In spite of its extinction, Sumerian exerted a significant influence on the languages of the area. Thecuneiform script, originally used for Sumerian, was widely adopted by numerous regional languages such asAkkadian,Elamite,Eblaite,Hittite,Hurrian,Luwian andUrartian; it similarly inspired theOld Persian alphabet which was used to write theeponymous language. The influence was perhaps the greatest on Akkadian, whose grammar and vocabulary were significantly influenced by Sumerian.[8]
This proto-literate tablet (c. 3100 – 2900 BC) records the transfer of a piece of land (Walters Art Museum,Baltimore)The first known Sumerian–Akkadian bilingual tablet dates from the reign ofRimush.Louvre Museum AO 5477. The top half is in Sumerian, the bottom half is its translation in Akkadian.[9]
The history of written Sumerian can be divided into several periods:[10][11][12][13]
Proto-literate period – c. 3100 BC to c. 3000 BC[14]
The pictographic writing system used during theProto-literate period (3200 BC – 3000 BC), corresponding to theUruk III and Uruk IV periods in archeology, was still so rudimentary that there remains some scholarly disagreement about whether the language written with it is Sumerian at all, although it has been argued that there are some, albeit still very rare, cases of phonetic indicators and spelling that show this to be the case.[15] The texts from this period are mostly administrative; there are also a number of sign lists, which were apparently used for the training of scribes.[10][16]
The next period,Archaic Sumerian (3000 BC – 2500 BC), is the first stage of inscriptions that indicate grammatical elements, so the identification of the language is certain. It includes some administrative texts and sign lists fromUr (c. 2800 BC). Texts fromShuruppak andAbu Salabikh from 2600 to 2500 BC (the so-called Fara period orEarly Dynastic Period IIIa) are the first to span a greater variety of genres, including not only administrative texts and sign lists, but alsoincantations, legal and literary texts (including proverbs and early versions of the famous worksThe Instructions of Shuruppak andThe Kesh temple hymn). However, the spelling of grammatical elements remains optional, making the interpretation and linguistic analysis of these texts difficult.[10][17]
TheOld Sumerian period (2500–2350 BC) is the first one from which well-understood texts survive. It corresponds mostly to the last part of the Early Dynastic period (ED IIIb) and specifically to the First Dynasty ofLagash, from where the overwhelming majority of surviving texts come. The sources include important royal inscriptions with historical content as well as extensive administrative records.[10] Sometimes included in the Old Sumerian stage is also theOld Akkadian period (c. 2350 BC – c. 2200 BC),[18] during which Mesopotamia, including Sumer, was united under the rule of theAkkadian Empire. At this timeAkkadian functioned as the primary official language, but texts in Sumerian (primarily administrative) did continue to be produced as well.[10]
The first phase of theNeo-Sumerian period corresponds to the time ofGutian rule in Mesopotamia; the most important sources come from the autonomous Second Dynasty of Lagash, especially from the rule ofGudea, which has produced extensive royal inscriptions. The second phase corresponds to the unification of Mesopotamia under theThird Dynasty of Ur, which oversaw a "renaissance" in the use of Sumerian throughout Mesopotamia, using it as its sole official written language. There is a wealth of texts greater than from any preceding time – besides the extremely detailed and meticulous administrative records, there are numerous royal inscriptions, legal documents, letters and incantations.[18] In spite of the dominant position of written Sumerian during the Ur III dynasty, it is controversial to what extent it was actually spoken or had already gone extinct in most parts of its empire.[5][19] Some facts have been interpreted as suggesting that many scribes[5][20] and even the royal court actually used Akkadian as their main spoken and native language.[20] On the other hand, evidence has been adduced to the effect that Sumerian continued to be spoken natively and even remained dominant as an everyday language in Southern Babylonia, includingNippur and the area to its south.[20][21][22]
By theOld Babylonian period (c. 2000 – c. 1600 BC), Akkadian had clearly supplanted Sumerian as a spoken language in nearly all of its original territory, whereas Sumerian continued its existence as aliturgical andclassical language for religious, artistic and scholarly purposes. In addition, it has been argued that Sumerian persisted as a spoken language at least in a small part of Southern Mesopotamia (Nippur and its surroundings) at least until about 1900 BC[20][21] and possibly until as late as 1700 BC.[5][20] Nonetheless, it seems clear that by far the majority of scribes writing in Sumerian in this point were not native speakers and errors resulting from their Akkadian mother tongue become apparent.[23] For this reason, this period as well as the remaining time during which Sumerian was written are sometimes referred to as the "Post-Sumerian" period.[12] The written language of administration, law and royal inscriptions continued to be Sumerian in the undoubtedly Semitic-speaking successor states of Ur III during the so-calledIsin-Larsa period (c. 2000 BC – c. 1750 BC). TheOld Babylonian Empire, however, mostly used Akkadian in inscriptions, sometimes adding Sumerian versions.[20][24]
The Old Babylonian period, especially its early part,[10] has produced extremely numerous and varied Sumerian literary texts: myths, epics, hymns, prayers, wisdom literature and letters. In fact, nearly all preserved Sumerian religious and wisdom literature[25] and the overwhelming majority of surviving manuscripts of Sumerian literary texts in general[26][27][28] can be dated to that time, and it is often seen as the "classical age" of Sumerian literature.[29] Conversely, far more literary texts on tablets surviving from the Old Babylonian period are in Sumerian than in Akkadian, even though that time is viewed as the classical period of Babylonian culture and language.[30][31][27] However, it has sometimes been suggested that many or most of these "Old Babylonian Sumerian" texts may be copies of works that were originally composed in the preceding Ur III period or earlier, and some copies or fragments of known compositions or literary genres have indeed been found in tablets of Neo-Sumerian and Old Sumerian provenance.[32][27] In addition, some of the first bilingual Sumerian–Akkadianlexical lists are preserved from that time (although the lists were still usually monolingual and Akkadian translations did not become common until the late Middle Babylonian period)[33] and there are also grammatical texts – essentially bilingual paradigms listing Sumerian grammatical forms and their postulated Akkadian equivalents.[34]
After the Old Babylonian period[12] or, according to some, as early as 1700 BC,[10] the active use of Sumerian declined. Scribes did continue to produce texts in Sumerian at a more modest scale, but generally with interlinear Akkadian translations[35] and only part of the literature known in the Old Babylonian period continued to be copied after its end around 1600 BC.[25] During theMiddle Babylonian period, approximately from 1600 to 1000 BC, theKassite rulers continued to use Sumerian in many of their inscriptions,[36][37] but Akkadian seems to have taken the place of Sumerian as the primary language of texts used for the training of scribes[38] and their Sumerian itself acquires an increasingly artificial and Akkadian-influenced form.[25][39][40] In some cases a text may not even have been meant to be read in Sumerian; instead, it may have functioned as a prestigious way of "encoding" Akkadian viaSumerograms (cf. Japanesekanbun).[39] Nonetheless, the study of Sumerian and copying of Sumerian texts remained an integral part of scribal education and literary culture of Mesopotamia and surrounding societies influenced by it[36][37][41][42][b] and it retained that role until the eclipse of the tradition ofcuneiform literacy itself in the beginning of theCommon Era. The most popular genres for Sumerian texts after the Old Babylonian period were incantations, liturgical texts and proverbs; among longer texts, the classicsLugal-e andAn-gim were most commonly copied.[25]
Of the 29 royal inscriptions of the late second millennium BCSecond Dynasty ofIsin about half were in Sumerian, described as "hypersophisticated classroom Sumerian".[44][45]
It has also been suggested that the Sumerian language descended from a lateprehistoriccreole language.[64] However, no conclusive evidence beyond a handful of typological features can be found to support this view. A more widespread hypothesis posits aProto-Euphratean language family that preceded Sumerian in Mesopotamia and exerted anareal influence on it, especially in the form of polysyllabic words that appear "un-Sumerian"—making them suspect of beingloanwords—and are not traceable to any other known language family. There is little speculation as to the affinities of this hypotheticalsubstratum language, or these languages, and it is thus best treated asunclassified.[65] Other researchers disagree with the assumption of a single substratum language and argue that several languages are involved.[66] A related proposal by Gordon Whittaker[67] is that the language of the proto-literary texts from the Late Uruk period (c. 3350–3100 BC) is really an early extinct branch of Indo-European language which he terms "Euphratic" which somehow emerged long before the accepted timeline for the spread of Indo-European into West Asia, though this is rejected by mainstream opinion which accepts Sumerian as alanguage isolate.
Pictographic proto-writing was used starting in c. 3300 BC. It is unclear what underlying language it encoded, if any. By c. 2800 BC, some tablets began using syllabic elements that clearly indicated a relation to the Sumerian language. Around 2600 BC,[68][69] cuneiform symbols were developed using a wedge-shaped stylus to impress the shapes into wet clay. Thiscuneiform ("wedge-shaped") mode of writing co-existed with theproto-cuneiform archaic mode. Deimel (1922) lists 870 signs used in the Early Dynastic IIIa period (26th century). In the same period the large set of logographic signs had been simplified into alogosyllabic script comprising several hundred signs. Rosengarten (1967) lists 468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian)Lagash.
The cuneiform script was adapted toAkkadian writing beginning in the mid-third millennium. Over the long period of bi-lingual overlap of active Sumerian and Akkadian usage the two languages influenced each other, as reflected in numerous loanwords and even word order changes.[70]
Depending on the context, a cuneiform sign can be read either as one of several possiblelogograms (each of which corresponds to a word in the Sumerian spoken language), as a phonetic syllable (V, VC, CV, or CVC), or as adeterminative (a marker of semantic category, such as occupation or place). (See the articleCuneiform.) Some Sumerian logograms were written with multiple cuneiform signs. These logograms are calleddiri-spellings, after the logogram 𒋛𒀀DIRI which is written with the signs 𒋛SI and 𒀀A. The text transliteration of a tablet will show just the logogram, such as the worddirig, not the separate component signs.
Not all epigraphists are equally reliable, and before publication of an important treatment of a text, scholars will often arrange to collate the published transliteration against the actual tablet, to see if any signs, especially broken or damaged signs, should be represented differently.
Our knowledge of the readings of Sumerian signs is based, to a great extent, on lexical lists made for Akkadian speakers, where they are expressed by means of syllabic signs. The established readings were originally based on lexical lists from theNeo-Babylonian Period, which were found in the 19th century; in the 20th century, earlier lists from theOld Babylonian Period were published and some researchers in the 21st century have switched to using readings from them.[71][c] There is also variation in the degree to which so-called "Auslauts" or "amissable consonants" (morpheme-final consonants that stopped being pronounced at one point or another in the history of Sumerian) are reflected in the transliterations.[72] This article generally used the versions with expressed Auslauts.
In 1838Henry Rawlinson, building on the 1802 work ofGeorg Friedrich Grotefend, was able todecipher the Old Persian section of the Behistun inscriptions, using his knowledge of modern Persian. When he recovered the rest of the text in 1843, he and others were gradually able to translate the Elamite and Akkadian sections of it, starting with the 37 signs he had deciphered for the Old Persian. Meanwhile, many more cuneiform texts were coming to light fromarchaeological excavations, mostly in theSemiticAkkadian language, which were duly deciphered.
