative (1984:187)"; this is really very close to the meaning we propose for al-: 'persist' and less formally, 'always, ever'.

Here are some examples, the context of which recommends a translation of al- as 'always, ever':


mu-sar-ra-bi ab-ta-g[~]ir₂-a g[~]eštug₂-ni al-zu-zu-a

that its inscription is now (a-) picked out is something
of which his mind will always (al-) be conscious


There are several passages which seem to be describing a calamitous event, and suggesting that its horrors will never be far from mind.



An en-nam; šul-le-še al-du

An is a lord; he always proceeds heroically



Nothing seems more natural than to characterize a lord as behaving always in a suitable fashion.



si-a ^(DIG[~]2IR)Inanna, me kur-ra-ke₄ šu al-du₇-du₇

Be satisfied now (-a), ^(GOD)Inanna, it is always enforced
according -(k)e) to the custom of the netherworld

Even though the form is always written ba-ra, I suspect strongly that ba, which is written with Jaritz Sign #5 (also read pa₂), has a previously unrecorded reading of **par_x, and is equivalent to Jaritz Sign #118, which reads par₂ (but also reads ba₇), and includes among its meaning 'exclude'; and that this meaning is derivable from PL P[?]FA-RE, 'make to be outstanding=put outside'.

Currently, Sumerologists assign a vetitive meaning to **par_x-ra with marû and a negative affirmative one with hamTu verbal forms. This is not at all significantly different from the significance based on analysis of the form which I have proposed. Compare the following translations (mine in red):


di ba-ra-a-da-ab-be₂-en₆

I will not carry on a lawsuit against you.

It is excluded that a lawsuit will be called for here
with the present (matter) (-a-).


ba-ra-ra-du(n)g³₄

I have never said to you.

It is excluded that it was mentioned¹⁶.

This is, in my opinion, a simple late abbreviated compound of nu, 'never' + še₃-/ši-/ša-/šu-/ša₃-, 'so'.

According to Thomsen (1984:212), "/nuš/ seems, at least in some cases, to denote a hypothetical wish: 'if only ...', 'were it but that ...'". Again, this is not at all significantly different from the meaning which I have proposed. Compare the following translations (mine in red):


ud-ba ^(G2IŠ)ellag-(n)g³[~]u₁₀ e₂ nagar-ra-ka
nu-uš-ma-da-g[~]al₂-am₃

If only my ellag were left in the house of the carpenter.

On any day, it was not so that my ellag was located
there at the house of the carptenter!


nu-uš-ma-ab-be₂-en

If only you could tell me.

It is not so that it will be announced there.

This formant, which is written with Jaritz Sign #457, might just as easily be read ir-, and then would be exactly analogous in formation to (i)m-, discussed below. I believe this formant, rather rarely and lately attested, of which Thomsen says: "it is not possible to define the meaning of the prefix", is a simple combination of i₃-, 'then (non-concomitant time)' and -r(a)-, 'high', just as (i)m- is a simple combination of i₃-, 'then (non-concomitant time)' and -m(a)-, 'there', with a reduction of the final vowel (-a) because of the effect of the stress-accent. It is attested with the phrase mi₂ . . . -m- . . . du(n)g³, 'praise there'. Now there is little praise which would resist being characterized as 'high'.

As explained above, (i)m- means simply 'then there'.


^(DIG2[~]IR)A.nun.na, dig²[~]ir šeš-(n)g³u₁₀-nê
he₂-em-ši-gur₂-e-de₃-eš

The Anuna ('seed of the sovereign'), gods (who are) my
brothers, are those who then must be bowing down
again and again towards there.

continue to

go to first 35+ root cognates (1-35) ?

PL MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS IN SUMERIAN

press here to see

to investigate these phonological correspondences in detail, see the

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

return to Sumerian Grammar (Part One)

Combinatory Modifications

for modifications of the vowels and consonants in combination, see the

Table of Modifications

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

In order for readers to judge the semantic plausibility of the analysis of Proto-Language (PL) compounds suggested here, I am including access to a table of Proto-Language monosyllables and the meanings I have provisionally assigned.

Most assignments can be exhaustively supported by data from actually attested forms but a few animates are very doubtful; and this list does not represent the "final" solution of these questions, which will only be approached when other scholars assist in refining it.

Patrick C. Ryan

Summer 1998

13. This interpreted is supported by the meanings we have established for R[H]A through its attestation in many languages (e.g. Egyptian 3, 'eagle, bird in general').

14. In the verbal phrase ha(better ku₆)-mu-na-ab-sum-mu, which we have translated as 'turn over to', the verb sum ordinarily means simply 'give'; rather than regarding -na- as a "dative", I believe that it is an adverbial element, meaning 'inside', which puts a formal nuance on the plain idea of 'giving' rather analogous to German ein-geben, 'administer'. The -b- adds the idea 'any' three sheep will satisfy the legal requirements.

15. Sumerian mu₇ (Jaritz Sign #19), means 'conjuration' but I believe it basically means '**speaking loudly, swearing'; there is also the Akkadian - mâ, a ubiquitous strengthening particle. All these may be compared to IE *meu- , 'speak loudly'. In the phrase frequently used for 'swearing', the formula is mu lugal, supposedly 'name of the king' but does not 'swear by the king' make as much semantic sense? MU₇ was a complicated sign to make; and I believe that mu was substituted for it based on its simplicity and phonological resemblance or identity.

In this connection, it might be mentioned that Egyptian has some phrases containing mw, nominally 'water', which might have a bearing on this question. 1) rx mw, which is interpreted as 'knowledgeable of one's positions as a vassal'; this might be re-interpreted as 'cognizant of one's oath'; 2) Hr mw, 'dependent on someone'; this might be re-interpreted as 'sworn to someone'; and the phrase: Dd.j n mw, which is interpreted as 'I speak in exactness'; this might be re-interpreted as 'I speak under oath'.

We are aware that in Sumer, oaths were frequently administered somehow in connection with the water ('going to the river'), and Plato even mentions much later that because of the primeval nature of water, oaths 'by O:keanós' were particularly efficacious.

In view of Akkadian mû, 'water', and the attested reduction of *-awa- to -â-, it is tempting to see Akkadian -mâ as another form of mû (perhaps from **mâu), which may well have corresponded to Sumerian mu₇. The existence of Akkadian mê, 'water', and another affirmative particle, -mî, seems to also point in the same direction.

In view of all of this, I believe that Sumerian mu₍₇₎- as a verbal prefix, is affirmative and asseverative, and means something like '([I swear] by the) water' though it may simply mean '(I) swear'.

16. = 'said up'; cf. German aufsagen, 'recite'.