By 1850, however,Edward Hincks came to suspect a non-Semitic origin for cuneiform. Semitic languages are structured according toconsonantal forms, whereas cuneiform, when functioning phonetically, was asyllabary, binding consonants to particular vowels. Furthermore, no Semitic words could be found to explain the syllabic values given to particular signs.[75]Julius Oppert suggested that a non-Semitic language had preceded Akkadian in Mesopotamia, and that speakers of this language had developed the cuneiform script.
In 1855 Rawlinson announced the discovery of non-Semitic inscriptions at the southern Babylonian sites ofNippur,Larsa, andUruk.
In 1856, Hincks argued that the untranslated language wasagglutinative in character. The language was called "Scythic" by some, and, confusingly, "Akkadian" by others. In 1869, Oppert proposed the name "Sumerian", based on the known title "King of Sumer and Akkad", reasoning that ifAkkad signified the Semitic portion of the kingdom,Sumer might describe the non-Semitic annex.
Credit for being first to scientifically treat a bilingual Sumerian–Akkadian text belongs toPaul Haupt, who publishedDie sumerischen Familiengesetze (The Sumerian family laws) in 1879.[76]
Ernest de Sarzec began excavating the Sumerian site ofTello (ancient Girsu, capital of the state ofLagash) in 1877, and published the first part ofDécouvertes en Chaldée with transcriptions of Sumerian tablets in 1884. TheUniversity of Pennsylvania began excavating SumerianNippur in 1888.
A Classified List of Sumerian Ideographs by R. Brünnow appeared in 1889.
The bewildering number and variety of phonetic values that signs could have in Sumerian led to a detour in understanding the language – aParis-basedorientalist,Joseph Halévy, argued from 1874 onward that Sumerian was not a natural language, but rather asecret code (acryptolect), and for over a decade the leading Assyriologists battled over this issue. For a dozen years, starting in 1885,Friedrich Delitzsch accepted Halévy's arguments, not renouncing Halévy until 1897.[77]
François Thureau-Dangin working at the Louvre in Paris also made significant contributions to deciphering Sumerian with publications from 1898 to 1938, such as his 1905 publication ofLes inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad.Charles Fossey at the Collège de France in Paris was another prolific and reliable scholar. His pioneeringContribution au Dictionnaire sumérien–assyrien, Paris 1905–1907, turns out to provide the foundation for P. Anton Deimel's 1934Sumerisch-Akkadisches Glossar (vol. III of Deimel's 4-volumeSumerisches Lexikon).
In 1908,Stephen Herbert Langdon summarized the rapid expansion in knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian vocabulary in the pages ofBabyloniaca, a journal edited byCharles Virolleaud, in an article "Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies", which reviewed a valuable new book on rare logograms by Bruno Meissner.[78] Subsequent scholars have found Langdon's work, including his tablet transcriptions, to be not entirely reliable.
In 1944, the SumerologistSamuel Noah Kramer provided a detailed and readable summary of the decipherment of Sumerian in hisSumerian Mythology.[79]
Friedrich Delitzsch published a learned Sumerian dictionary and grammar in the form of hisSumerisches Glossar andGrundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, both appearing in 1914.[80] Delitzsch's student,Arno Poebel, published a grammar with the same title,Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, in 1923, and for 50 years it would be the standard for students studying Sumerian. Another highly influential figure in Sumerology during much of the 20th century wasAdam Falkenstein, who produced a grammar of the language ofGudea's inscriptions.[81] Poebel's grammar was finally superseded in 1984 on the publication ofThe Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure, byMarie-Louise Thomsen. While there are various points in Sumerian grammar on which Thomsen's views are not shared by most Sumerologists today, Thomsen's grammar (often with express mention of the critiques put forward by Pascal Attinger in his 1993Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di 'dire') is the starting point of most recent academic discussions of Sumerian grammar.
More recent monograph-length grammars of Sumerian includeDietz Otto Edzard's 2003Sumerian Grammar and Bram Jagersma's 2010A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian[82]. Piotr Michalowski's essay (entitled, simply, "Sumerian") in the 2004The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages has also been recognized as a good modern grammatical sketch.
There is relatively little consensus, even among reasonable Sumerologists, in comparison to the state of most modern or classical languages. Verbal morphology, in particular, is hotly disputed. In addition to the general grammars, there are many monographs and articles about particular areas of Sumerian grammar, without which a survey of the field could not be considered complete.
The primary institutional lexical effort in Sumerian is thePennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary project, begun in 1974. In 2004, the PSD was released on the Web as the ePSD. The project is currently supervised by Steve Tinney. It has not been updated online since 2006, but Tinney and colleagues are working on a new edition of the ePSD, a working draft of which is available online.
Assumed phonological and morphological forms will be between slashes // and curly brackets {}, respectively, with plain text used for the standardAssyriological transcription of Sumerian. Most of the following examples are unattested. Note also that, not unlike most other pre-modern orthographies, Sumerian cuneiform spelling is highly variable, so the transcriptions and the cuneiform examples will generally show only one or at most a few common graphic forms out of many that may occur. Spelling practices have also changed significantly in the course of the history of Sumerian: the examples in the article will use the most phonetically explicit spellings attested, which usually meansOld Babylonian orUr III period spellings. except where an authentic example from another period is used.
Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is flawed and incomplete because of the lack of speakers, the transmission through the filter ofAkkadian phonology and the difficulties posed by the cuneiform script. AsI. M. Diakonoff observes, "when we try to find out themorphophonological structure of the Sumerian language, we must constantly bear in mind that we are not dealing with a language directly but are reconstructing it from a very imperfect mnemonic writing system which had not been basically aimed at the rendering of morphophonemics".[83]
Early Sumerian is conjectured to have had at least the consonants listed in the table below. The consonants in parentheses are reconstructed by some scholars based on indirect evidence; if they existed, they were lost around the Ur III period in the late 3rd millennium BC.
a simple distribution of sixstop consonants in threeplaces of articulation, originally distinguished byaspiration. In the late 3rd millennium BC, the unaspirated stops are thought to have becomevoiced in most positions (although not word-finally),[84] whereas the voiceless aspirated stops maintained their aspiration.[85][d]
aphoneme usually represented byř (sometimes writtendr), which became/d/ or/r/ in northern and southern dialects, respectively, after the Old Akkadian period. It was first reconstructed as a voiced alveolar tap/ɾ/, but Bram Jagersma argues that it was avoiceless aspirated alveolar affricate because of its reflection in loanwords in Akkadian, among other reasons,[84] and this view is accepted by Gábor Zólyomi (2017: 28). Other suggestions that have been made is thatř was avoiceless alveolar tapⓘ.[88]
a simple distribution of threenasal consonants in similar distribution to the stops:
g̃ⓘ(frequently printedĝ due to typesetting constraints, increasingly transcribed asŋ)/ŋ/ (likely avelar nasal, as insing, it has also been argued to be alabiovelar nasal[ŋʷ] or anasalizedlabiovelar[89]).
z, likely avoiceless unaspirated alveolar affricate,/t͡s/, as shown by Akkadian loans from/s/=[t͡s] to Sumerian/z/. In early Sumerian, this would have been the unaspirated counterpart toř.[90] Like the stop seriesb,d andg, it is thought to have become voiced /dz/ in some positions in the late 3rd millennium.[91]
r (arhotic consonant), which Jagersma argues was realized as a tap[ɾ] because of various evidence suggesting its phonetic similarity to/t/ and/d/.[94]
The existence of various other consonants has been hypothesized based on graphic alternations and loans, though none have found wide acceptance. For example,Diakonoff lists evidence for two lateral phonemes, two rhotics, two back fricatives, and two g-sounds (excluding the velar nasal), and assumes a phonemic difference between consonants that are dropped word-finally (such as theg in 𒍠zag >za3) and consonants that remain (such as theg in 𒆷𒀝lag). Other "hidden" consonant phonemes that have been suggested include semivowels such as/j/ and/w/,[95] and aglottal fricative/h/ or aglottal stop that could explain the absence ofvowel contraction in some words[96]—though objections have been raised against that as well.[97] A recent descriptive grammar by Bram Jagersma includes/j/,/h/, and/ʔ/ as unwritten consonants, with the glottal stop even serving as the first-person pronominal prefix. However, these unwritten consonants had been lost by the Ur III period according to Jagersma.[98]
Very often, a word-final consonant was not expressed in writing—and was possibly omitted in pronunciation—so it surfaced only when followed by a vowel: for example the/k/ of thegenitive case ending-ak does not appear in 𒂍𒈗𒆷e2 lugal-la "the king's house", but it becomes obvious in 𒂍𒈗𒆷𒄰e2 lugal-la-kam "(it) is the king's house" (compareliaison in French). Jagersma believes that the lack of expression of word-final consonants was originally mostly a graphic convention,[99] but that in the late 3rd millennium voiceless aspirated stops and affricates (/pʰ/,/tʰ/,/kʰ/ and/tsʰ/) were, indeed, gradually lost in syllable-final position, as were the unaspirated stops/d/ and/ɡ/.[100]
The vowels that are clearly distinguished by the cuneiform script are/a/,/e/,/i/, and/u/. Various researchers have posited the existence of more vowel phonemes such as/o/ and even/ɛ/ and/ɔ/, which would have been concealed by the transmission through Akkadian, as that language does not distinguish them.[101][102] That would explain the seeming existence of numerous homophones in transliterated Sumerian, as well as some details of the phenomena mentioned in the next paragraph.[103] These hypotheses are not yet generally accepted.[89] Phonemic vowel length has also been posited by many scholars based on vowel length in Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian,[104][105] occasional so-calledplene spellings with extra vowel signs, and some internal evidence from alternations.[f][105][107] However, scholars who believe in the existence of phonemic vowel length do not consider it possible to reconstruct the length of the vowels in most Sumerian words.[108][g]
During the Old Sumerian period, the southern dialects (those used in the cities ofLagash,Umma,Ur andUruk),[110] which also provide the overwhelming majority of material from that stage, exhibited avowel harmony rule based onvowel height oradvanced tongue root.[101] Essentially, prefixes containing /e/ or /i/ appear to alternate between /e/ in front of syllables containing open vowels and /i/ in front of syllables containing close vowels; e.g. 𒂊𒁽e-kaš4 "he runs", but 𒉌𒁺i3-gub "he stands". Certain verbs with stem vowels spelt with /u/ and /e/, however, seem to take prefixes with a vowel quality opposite to the one that would have been expected according to this rule,[h] which has been variously interpreted as an indication either of the existence of additional vowel phonemes in Sumerian[101] or simply of incorrectly reconstructed readings of individual lexemes.[110] The 3rd person plural dimensional prefix 𒉈-ne- is also unaffected, which Jagersma believes to be caused by the length of its vowel.[110] In addition, some have argued for a second vowel harmony rule.[111][102]
There also appear to be many cases of partial or completeassimilation of the vowel of certain prefixes and suffixes to one in the adjacent syllable reflected in writing in some of the later periods, and there is a noticeable, albeit not absolute, tendency for disyllabic stems to have the same vowel in both syllables.[112] These patterns, too, are interpreted as evidence for a richer vowel inventory by some researchers.[101][102] For example, we find forms like 𒂵𒁽ga-kaš4 "let me run", but, from the Neo-Sumerian period onwards, occasional spellings like 𒄘𒈬𒊏𒀊𒋧gu2-mu-ra-ab-šum2 "let me give it to you". According to Jagersma, these assimilations are limited to open syllables[113] and, as with vowel harmony, Jagersma interprets their absence as the result of vowel length or of stress in at least some cases.[113] There is evidence of various cases of elision of vowels, apparently in unstressed syllables; in particularan initial vowel in a word of more than two syllables seems to have been elided in many cases.[113] What appears to bevowel contraction inhiatus (*/aa/, */ia/, */ua/ >a, */ae/ >a, */ie/ >i ore, */ue/ >u ore, etc.) is also very common.[114] There is some uncertainty and variance of opinion as to whether the result in each specific case is a long vowel or whether a vowel is simply replaced/deleted.[115]
Syllables could have any of the following structures: V, CV, VC, CVC. More complex syllables, if Sumerian had them, are not expressed as such by the cuneiform script.
Sumerianstress is usually presumed to have been dynamic, since it seems to have caused vowel elisions on many occasions. Opinions vary on its placement. As argued by Bram Jagersma[116] and confirmed by other scholars,[117][118] the adaptation of Akkadian words of Sumerian origin seems to suggest that Sumerian stress tended to be on the last syllable of the word, at least in its citation form. The treatment of forms with grammatical morphemes is less clear. Many cases ofapheresis in forms with enclitics have been interpreted as entailing that the same rule was true of the phonological word on many occasions, i.e. that the stress could be shifted onto the enclitics; however, the fact that many of these same enclitics have allomorphs with apocopated final vowels (e.g. /‑še/ ~ /-š/) suggests that they were, on the contrary, unstressed when these allomorphs arose.[116] It has also been conjectured that the frequent assimilation of the vowels of non-final syllables to the vowel of the final syllable of the word may be due to stress on it.[119] However, a number ofsuffixes andenclitics consisting of /e/ or beginning in /e/ are also assimilated and reduced.[120]
In earlier scholarship, somewhat different views were expressed and attempts were made to formulate detailed rules for the effect of grammatical morphemes and compounding on stress, but with inconclusive results. Based predominantly on patterns of vowel elision, Adam Falkenstein[121] argued that stress in monomorphemic words tended to be on the first syllable, and that the same applied without exception to reduplicated stems, but that the stress shifted onto the last syllable in a first member of a compound or idiomatic phrase, onto the syllable preceding a (final) suffix/enclitic, and onto the first syllable of the possessive enclitic /-ani/. In his view, single verbal prefixes were unstressed, but longer sequences of verbal prefixes attracted the stress to their first syllable. Jagersma[116] has objected that many of Falkenstein's examples of elision are medial and so, while the stress was obviously not on the medial syllable in question, the examples do not show where itwas.
Joachim Krecher[122] attempted to find more clues in texts written phonetically by assuming that geminations, plene spellings and unexpected "stronger" consonant qualities were clues to stress placement. Using this method, he confirmed Falkenstein's views that reduplicated forms were stressed on the first syllable and that there was generally stress on the syllable preceding a (final) suffix/enclitic, on the penultimate syllable of a polysyllabic enclitic such as -/ani/, -/zunene/ etc., on the last syllable of the first member of a compound, and on the first syllable in a sequence of verbal prefixes. However, he found that single verbal prefixes received the stress just as prefix sequences did, and that in most of the above cases, another stress often seemed to be present as well: on the stem to which the suffixes/enclitics were added, on the second compound member in compounds, and possibly on the verbal stem that prefixes were added to or on following syllables. He also did not agree that the stress of monomorphemic words was typically initial and believed to have found evidence of words with initial as well as with final stress;[123] in fact, he did not even exclude the possibility that stress was normally stem-final.[124]
Pascal Attinger[125] has partly concurred with Krecher, but doubts that the stress wasalways on the syllable preceding a suffix/enclitic and argues that in a prefix sequence, the stressed syllable wasn't the first one, but rather the last one if heavy and the next-to-the-last one in other cases. Attinger has also remarked that the patterns observed may be the result ofAkkadian influence – either due to linguistic convergence while Sumerian was still a living language or, since the data comes from the Old Babylonian period, a feature of Sumerian as pronounced by native speakers of Akkadian. The latter has also been pointed out by Jagersma, who is, in addition, sceptical about the very assumptions underlying the method used by Krecher to establish the place of stress.[116]
Sumerian writing expressed pronunciation only roughly. It was oftenmorphophonemic, so much of theallomorphic variation could be ignored.[126] Especially in earlier Sumerian, coda consonants were also often ignored in spelling; e.g. /mung̃areš/ 'they put it here' could be written 𒈬𒃻𒌷mu-g̃ar-re2. The use of VC signs for that purpose, producing more elaborate spellings such as 𒈬𒌦𒃻𒌷𒌍mu-un-g̃ar-re2-eš3, became more common only in the Neo-Sumerian and especially in the Old Babylonian period.[127]
Conversely, an intervocalic consonant, especially at the end of a morpheme followed by a vowel-initial morpheme, was usually "repeated" by the use of a CV sign for the same consonant; e.g. 𒊬sar "write" – 𒊬𒊏sar-ra "written".[i] This results in orthographic gemination that is usually reflected in Sumerological transliteration, but does not actually designate any phonological phenomenon such as length.[129][j] It is also relevant in this context that, as explainedabove, many morpheme-final consonants seem to have been elided unless followed by a vowel at various stages in the history of Sumerian. These are traditionally termedAuslauts in Sumerology and may or may not be expressed in transliteration: e.g. the logogram 𒊮 for /šag/ > /ša(g)/ "heart" may be transliterated asšag4 or asša3. Thus, when the following consonant appears in front of a vowel, it can be said to be expressedonly by the next sign: for example, 𒊮𒂵šag4-ga "in the heart" can also be interpreted asša3-ga.[131]
Of course, when a CVC sound sequence is expressed by a sequence of signs with the sound values CV-VC, that does not necessarily indicate a long vowel or a sequence of identical vowels either. To mark such a thing, so-called "plene" writings with anadditional vowel sign repeating the preceding vowel were used, although that never came to be done systematically. A typical plene writing involved a sequence such as (C)V-V(-VC/CV), e.g. 𒂼𒀀ama-a for /amaa/ < {ama-e} "the mother (ergative case)").[132]
Sumerian texts vary in the degree to which they use logograms or opt for syllabic (phonetic) spellings instead: e.g. the word 𒃻 g̃ar "put" may also be written phonetically as 𒂷𒅈g̃a2-ar. They also vary in the degree to which allomorphic variation was expressed, e.g. 𒁀𒄄𒌍ba-gi4-eš or 𒁀𒄄𒅖ba-gi4-iš for "they returned". While early Sumerian writing was highly logographic, there was a tendency towards more phonetic spelling in the Neo-Sumerian period.[133] Consistent syllabic spelling was employed when writing down the Emesal dialect (since the usual logograms would have been read in Emegir by default), for the purpose of teaching the language and often in recording incantations.[134]
As already mentioned, texts written in the Archaic Sumerian period are difficult to interpret, because they often omit grammatical elements anddeterminatives.[10][17] In addition, many literary-mythological texts from that period use a special orthographic style called UD.GAL.NUN, which seems to be based on substitution of certain signs or groups of signs for others. For example, the three signs 𒌓 UD, 𒃲 GAL and 𒉣 NUN, which the system is named for, are substituted for 𒀭 AN, 𒂗 EN, and 𒆤 LIL2 respectively, producing the name of the godden-lil2. The motivation for this practice is mysterious; it has been suggested that it was a kind ofcryptography. Texts written in UD.GAL.NUN are still understood very poorly and only partially.[135][17][136]
Ever since its decipherment, research of Sumerian has been made difficult by the relative sparseness of linguistic data, the apparent lack of a closely related language, and the features of the writing system. A further oft-mentioned and paradoxical problem for the study of Sumerian is that the most numerous and varied texts written in the most phonetically explicit and precise orthography are only dated to periods when the scribes themselves were no longer native speakers and often demonstrably had less-than-perfect command of the language they were writing in; conversely, for much of the time during which Sumerian was still a living language, the surviving sources are few, unvaried and/or written in an orthography that is more difficult to interpret.[137]
The Sumeriannoun is typically a one or two-syllable root (𒅆igi "eye",𒂍e2 "house, household", 𒎏nin "lady"), although there are also some roots with three syllables like𒆠𒇴šakanka "market". There are two semantically predictablegrammatical genders, which have traditionally been called animate and inanimate, although these names do not express their membership exactly, as explainedbelow.
Theadjectives and othermodifiers follow the noun (𒈗𒈤lugal maḫ "great king"). The noun itself is not inflected; rather, grammatical markers attach to thenoun phrase as a whole, in a certain order. Typically, that order would be:
The possessive, plural and case markers are traditionally referred to as "suffixes", but have recently also been described asenclitics[140] orpostpositions.[141]
The two genders have been variously calledanimate and inanimate,[142][143][144][145]human and non-human,[146][147] or personal/person and impersonal/non-person.[148][149] Their assignment is semantically predictable: the first gender includes humans and gods, while the second one includes animals, plants, non-living objects, abstract concepts, and groups of humans. Since the second gender includes animals, the use of the terms animate and inanimate is somewhat misleading[148] and conventional,[143] but it is most common in the literature, so it will be maintained in this article.
There are some minor deviations from the gender assignment rules, for example:
The word for𒀩alan "statue" may be treated as animate.
Words for slaves such as𒊩𒆳geme2 "slave woman" and𒊕sag̃ "head", used in its secondary sense of "slave", may be treated as inanimate.[150]
Infable-like contexts, which occur frequently in Sumerian proverbs, animals are usually treated as animate.[151]
The plural marker proper is (𒂊)𒉈 /-(e)ne/.[l] It is used only with nouns of the animate gender and its use is optional. It is often omitted when other parts of the clause indicate the plurality of the referent.[154] Thus, it is not used if the noun is modified by a numeral (𒇽𒁹𒁹𒁹lu2 eš5 "three men"). It has also been observed that until the Ur III period, the marker generally isn't used in a noun phrase in theabsolutive case,[155][156][157] unless this is necessary for disambiguation.[156][157] Instead, the plurality of the absolutive participant is commonly expressed only by the form of the verb in the clause:[157][155] e.g.𒇽𒁀𒀄𒀄𒌍 lu2 ba-zaḫ3-zaḫ3-eš "the men ran away", 𒇽𒈬𒅇𒆪𒁉𒌍lu2 mu-u3-dab5-be2-eš "I caught the men". The plural marker is not used when referring to a group of people, because a group of people is treated as inanimate; e.g. 𒀳engar "farmer" with no plural marker may refer to "(the group of) farmers".[154]
As the following example shows, the marker is appended to the end of the phrase, even after a relative clause:[154]
Another way in which a kind of plurality is expressed is by means of reduplication of the noun: 𒀭𒀭dig̃ir-dig̃ir "gods", 𒌈𒌈ib2-ib2 "hips". However, this construction is usually considered to have a more specialized meaning, variously interpreted as totality ("all the gods", "both of my hips")[158][159] or distribution/separateness ("each of the gods taken separately").[160][152] An especially frequently occurring reduplicated word, 𒆳𒆳kur-kur "foreign lands", may have simply plural meaning,[160] and in very late usage, the meaning of the reduplication in general might be simple plurality.[158]
At least a few adjectives (notably 𒃲gal "great" and 𒌉tur "small") are also reduplicated when the noun they modify has plural reference: 𒀀𒃲𒃲a gal-gal "the great waters".[161] In that case, the noun itself is not reduplicated.[162] This is sometimes interpreted as an expression of simple plurality,[163] while a minority view is that the meaning of these forms is not purely plural, but rather the same as that of noun reduplication.[152][164]
Two other ways of expressing plurality are characteristic only of very late Sumerian usage and have made their way intoSumerograms used in writing Akkadian and other languages. One is used with inanimate nouns and consists of the modification of the noun with the adjective 𒄭𒀀ḫi-a "various" (lit.'mixed'), e.g. 𒇻𒄭𒀀udu ḫi-a "sheep".[165] The other is adding the 3rd person plural form of the enclitic copula 𒈨𒌍-me-eš to a noun (𒈗𒈨𒌍lugal-me-eš "kings", originally "they (who) are kings").[166]
"from", "since", "by (means of)", "in addition to"/"with", distributive ("each")
The final vowels of most of the above markers are subject to loss if they are attached to vowel-final words.
In addition, there are the enclitic particles 𒈾𒀭𒈾na-an-na meaning "without"[188] and (𒀀)𒅗𒉆(-a)-ka-nam -/akanam/ (in earlier Sumerian) or (𒀀)𒆤𒌍(-a)-ke4-eš2 -/akeš/ "because of" (in later Sumerian).[189]
Note that these nominal cases enter interact with the so-calleddimensional prefixes of the verb that the noun modifies, producing additional meanings. While the dative and directive are incomplementary distribution in the noun, they can nevertheless be distinguished when the verbal prefixes are taken into account. Likewise, whereas the meanings"in(to)" and"on(to)" are expressed by the same nominal case, they can be disambiguated by the verbal prefixes. This is explained in more detail in the section onDimensional prefixes.
Additional spatial or temporal meanings can be expressed by genitive phrases like "at the head of" = "above", "at the face of" = "in front of", "at the outer side of" = "because of", etc.:
Here, the first genitive morpheme (-a(k)) subordinates 𒋠siki "wool" to 𒇻udu "sheep", and the second subordinates 𒇻𒋠udu siki-(a)k "sheep of wool" (or "woolly sheep") to 𒉺𒇻sipad "shepherd".[190]
The uses of the ergative and absolutive case are those typical of ergative languages. The subject of anintransitive verb such as "come" is in the same case as the object of atransitive verb such as "build": theabsolutive case. In contrast, the subject of a transitive verb has a different case, theergative. This can be illustrated with the following examples:
In contrast with the verbal morphology, Sumerian nominal morphology consistently follows this ergative principle regardless of tense/aspect, person and mood.
Besides the general meanings of the case forms outlined above, there are many lexically determined and more or less unpredictable uses of specific cases, oftengoverned by a certain verb in a certain sense:
the objects of 𒍏dab6 "surround", 𒊏raḫ2 "hit", 𒋛si "fill",[ab] 𒋳tag "touch"
𒈭 daḫ "add somethingto something"
𒄄gi4 in the sense "bring back somethingto something"
𒍑us2 "be nextto something, follow something"
𒅗dug4 "say somethingabout/concerning something" ({b-i-dug} "say somethingabout this" often seems to have very vague reference, approaching the meaning "say somethingthen")[194]
The locative with a directive verbal prefix, expressing "on(to)", is used to express:[195]
𒆕řu2 "hold onto something"
𒄷𒈿sa4 "give (as a name)"to somebody/something
𒁺 tum2 "be fitfor something"
𒉚 sa10 "to barter" governs, in the sense to "to buy", the terminative to introduce the sellerfrom whom something is bought, but in another construction it uses the locative for the thing something is barteredfor;[196]
The stem vowels of𒂷(𒂊)g̃e26(-e) and𒂊 ze2 are assimilated to a following case suffix containing /a/ and then have the forms𒂷 g̃a- and 𒍝za-; e.g. 𒍝𒊏za-ra 'to you (sg.)'.
As far asdemonstrative pronouns are concerned, Sumerian most commonly uses the enclitic𒁉 -bi to express the meaning "this". There are rare instances of other demonstrative enclitics such as 𒂊-e "this", 𒊺-še "that" and 𒊑-re "that". The difference between the three has been explained in terms of increasing distance from the speaker[206] or as a difference between proximity to the speaker, proximity to the listener and distance from both, akin to theJapanese orLatin three-term demonstrative system.[207] The independent demonstrative pronouns are 𒉈𒂗/𒉈𒂊ne-e(n) "this (thing)" and 𒄯ur5 "that (thing)";[208]-ne(n) might also be used as another enclitic.[209][aj] "Now" is 𒉌𒉈𒂠i3-ne-eš2 or 𒀀𒁕𒀠a-da-al. For "then" and "there", the declined noun phrases 𒌓𒁀ud-ba "at that time" and 𒆠𒁀ki-ba "at that place" are used; "so" is 𒄯𒁶ur5-gen7, lit. "like that".[210]
Theinterrogative pronouns are 𒀀𒁀a-ba "who" and 𒀀𒈾a-na "what" (also used as "whoever" and "whatever" when introducing dependent clauses). The stem for "where" is 𒈨me-[211] (used in the locative, terminative and ablative to express "where", "whither" and "whence", respectively[212][213][214]) . "When" is 𒇷/𒂗en3/en,[211] but also the stem 𒈨(𒂊)𒈾me-(e)-na is attested for "when" (in the emphatic formme-na-am3 and in the terminativeme-na-še3 "until when?", "how long?").[215] "How" and "why" are expressed by 𒀀𒈾𒀸a-na-aš (lit.'what for?') and 𒀀𒁶a-gen7 "how" (an equative case form, perhaps "like what?").[211] The expected form 𒀀𒈾𒁶a-na-gen7 is used in Old Babylonian.[213]
Anindefinite pronoun is 𒈾𒈨na-me "any", which is only attested inattributive function until the Old Babylonian period,[216] but may also stand alone in the sense "anyone, anything" in late texts.[217] It can be added to nouns to produce further expressions with pronominal meaning such as 𒇽𒈾𒈨lu2 na-me "anyone", 𒃻𒈾𒈨nig̃2 na-me "anything", 𒆠𒈾𒈨ki na-me "anywhere", 𒌓𒈾𒈨ud4 na-me "ever, any time". The nouns 𒇽lu2 "man" and 𒃻nig̃2 "thing" are also used for "someone, anyone" and "something, anything".[218] With negation, all of these expressions naturally acquire the meanings "nobody", "nothing", "nowhere" and "never".[219]
Thereflexive pronoun is 𒅎(𒋼)ni2(-te) "self", which generally occurs with possessive pronouns attached: 𒅎𒈬 ni2-g̃u10 "my-self", etc. The longer form appears in the third person animate (𒅎𒋼𒉌ni2-te-ni "him/herself", 𒅎𒋼𒉈𒉈ni2-te-ne-ne "themselves").[220]
It is controversial whether Sumerian has adjectives at all, since nearly all stems with adjectival meaning are also attested as verb stems and may be conjugated as verbs: 𒈤maḫ "great" > 𒎏𒀠𒈤nin al-maḫ "the lady is great".[221][222] Jagersma believes that there is a distinction in that the few true adjectives cannot be negated, and a few stems are different depending on the part of speech: 𒃲gal "big", but 𒄖𒌌gu-ul "be big".[223] Furthermore, stems with adjective-like meaning sometimes occur with the nominalizing suffix /-a/, but their behaviour varies in this respect. Some stems appear to require the suffix always: e.g. 𒆗𒂵kalag-ga "mighty", 𒊷𒂵sag9-ga "beautiful", 𒁍𒁕gid2-da "long"[224][225] (these are verbs with adjectival meaning according to Jagersma[226]). Some never take the suffix: e.g. 𒃲gal "big", 𒌉tur "small" and 𒈤maḫ "great"[227] (these are genuine adjectives according to Jagersma[228]). Finally, some alternate: 𒍣zid "right" often occurs as 𒍣𒁕zid-da (these are pairs of adjectives and verbs derived from them, respectively, according to Jagersma[229]). In the latter case, attempts have been made to find a difference of meaning between the forms with and without-a; it has been suggested that the form with-a expresses a kind of determination,[230] e.g.zid "righteous, true" vszid-da "right (not left)", orrestrictiveness, e.g. 𒂍𒉋e2 gibil "a new house" vs 𒂍𒉋𒆷e2 gibil-la "the new house (as contrasted with the old one)", "a/the newer (kind of) house" or "the newest house", as well as nominalization, e.g.tur-ra "a/the small one" or "a small thing".[231] Other scholars have remained sceptical about the posited contrasts.[232]
A few adjectives, like 𒃲gal "big" and 𒌉tur "small" appear to "agree in number" with a preceding noun in the plural by reduplication; with some other adjectives, the meaning seems to be "each of them ADJ". The colour term 𒌓(𒌓)bar6-bar6 /babbar "white" appears to have always been reduplicated, and the same may be true of 𒈪gig2 (actuallygiggig) "black".[161]
To express the comparative or superlative degree, various constructions with the word 𒋛𒀀dirig "exceed"/"excess" are used: X + locative +dirig-ga "which exceeds (all) X",dirig + X + genitive + terminative "exceeding X", lit. "to the excess of X".[233]
Most commonly, adverbial meanings are expressed by noun phrases in a certain case, e.g. 𒌓ud-ba "then", lit. "at that time".[234]
There are two main ways to form an adverb of manner:
There is a dedicated adverbiative suffix 𒂠-eš2,[235] which can be used to derive adverbs from both adjectives and nouns: 𒍣𒉈𒂠zid-de3-eš2 "rightly", "in the right way",[236] 𒆰𒂠numun-eš2 'as seeds', 'in the manner of seeds'.[237]
the enclitic 𒁉-bi can be added to an adjectival stem: 𒉋𒁉gibil-bi "newly". This, too, is interpreted by Jagersma as a deadjectival noun with a possessive clitic in the directive case: {gibil.∅.bi-e}, lit. "at its newness".[ak][238]
For pronominal adverbs, see the section onPronouns.
Sumerian has a combinationdecimal andsexagesimal system (for example, 600 is 'ten sixties'), so that the Sumerian lexical numeral system is sexagesimal with 10 as a subbase.[239] Thecardinal numerals and ways of forming composite numbers are as follows:[240][241][242]
Ordinal numerals are formed with the suffix 𒄰𒈠-kam-ma in Old Sumerian and 𒄰(𒈠)-kam(-ma) (with the final vowel still surfacing in front of enclitics) in subsequent periods.[245] However, a cardinal numeral may also have ordinal meaning sometimes.[246]
Fractions are formed with the phrase 𒅆...N...𒅅igi-N-g̃al2 : "one-Nth"; where 𒅅g̃al2 may be omitted. "One-half", however, is 𒋗𒊒𒀀šu-ru-a, later 𒋗𒊑𒀀šu-ri-a. Another way of expressing fractions was originally limited to weight measures, specifically fractions of themina (𒈠𒈾ma-na): 𒑚šuššana "one-third" (literarlly "two-sixths"), 𒑛šanabi "two-thirds" (the former two words are of Akkadian origins), 𒑜gig̃usila or 𒇲𒌋𒂆la2 gig̃4 u "five-sixths" (literally "tenshekels split off (from the mina)" or "(a mina) minus ten shekels", respectively), 𒂆gig̃4 "one-sixtieth", lit. "a shekel" (since a shekel is one-sixtieth of a mina). Smaller fractions are formed by combining these: e.g. one-fifth is𒌋𒁹𒁹𒂆 "12×1/60 = 1/5", and two-fifths are 𒑚𒇹𒂆 "1/3 + (4 × 1/60) = 5/15 + 1/15 = 6/15 = 2/5".[247]
The Sumerianfinite verb distinguishes a number ofmoods andagrees (more or less consistently) with the subject and the object in person, number and gender. The verb chain may also incorporate pronominal references to the verb's other modifiers, which has also traditionally been described as "agreement", although, in fact, such a referenceand the presence of an actual modifier in the clause need not co-occur: not only 𒂍𒂠𒌈𒌈𒅆𒁺𒌦e2-še3 ib2-ši-du-un "I'm going to the house", but also 𒂍𒂠𒉌𒁺𒌦e2-še3 i3-du-un "I'm going to the house" and simply 𒌈𒅆𒁺𒌦ib2-ši-du-un "I'm going to it" are possible.[141][248][249] Hence, the term "cross-reference" instead of "agreement" has been proposed. This article will predominantly use the term "agreement".[250][251]
The Sumerian verb also makes a binary distinction according to a category that some regard as tense (past vs present-future), others asaspect (perfective vs imperfective), and that will be designated asTA (tense/aspect) in the following. The two members of the opposition entail different conjugation patterns and, at least for many verbs, different stems; they are theory-neutrally referred to with theAkkadian grammatical terms for the two respective forms –ḫamṭu "quick" andmarû "slow, fat".[an] Finally, opinions differ on whether the verb has apassive or amiddle voice and how it is expressed.
It is often pointed out that a Sumerian verb does not seem to be strictly limited to onlytransitive or onlyintransitive usage: e.g. the verb 𒆭kur9 can mean both "enter" and "insert / bring in", and the verb 𒌣de2 can mean both "flow out" and "pour out". This depends simply on whether an ergative participant causing the event is explicitly mentioned (in the clause and in the agreement markers on the verb). Some have even concluded that instead of speaking about intransitive and transitiveverbs, it may be better to speak only of intransitive and transitiveconstructions in Sumerian.[253]
The verbal root is almost always a monosyllable and, together with variousaffixes, forms a so-called verbal chain which is described as a sequence of about 15 slots, though the precise models differ.[254] Thefinite verb has bothprefixes andsuffixes, while thenon-finite verb may only have suffixes. Broadly, the prefixes have been divided in three groups that occur in the following order:modal prefixes, "conjugation prefixes", andpronominal and dimensional prefixes.[255] The suffixes are a future or imperfective marker /-ed-/, pronominal suffixes, and an /-a/ ending that nominalizes the whole verb chain. The overall structure can be summarized as follows:
More than one dimensional prefix may occur within the verb chain. If so, the prefixes are placed in a specific order, which is shown the sectionDimensional prefixes below. The "conjugation prefixes" appear to be mutually exclusive to a great extent, since the "finite" prefixes /i/~/e/- and /a/- do not appear before [mu]-, /ba/- and the sequence -/b/-+-/i/-, nor does the realization [mu] appear before /ba-/ or /b-i/. However, it is commonly assumed that the spellingsim-, im-ma- andim-mi- are equivalent to {i-} + {-mu-}, {i-} + {-mu-} + {-ba-} and {i-} + {-mu-} + {-bi-}, respectively. According to Jagersma, the reason for the restrictions is that the "finite" prefixes /i/~/e/- and /a/- have been elided prehistorically in open syllables, in front of prefixes of the shape CV (consonant-vowel). The exception is the position in front of the locative prefix -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/, where the dominant dialect of the Old Babylonian period retains them.[256]
The modal prefixes expressmodality. Some of them are generally combined with certain TAs; in other cases, the meaning of a modal prefix can depend on the TA.
/Ø-/ is the prefix of the simpleindicative mood; in other words, the indicative is unmarked.
E.g.: 𒅔𒅥in-gu7 {Ø-i-n-gu} "He ate it."
𒉡nu- and 𒆷la-, 𒇷li- (𒉌li2- in Ur III spelling) havenegative meaning and can be translated as "not". The allomorphs /la-/ and /li-/ are used before the "conjugation prefixes" 𒁀ba- and 𒉈bi2-, respectively. A following vowel /i/ or /e/ is contracted with the preceding /u/ ofnu- with compensatory lengthening (which is often graphically unexpressed): compare 𒉌𒁺i3-du "he is walking", but /nu-i-du/ > /nuː-du/ 𒉡𒅇𒁺nu(-u3)-du "he isn't walking". If followed by a consonant, on the other hand, the vowel ofnu- appears to have been assimilated to the vowel of the following syllable, because it occasionally appears written as 𒈾 /na-/ in front of a syllable containing /a/.[257]
𒄩ḫa- / 𒃶 ḫe2- has eitherprecative/optative meaning ("let him do X", "may you do X") or affirmative meaning ("he does this indeed"), partly depending on the type of verb. If the verbal form denotes a transitive action, precative meaning is expressed with themarû form, and affirmative with theḫamṭu form. In contrast, if the verbal form is intransitive or stative, the TA used is alwaysḫamṭu.[258] Occasionally the precative/optative form is also used in a conditional sense of "if" or "when".[258] According to Jagersma, the base form is 𒄩ḫa-, but in open syllables the prefix merges with a following conjugation prefixi3- into 𒃶ḫe2-. Beginning in the later Old Akkadian period, the spelling also shows assimilation of the vowel of the prefix to 𒃶ḫe2- in front of a syllable containing /e/; in the Ur III period, there is a tendency to generalize the variant 𒃶ḫe2-, but in addition further assimilation to 𒄷ḫu- in front of /u/ is attested and graphic expressions of the latter become common in the Old Babylonian period.[259] Other scholars have contended that𒃶 ḫe2- was the only allomorph in the Archaic Sumerian period[260] and many have viewed it as the main form of the morpheme.[261]
E.g.: 𒃶𒅁𒅥𒂊ḫe2-eb-gu7-e {ḫa-ib-gu7-e} "let him eat it!"; 𒄩𒀭𒅥ḫa-an-gu7 "He ate it indeed."
𒂵ga- hascohortative meaning and can be translated as "let me/us do X" or "I will do X". Occasional phonetic spellings show that its vowel is assimilated to following vowels, producing the allomorphs written 𒄄gi4- and 𒄘gu2-. It is only used withḫamṭu stems,[262] but nevertheless uses personal prefixes to express objects, which is otherwise characteristic of themarû conjugation: 𒂵𒉌𒌈𒃻ga-ni-ib2-g̃ar "let me putit there!".[263] The plural number of the subject was not specially marked until the Old Babylonian period,[263] during which the 1st person plural suffix began to be added: 𒂵𒉌𒌈𒃻𒊑𒂗𒉈𒂗ga-ni-ib2-g̃ar-re-en-de3-en "let us put it there!".[264]
E.g.: 𒂵𒀊𒅥ga-ab-gu7 "Let me eat it!"
𒅇u3- hasprospective meaning ("after/when/if") and is also used as a mild imperative "Please do X". It is only used withḫamṭu forms.[262] In open syllables, the vowel of the prefix is assimilated toi3- anda- in front of syllables containing these vowels. The prefix acquires an additional /l/ when located immediately before the stem, resulting in the allomorph 𒅇𒌌u3-ul-.[265]
E.g.: 𒌦𒅥un-gu7 "If/when he eats it..."
𒈾na- hasprohibitive / negative optative[266] meaning ("Do not do it!"/"He must not do it!"/"May he not do it!") or affirmative meaning ("he did it indeed"), depending on the TA of verb: it almost always expresses negative meaning with themarû TA and affirmative meaning with theḫamṭu TA.[267][268] In its negative usage, it can be said to function as the negation of the precative/optativeḫa-.[269] In affirmative usage, it has been said to signal an emphatic assertion,[270] but some have also claimed that it expresses reported speech (either "traditional orally transmitted knowledge" or someone else's words)[271] or that it introduces following events/states to which it is logically connected ("as X happened (na-), so/then/therefore Y happened").[272] According to Jagersma and others, "negativena-" and "affirmativena-" are actually two different prefixes, since "negativena-" has the allomorph /nan-/ before a single consonant (written 𒈾𒀭na-an- or, in front of the labial consonants /b/ and /m/,𒉆 nam-), whereas "affirmativena-" does not.[273]
E.g.: 𒈾𒀊𒅥𒂊na-ab-gu7-e "He must not eat it!"; 𒈾𒀭𒅥na-an-gu7 "He ate it indeed."
𒁀𒊏ba-ra- has emphatic negative meaning ("He certainly does/will not do it")[274] orvetitive meaning ("He should not do it!"),[275] although some consider the latter usage rare or non-existent.[276] It can often function as the negation of cohortativega-[277] and of affirmativeḫa-.[278] It is combined with themarû TA if the verb denies an action (always present or future), and with theḫamṭu TA if it denies a state (past, present or future) or an action (always in the past).[274] The vetitive meaning requires it to be combined with themarû TA,[279] at least if the action is transitive.[275]
E.g.: 𒁀𒊏𒀊𒅥𒂗ba-ra-ab-gu7-en "I certainly will not eat it!"; 𒁀𒊏𒀭𒅥ba-ra-an-gu7 "He certainly didn't eat it."
𒉡𒍑nu-uš- is a rare prefix that has been interpreted as having "frustrative" meaning, i.e. as expressing an unrealizable wish ("If only he would do it!"). It occurs both withḫamṭu and withmarû.[280]
E.g.: 𒉡𒍑𒌈𒅥𒂊nu-uš-ib2-gu7-e "If only he would eat it!"
𒅆 ši-, earlier 𒂠še3-, is a rare prefix, with unclear and disputed meaning, which has been variously described as affirmative ("he does it indeed"),[281] contrapunctive ("correspondingly", "on his part"[282]), as "reconfirming something that already ha(s) been stated or ha(s) occurred",[283] or as "so", "therefore".[284] It occurs both withḫamṭu and withmarû.[285] In Southern Old Sumerian, the vowel alternated between /e/ before open vowels and /i/ before close ones in accordance with the vowel harmony rule of that dialect; later, it displays assimilation of the vowel in an open syllable,[281] depending on the vowel of the following syllable, to /ša-/ (𒊭ša- / 𒁺ša4-) and (first attested in Old Babylonian) to 𒋗šu-.[283]
E.g.: 𒅆𒅔𒅥ši-in-gu7 "So/correspondingly/accordingly(?), he ate it."
Although the modal prefixes are traditionally grouped together in one slot in the verbal chain, their behaviour suggests a certain difference in status: onlynu- andḫa- exhibit morphophonemic evidence of co-occurring with a following finite "conjugation prefix", while the others do not and hence seem to be mutually exclusive with it. For this reason, Jagersma separates the first two as "proclitics" and groups the others together with the finite prefix as (non-proclitic) "preformatives".[286]
The meaning, structure, identity and even the number of the various "conjugation prefixes" have always been a subject of disagreements. The term "conjugation prefix" simply alludes to the fact that a Sumerianfinite verb in the indicative mood must (nearly) always contain one of them.Which of these prefixes is used seems to have, more often than not, no effect on its translation into European languages.[287] Proposed explanations of the choice of conjugation prefix usually revolve around the subtleties of spatial grammar, information structure (focus[288]),verb valency, and, most recently,voice.[289] The following description primarily follows the analysis of Jagersma (2010), largely seconded by Zólyomi (2017) and Sallaberger (2023), in its specifics; nonetheless, most of the interpretations in it are held widely, if not universally.[290]
𒉌 i3- (Southern Old Sumerianvariant: 𒂊 e- in front of open vowels), sometimes described as afinite prefix,[291] appears to have a neutralfinite meaning.[292][293] As mentioned above, it generally does not occur in front of a prefix or prefix sequence of the shape CV[256] except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix 𒉌 -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 -/r-a/- and the second person directive 𒊑 -/r-i/-.[292]
E.g.: 𒅔𒁺in-ře6 {Ø-i-n-ře} "He brought (it)."
𒀀 a-, with the variant𒀠 al- used in front of the stem,[292][294] the other finite prefix, is rare in most Sumerian texts outside of the imperative form,[292] but when it occurs, it usually hasstative meaning.[295] It is common in the Northern Old Sumerian dialect, where it can also have apassive meaning.[296][295] According to Jagersma, it was used in the South as well during the Old Sumerian period, but only in subordinate clauses, where it regularly characterized not only stative verbs inḫamṭu, but also verbs inmarû; in the Neo-Sumerian period, only the pre-stem formal- was still used and it no longer occurred withmarû forms.[297][ao] Likei3-, the prefixa- does not occur in front of a CV sequence except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix𒉌 -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 -/r-a/- and the second person directive 𒊑 -/r-i/-.[292]
E.g.: 𒀠𒁺al-ře6 "It is/was brought."
𒈬mu- is most commonly considered to be aventive prefix,[298] expressing movement towards the speaker or proximity to the speaker; in particular, it is an obligatory part of the 1st person dative form 𒈠ma- (mu- + -a-).[299] However, many of its occurrences appear to express more subtle and abstract nuances or general senses, which different scholars have sought to pinpoint. They have often been derived from "abstract nearness to the speaker" or "involvement of the speaker".[300] It has been suggested, variously, thatmu- may be adding nuances of emotional closeness or alignment of the speaker with the agent or other participants of the event,[301]topicality,foregrounding of the event as something essential to the message with afocus on a person,[302] movement or action directed towards an entity with higher social status,[303] prototypicaltransitivity with its close association with "control, agency, andanimacy" as well as focus or emphasis on the role of the agent,[304]telicity as such[305] or that it is attracted by personal dative prefixes in general, as is the Akkadian ventive.[305]
E.g. 𒈬𒌦𒁺mu-un-ře6 "He brought it here."
𒅎im- and𒀀𒀭am3- are widely seen as being formally related tomu-[306] and as also having ventive meaning;[307] according to Jagersma, they consist of anallomorph ofmu-, namely -/m/-, and the preceding prefixes𒉌 i3- and𒀀 a-. In his analysis, these combinations occur in front of a CV sequence, where the vowel-u- ofmu- is lost, whereas the historically preceding finite prefix is preserved: */i-mu-ši-g̃en/ > 𒅎𒅆𒁺im-ši-g̃en "he came for it".[308] In Zólyomi's slightly different analysis, which is supported by Sallaberger, there may also be a -/b/- in the underlying form, which also elicits the allomorph -/m/-: *{i-mu-b-ši-g̃en} > /i-m-b-ši-g̃en/ > /i-m-ši-g̃en/.[309] The vowel of the finite prefix undergoes compensatory lengthening immediately before the stem */i-mu-g̃en/ > 𒉌𒅎𒁺i3-im-g̃en "he came".[310]
E.g. 𒅎𒁺𒈬im-tum3-mu {i-mu-b-tum-e} "He will bring it here."
The vowel ofmu- isnot elided in front of the locative prefix𒉌 -ni-, the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/. It may, however, be assimilated to the vowel of the following syllable.[ap] This produces two allomorphs:[311]
𒈪mi- in the sequences 𒈪𒉌 mi-ni- and 𒈪𒊑mi-ri-.[312]
E.g. 𒈪𒉌𒅔𒁺mi-ni-in-ře6 "He brought it in here."
𒈠ma- in the sequence 𒈠𒊏ma-ra-.
E.g. 𒈠𒊏𒀭𒁺ma-ra-an-ře6 "He brought (it) here to you."
𒉈bi2- (Old Sumerian Lagaš spelling: 𒁉bi- orbe2- in front of open vowels; Old Sumerian Ur spelling: 𒉿be6-) is usually seen as a sequence of the personal prefix -/b/-[313][314] and the directive prefix -/i/- or -/e/-.[313][315]
E.g. 𒉈𒅔𒁺bi2-in-ře6 "He made it (the ox, the group of workers) bring (it)."
𒁀ba- can be analysed as a sequence of the personal prefix /b/- and the dative prefix -/a/-.[316][317] However, it has been argued that, in spite of this origin, /ba-/ now occupies a slot of its own before the first pronominal prefix and the dimensional prefixes.[318][319][aq] In accordance with its assumed origin asb-a-, it has often been observed thatba- appears to have the meaning of a "3rd person inanimate dative": "for it", "to it".[316][321] However, this explains only some of its occurrences. A number of other apparent meanings and uses ofba- have been noted, and most of these are subsumed by Jagersma under the overarching function of amiddle voice marker.[322][323] They include:
thepassive voice,[323] i.e. occurrence with normally transitive verbs when their agent is not mentioned (the latter not in Northern Sumerian according to Jagersma).[328][323] Some researchers also view it more generally as expressing focus or emphasis on the patient/goal and relatively low transitivity (and thereby as the polar opposite ofmu- as they understand it).[330]
E.g. 𒁀𒀭𒁺ba-an-ře6 "He brought it to it" / "He took it for himself" / "He took it away"; 𒁀𒁺ba-ře6 "It was brought."
𒅎𒈪im-mi- (Southern Old Sumerian𒉌𒈪 i3-mi or, in front of open vowels, 𒂊𒈨e-me-) and 𒅎𒈠im-ma- (Southern Old Sumerian 𒂊𒈠e-ma-) are generally seen as closely related to one another andim-mi- is widely considered to contain the directive prefix-i~e-.[331] One common analysis is thatim-mi- andim-ma- represent sequences ofim- andbi2- andba-, respectively, where the consonant /b/ has undergone assimilation to the preceding /m/. Accordingly, their meaning is considered to be simply a combination of the ventive meaning ofim- and the meanings ofbi2- andba-, on which see above.[332][333] This is the analysis espoused by Jagersma and Zólyomi and it is reflected in the schemes and examples in this article. Alternatively, some authors regardim-ma- as a prefix in its own right,[334] and it has sometimes been ascribed amiddle voice meaning distinct from the morepassive nuance ofba-.[335]
E.g. 𒅎𒈪𒅔𒁺im-mi-in-ře6 "He made it (the ox, the group of workers) bring it here"; 𒅎𒈠𒁺im-ma-ře6 "It was brought here."
𒀀𒀭𒈪 am3-mi- and𒀀𒀭𒈠 am3-ma- are typically analysed along the same lines asim-mi- andim-ma-, but with a precedingam- (froma-) instead ofim- (fromi-); on the meaning of these see above.
The rare prefix -/nga/- means 'also', 'equally' (often written without the initial /n/, especially in earlier periods). It is of crucial importance for the ordering of the "conjugation prefixes", because it is usually placed between the conjugation prefix /i/- and the pronominal prefix, e.g. 𒅔𒂵𒀭𒍪in-ga-an-zu 'he, too, knows it', but it precedes the conjugation prefix /mu/-: 𒈾𒂵𒈬𒍪na-ga-mu-zu 'he also understood it'.[336] This suggests that these two conjugation prefixes must belong to different slots.[337]
Although a conjugation prefix is almost always present, Sumerian until the Old Babylonian period allows a finite verb to begin directly with the locative prefix -/ni/-, the second person singular dative -/r-a/-, or the second person directive -/r-i/- (see below), because the prefixesi3-/e- anda- are apparently elided in front of them.[338]
Thedimensional prefixes of the verb chain basically correspond to, and often repeat, the case markers of the noun phrase. Like the case markers of the noun phrase, the first dimensional prefix is normally attached to a preceding "head" – apronominal prefix, which expresses the person, gender and number of its referent.[339] The first dimensional prefix may be followed by up to two other dimensional prefixes,[340] but unlike the first one, these prefixes never have an explicit "head" and cannot refer to animate nouns.[341] The other slot where a pronominal prefix can occur is immediately before the stem, where it can have a different allomorph and expresses the person, gender and absolutive or the ergative participant (the transitive subject, the intransitive subject or the direct object), depending on the TA and other factors, as explainedbelow.
There is some variation in the extent to which the verb of a clause that contains a noun in a given case also contains the corresponding pronominal and dimensional prefixes in the verb. The ergative participant is always expressed in the verb, as is, generally, the absolutive one (with some vacillation for the third person singular inanimate in transitive forms, as explainedbelow); the dative, comitative, the locative and directive participant (used in a local meaning) also tend to be expressed relatively consistently; with the ablative and terminative, on the other hand, there is considerable variability.[342][as] There are some cases, specifiedbelow, where the meanings of the cases in the noun phrase and in the verb diverge, so a noun case enclitic may not be reflected in the verb or, conversely, a verb may have a prefix that has no specific reference in the clause or in reality.[344][345]
The vowel -/V/- is identical to that of the preceding prefix (𒈬𒅇mu-u3-, 𒁀𒀀ba-a-, 𒉈𒉌bi2-i3- etc.). Possibly originally a glottal stop /ʔ/,[349][350] which was later elided with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel.
2nd person singular
𒂊 -e-, ‑/r/‑
-/r/- before a vowel (before the dative and the directive prefixes, resulting in 𒊏-ra- and 𒊑‑ri-);
-/e/- before a consonant. -/e/- is assimilated to the preceding vowel, lengthening it (e.g. 𒈬𒂊mu-e- > 𒈬𒅇mu-u3- etc.) in the dialects attested before the Old Babylonian period.[349][350] In the Old Babylonian dialect-e- is preserved (e.g. 𒈬𒂊 mu-e-) and the preceding vowel may assimilate to the -/e/- instead: e.g. 𒈨me-.[350]
3rd person singular animate
‑/n(n)/-
According to Jagersma and a number of other scholars,[130] the allomorph that appears in front of the vowel-initial dimensional prefixes, i.e. in front of dative -/a/- and directive -/i/-, is a geminate /nn/.[au] The traditional view assumes simply /n/.[353] The geminate analysis is assumed in the examples and glosses in this article.
3rd person inanimate
‑/b/‑
Seems to be absent in some cases, see the main text. Note that the inanimate agreement marker has no number distinction.
Confusingly, the subject and object prefixes (/-n-/, /-b-/, /-e-/, /-V-/) are not commonly spelled out in early texts, as both coda consonants and vowel length are often ignored in them. The "full" spellings do become more usual during theThird Dynasty of Ur (in the Neo-Sumerian period) and especially during the Old Babylonian period. Thus, in earlier texts, one finds 𒈬𒀝mu-ak and 𒉌𒀝i3-ak (𒂊𒀝e-ak in Southern Sumerian) instead of 𒈬𒌦𒀝mu-un-ak and 𒅔𒀝in-ak for {mu-n-ak} and {i-n-ak} "he/she made", and also 𒈬𒀝mu-ak instead of Neo-Sumerian 𒈬(𒅇)𒀝mu(-u3)-ak or Old Babylonian 𒈬𒂊𒀝mu-e-ak "you made". Vowel length never came to be expressed systematically, so the 1st person prefix was often graphically -∅- during the entire existence of Sumerian.
The generally recognized dimensional prefixes are shown in the table below; if several occur within the same verb complex, they are placed in the order they are listed in.
The ablative does not co-occur with the terminative, and the directive does not co-occur with the locative, so these pairs may be argued to share the same slot.[364][be] Accordingly, the template can be said to include the following dimensional slots: dative, comitative, ablative/terminative, directive/locative.[366]
A major exception from the general system of personal and dimensional prefixes is the very frequent prefix 𒉌-ni- "(in) there", which corresponds to a noun phrase in the locative, but doesn't seem to be preceded by any pronominal prefix and has demonstrative meaning by itself. This prefix is not to be confused with the homographic sequence 𒉌-ni- which corresponds to an animate noun phrase in the directive. In the latter case,ni is analysed as a combination of pronominal /-nn-/ and directive /-i-/ (roughly: "at him/her", "on him/her", etc.), whereas in the former,ni is unanalysable.[367]
An example of a verb chain where several dimensional slots are occupied can be:
'He made it (the dike) go out of it (a canal) for him into it (a locality)'
The comitative prefix-da- can, in addition, express the meaning "to be able to". In that case, there is a preceding pronominal prefix agreeing with the subject of the action: e.g. {nu-mu-e-da-n-dab-en} "you cannot catch him" (lit.'you won't catch him with yourself').[368] The directive has the meaning "on(to)" when the verb is combined with a noun in the locative case: e.g. {banšur-a ninda b-i-b-g̃a-g̃a-en} "I will put bread on the table".[369]
Differences and combinations between dimensional prefixes and noun case markers
While the meanings of the prefixes are generally the same as those of the corresponding nominal case markers, there are some differences:
The prefixes, unlike noun phrases in the corresponding cases, normally refer only to participants with a strong relationship to the action or state expressed by the verb (e.g. a temporal meaning likesince X may be expressed by means of a noun phrase with a-ta case marker, but that normally wouldn't be cross-referenced with a-ta prefix on the verb).[344]
The use of dimensional prefixes is sometimes more closely connected to special meanings of specific verbs and to lexical idiosyncrasies. For instance, the verb 𒇯𒁺ed3 has the meaning "go up" with the directive prefix, but "go down" with the ablative one, the verb 𒉚sa10 means "sell" with the ablative prefix and "buy" with the terminative, the verb 𒌓𒁺ed2 "leave, go out" always has the ablative prefix, and the phrasal verb 𒅗 ... 𒄄inim ... gi4 "answer" (lit.'return a word') always includes the locative.[344] In general, verbs having a place-related meaning such as 𒁄bala "cross", 𒅅g̃al2 "be (somewhere), 𒃻g̃ar "put", 𒁺gub "stand", 𒆭kur9 "enter", 𒋛sig9 "put" and 𒆪tuš "sit" generally occur with a dimensional prefix specifying a location.[345] Thus, a verb may, albeit rarely, contain a dimensional prefix that simply modifies its meaning and has no reference. In such cases, it has no preceding pronominal prefix, even if it is the first dimensional prefix: e.g. 𒁀𒊏𒀭𒉚ba-ra-an-sa10 {ba-ta-n-sa} "he sold it".[342]
The directive may be replaced by the dative when its slot is occupied by the locative or when it would have had animate reference, but there is a preceding prefix, which makes any further prefixes with animate reference illicit.[370][371]
At the systemic level, there are some asymmetries between the nominal case markers and the verbal dimensional prefixes: they partly make different distinctions, and the nominal case marking is influenced by animacy. Because of these mismatches, different meanings are expressed by combinations of matching or non-matching noun cases and verb prefixes.[367] The combinations may be summarized as follows:[372][373][186][374]
In some cases, there are also mismatches between nominal and verbal markers when exact correspondences would have been possible;[375][343] these may serve to express additional shades of meaning.[375] A dative noun case marker and terminative dimensional prefix may co-occur in the Ur III period.[376] In general, from that time on, the choice of noun cases begins to be influenced by the government of corresponding Akkadian verbs, while the verbs themselves retain their older prefixes.[342] According to Foxvog, /-ni-/ can resume non-locative cases such as the terminative and the dative.[343]
A peculiar pattern of agreement occurs in what has been referred to as anexternal possession construction, in which a modifier of the verb refers to a certain object, almost always a body part, but it is emphasised that the action affects thepossessor of that object (cf. English "he hitme on the head"). In that case, the verb may agree with the possessor with the directive prefix, while not agreeing with the object itself: thus, "he put barley in your hand" may be expressed by {šu-z(u).a še i-r-i-n-g̃ar}, lit. "he put barleyat you,in your hand".[377] Alternatively, it may agree with both the possessor and the object: the possessor is then referred to by the dative prefix: {šu-z(u)-a še (i-)r-a-ni-n-g̃ar}, lit. "he put barleyto you,in there, in your hand".[378]
When the dimensional prefix is dative -/a/-, the personal prefix of the 1st person appears to be absent, but the 1st person reference is expressed by the choice of the ventive conjugation prefix /mu/-. The sequence that expresses the 1st person dative is then: /mu-/ + /-a-/ → 𒈠ma-.[379][380][381] When the intended meaning is that of the directive -/i/~/e/- ("on me", "in contact with me", etc.), it seems that the ventive conjugation prefix 𒈬mu- alone serves to express it.[379][380]
Two special phenomena occur if there is no absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in the pre-stem position.
1. The sequences 𒉌 -/ni/- (locative {-ni-} and personal + directive {-nn-i-}) and 𒉈 /bi/- (personal + directive {b-i-}) acquire the forms -/n/- and -/b/- (coinciding with theabsolutive–ergative pronominal prefixes) before the stem if there isn't already an absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in pre-stem position. This is typically the case when the verb is used intransitively.[382][310] For example, the normal appearance of-ni- is seen in:
A superficially very similar, but distinct phenomenon is that if there isn't already an absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in pre-stem position, the personal prefix of the directive participant does not receive the dimensional prefix -/i/~/e/- at all and is moved to the pre-stem position. For example, the normal position of the directive participant is seen in:
{b-i-n-ak}bi2-in-ak 𒉈𒅔𒀝 "he applied (it)to it" (said of oil).
In some cases, the 3rd person inanimate prefix-b- appears to be unexpectedly absent.
-b- as the head of a dimensional prefix isn't used after the "conjugation prefix"ba-: thus *𒁀𒀊𒅆𒌈𒄄𒄄ba-ab-ši-ib2-gi4-gi4 "he will returnit to it (for himself)" is impossible. This restriction does not, however, apply for-b- as a subject/object prefix immediately before the stem: thus, 𒁀𒀊𒄄𒄄ba-ab-gi4-gi4 "he will returnit (for himself)" is possible.[385] In some schemes, this is formalized as the placement of the initial pronominal prefixb- in the same slot asba- and not in the following slot, where all the other initial pronominal prefixes such as-n- are located.[386]
-b- also regularly "fails" to appear after the ventive "conjugation prefix"mu-: instead of expected *𒈬𒌒𒅆𒁺mu-ub-ši-g̃en, the meaning "he came forit" is expressed by 𒅎𒅆𒁺im-ši-g̃en. Similarly, instead of *𒈬𒌒𒂷𒂷mu-ub-g̃a2-g̃a2 for "he is placingit here", we find 𒉌𒅎𒂷𒂷i3-im-g̃a2-g̃a2.[bg] While some believe that /b/ in this case is truly omitted,[387] others assume that such forms in fact contain an assimilated sequence -/mb/- > -/mm/- > -/m/-, just like the formsim-mi- andim-ma-, so that the above realisations actually stand for {i-m-b-ši-g̃en} and {i-m-b-g̃a-g̃a}.[388][389]
For another case of absence of-b-, see the footnote on -b- as a marker of the transitive object in the table in the section onPronominal agreement in conjugation.
The initial vowel in all of the above suffixes can be assimilated to the vowel of the verb root; more specifically, it can become /u/ or /i/ if the vowel of the verb root is /u/ or /i/, respectively. It can also undergo contraction with an immediately preceding vowel.[390] Pre-Ur III texts also spell the first- and second-person suffix -/en/ as -/e/, making it coincide with the third person in themarû form.
Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects
Sumerian verbal agreement follows anominative–accusative pattern in the 1st and 2nd persons of themarûtense-aspect, but anergative–absolutive pattern in most other forms of theindicative mood. Because of this presence of both patterns, Sumerian is considered a language withsplit ergativity.[391] The general principle is that in theḫamṭu TA, the transitive subject is expressed by the prefix, and the direct object by the suffix, and in themarû TA it is the other way round. For example, {i-b-dab-en} can be aḫamṭu form meaning "it caught me", where {-b-} expresses the subject "it" and {-en} expresses the object "I". However, it can also be amarû form meaning "I will catch it", where {-en} expresses the subject "I" and {-b-} expresses the object "it". As for the intransitive subject, it is expressed, in both TAs, by the suffixes. For example, {i-kaš-en} is "I ran", and {i-kaš-ed-en} can be "I will run". This means that the intransitive subject is treated like the object inḫamṭu (which makes theḫamṭu pattern ergative) and like the subject inmarû (which makes themarû pattern nominative-accusative).
There are two exceptions from the above generalization:
1. A transitive subject of thethird person inmarû uses unique suffixes that arenot the same as those of the intransitive subject and theḫamṭu direct object. For example, while "they ran" can be {i-kaš-eš}, just as "it caught them" can be {i-b-dab-eš}, the corresponding form for "they will catch it" would be {i-b-dab-ene}. This pattern can be described as a case oftripartite alignment.[391]
2. A plural transitive subject in theḫamṭu TA is expressed not only by the prefix, but also by the suffix: e.g. {i-n-dab-eš} can mean "they caught (it)". Specifically, the prefix expresses only the person, while the suffix expresses both the person and the number of the subject.[392]
Note that the prefixes of the plural transitive subject are identical to those of the singular – -/V/-, -/e/-, -/n/- – as opposed to the special plural forms-me-,-e-ne-,-ne- found in non-pre-stem position.
The use of the personal affixes for subjects and direct objects can be summarized as follows:[393]
The verbal stem itself can also express grammatical distinctions within the categoriesnumber andtense-aspect. In a number of verbs, this involvessuppletion ormorphonological alternations that are not fully predictable.
1. With respect tonumber, plurality can be expressed bycomplete reduplication of theḫamṭu stem (e.g. 𒆭𒆭kur9-kur9 "enter (pl.)" or by asuppletive stem (e.g. 𒁺gub "stand (sing.)" – 𒁻sug2 "stand (pl.)". The traditional view is that both of these morphological means express plurality of the absolutive participant in Sumerian.[400][401] However, it has often been pointed out that complete reduplication of the verb in Sumerian can also express "plurality of the action itself"[402] intensity oriterativity,[95] and that it is not obligatory in the presence of plural participants, but rather seems to expressly emphasize the plurality.[400][401] According to some researchers,[403][404][405] the predominant meaning of the suppletive plural stem is, indeed, plurality of the most affected participants, whereas the predominant meaning of complete reduplication is plurality of events (because they occur at multiple times or locations). However, even with suppletive plural stems, the singular may occur with a plural participant, presumably because the event is perceived as a single one.[406]
2. With respect totense-aspect marking, verbs are divided in four types;ḫamṭu is always the unmarked TA.
The stems of the1st type, regular verbs, are analysed in two ways: some scholars believe that they do not express TA at all,[407] while others claim that they expressmarû TA by adding a suffix -/e/ as in 𒁶𒂊dim2-e vs 𒁶dim2 "make".[408] This -/e/ would, however, nowhere be distinguishable from the first vowel of the pronominal suffixes except for intransitivemarû 3rd person singular; in that last form, the first analysis attributes the -/e/ to the presence of the -/e(d)/ suffix describedbelow. The glosses in this article assume the first analysis.
The2nd type expressesmarû bypartial reduplication of the stem, e.g. 𒆭kur9 vs 𒆭𒆭ku4-ku4 "enter". Usually, as in this example, thismarû reduplication follows the pattern C1V1-C1V1 (C1 = 1st consonant of the root, V = 1st vowel of the root). In a few cases, the template is instead C1V1C1C2V1.[409]
The3rd type expressesmarû by adding a consonant, e.g.te vsteg̃3 "approach" (both written 𒋼). A number of scholars do not recognise the existence of such a class or consider it dubious.[bo]
The4th type uses a suppletive stem, e.g. 𒅗dug4 vs 𒂊e "do, say". Thus, as many as four different suppletive stems can exist, as in the admittedly extreme case of the verb "to go": 𒁺g̃en ("to go",ḫamṭu sing.), 𒁺du (marû sing.), (𒂊)𒁻 (e-)re7 (ḫamṭu plur.), 𒁻sub2 (marû plur.).
The following tables show some of the most frequent stem alternations.[bp]
Before the pronominal suffixes, a suffix -/ed/ or -/d/ can be inserted (the /d/ is only realized if other vowels follow, in which case the /e/ in turn may be elided): e.g. 𒉌𒀄(𒂊)𒉈𒂗i3-zaḫ3(-e)-de3-en {i-zaḫ-ed-en} "I will/must escape", 𒉌𒀄𒂊i3-zaḫ3-e {i-zaḫ-ed} "he will/must escape". This suffix is considered to account for occurrences of-e in the third-person singularmarû of intransitive forms by those who do not accept the theory that-e itself is amarû stem formant.[420]
The function of the suffix is somewhat controversial. Some view it as having a primarily modal meaning of "must" or "can"[421] or future meaning.[422] Others believe that it primarily signals simply the imperfective status of a verb form, i.e. amarû form,[423] although its presence is obligatory only in intransitivemarû forms and in non-finite forms. In intransitive forms, it thus helps to distinguishmarû fromḫamṭu;[424] for instance, in the above example, 𒉌𒀄𒂗i3-zaḫ3-en alone, without -/ed/-, could have been interpreted as aḫamṭu form "I escaped". In contrast, in the analysis of scholars who do not believe that -/ed/- is obligatory inmarû, many intransitive forms likei3-zaḫ3-en can be bothḫamṭu andmarû.[bz]
The vowel /e/ of this suffix undergoes the same allophonic changes as the initial /e/ of the person suffixes. It is regularly assimilated to /u/ in front of stems containing the vowel /u/ and a following labial consonant, /r/ or /l/, e.g. 𒋧𒈬𒁕šum2-mu(-d) (< {šum-ed}). It is also assimilated and contracted with immediately preceding vowels, e.g. 𒄄gi4-gi4 /gi-gi-i(d)/ < {gi-gi-ed} "which will/should return". The verb 𒁺du "go" never takes the suffix.[427]
Jagersma systematizes the use of the tense-aspect forms in the following patterns:[428]
ḫamṭu is used to express completed (perfective) actions in the past, but also states (pastor present) and timeless truths.[429] It is also used in conditional clauses with the conjunction 𒋗𒃻𒌉𒇲𒁉tukumbi 'if'.
marû is used to express actions in the present and future, but also non-completed (imperfective) actions in the past (like the Englishpast progressive tense), and, rarely, actions in the past that are still relevant or operative (like the Englishpresent perfect tense). It is also used in conditional clauses with the conjunction 𒌓𒁕ud-da 'if'.Verba dicendi introducing direct speech are also placed inmarû.
In addition, different moods often require either aḫamṭu or amarû stem and either aḫamṭu or amarû agreement pattern depending on various conditions, as specified in the relevant sectionsabove andbelow.
In more general terms, modern scholars usually state that the difference between the two forms is primarily one ofaspect:ḫamṭu expressesperfective aspect, i.e. a completed action, or sometimes possiblypunctual aspect, whereasmarû expressesimperfective aspect, i.e. a non-completed action, or sometimes possiblydurative aspect.[430] In contrast, thetime at which the action takes place or at which it is completed or non-completed is not specified and may be either past, present or future.[431] This contrasts with the earlier view, prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, according to which the difference was one oftense:ḫamṭu was thought to express thepast (preterite) tense, andmarû was considered to expresspresent-future tense, while the use ofmarû with past-tense reference was viewed as a stylistic device (cf. the so-calledhistorical present use in other languages).[432] Indeed, it has been pointed out that a translation ofḫamṭu with past tense andmarû with present or future tense does work well most of the time;[433] this may correspond to the cases in which the action was viewed by Sumerian speakers as completed or non-completedwith respect to the present moment.[434][ca]
Theimperative mood construction is produced with aḫamṭu stem, but using themarû agreement pattern, by turning all prefixes into suffixes.[435] In the plural, the second person plural ending is attached in a form that differs slightly from the indicative: it is /-(n)zen/, with the -/n/- appearing only after vowels. The stem is singular even in the plural imperative.[436] Compare the following indicative-imperative pairs:
This may be compared with the French pairvous le lui donnez, butdonnez-le-lui![381]
In addition, the prefix 𒉌i3- is replaced by /-a/: 𒉌𒁺i3-g̃en "he went", but 𒁺𒈾g̃en-na "go!", 𒅔𒈾𒀊𒁉in-na-ab-be2 "he will say it to him", but 𒅗𒂵𒀭𒈾(𒀊)dug4-ga-an-na(-ab) 'say it to him!'.[435] However, the vowel /e/[437] and possibly /i/[438] occasionally also occur if no further prefixes follow, perhaps as a characteristic of southern dialects.[437] The ventive prefixmu-, if not followed by others, has the form 𒌝-um in the imperative: 𒁺𒌝ře6-um 'bring it here!'[439] In Old Babylonian texts, the reduced form -/u/ and the more regular -/am/ {-a-m} are also found: 𒂷𒉡g̃e26-nu, 𒁺𒀀𒀭g̃en-am3, both "come here!"[440]
Sumerian participles can function both as verbal adjectives and as verbal nouns. As verbal adjectives, they can describe any participant involved in the action or state expressed by the verb: for instance, 𒋧𒈠šum2-ma may mean either "(which was) given (to someone)", "who was given (something)" or "who gave".[441] As verbal nouns, they denote the action or state itself, so 𒋧𒈠šum2-ma may also mean '(the act of) giving' or 'the fact that X gave Y'.[441] Participles are formed in the following ways:
The bareḫamṭu stem can function as a participle. It usually expresses timeless truths: 𒋧šum2 may be a person who regularly/constantly gives, something regularly given, or the regular act of giving.[442]
Another way to form participles is by means of adding the nominalizing marker -/a/ to theḫamṭu stem:[443][444] 𒋧𒈠šum2-ma "given".[445] The verb form constructed in this way characterizes an entity with a specific action or state in the past or a state in the present (𒋾𒆷til3-la "alive").[446] The verbs 𒌇tuku "have" and 𒍪zu "know" usually omit the ending -/a/, as does the verb 𒀝ak "do".[447] According to Jagersma, the nominalizing marker had the effect of geminating the preceding consonant (e.g. /šumːa/), which is evident from Akkadian loanwords, and this effect was due to its original form being /ʔa/ with a glottal stop that later assimilated to preceding consonants (/šumʔa/ > šumːa).[185]
Themarû stem can be combined with the suffix -/ed/ to form another participle, which often has a future and modal meaning similar to theLatin gerundive, e.g. 𒁶𒈨dim2-me(-d) "which will/should be made". Adding a locative-terminative marker /-e/ after the /-ed/ yields a form with a meaning similar to theLatinad + gerund (acc.) construction: 𒁶(𒈨)𒉈dim2(-me)-de3 = "(in order) to make".[448] A similar meaning can be expressed by adding the locative marker: 𒁶(𒈨)𒁕dim2(-me)-da = "(for it) to be made". The main difference is that in the construction with-(ed)-e, the subject of the intended action is the same as the subject of the main clause, while it is different in the construction with-(ed)-a.[449] The analysis of this participle is controversial along the same lines as that of the meaning of the suffix-ed in finite forms (see above). Some Sumerologists describe its meaning as primarily modal and distinguish it from a separate imperfective participle that consists of themarû stem alone, e.g. 𒁶𒈨dim2-me 'which is/was making', 𒄄𒄄gi4-gi4 "returning".[450] Others believe that it this is also the normalmarû participle and that it has, in addition, the imperfective meanings "which is/was cutting" and "which is/was being cut".[451] Besides the allomorphy of the suffix -/ed/ already treated above, the verb 𒅗dug4 "do, say" has a suppletive participial stem in this form: 𒁲di(-d).[427]
Themarû stem can also occur with the suffix -/a/.[452] Nonetheless, according to Jagersma, this form is rare outside the combination with a following possessive pronominal marker to express temporal meaning, as explainedin theSyntax section: e.g. 𒁶(𒈨)𒁕𒉌dim2(-me)-da-ni "when he makes (something)".[443]
Thecopula verb /me/ "to be" is mostly used in an enclitic form. Its conjugation is as follows:
singular
plural
1st person
𒈨𒂗-me-en
𒈨𒂗𒉈𒂗-me-en-de3-en
2nd person
𒈨𒂗-me-en
𒈨𒂗𒍢𒂗-me-en-ze2-en
3rd person
𒀀𒀭-am3
(Old Sumerian 𒀭 -am6)
𒀭𒈨𒌍-me-eš
In addition, the initial vowel of the form-am3 is reduced to -/m/ after enclitics ending in a vowel: 𒂍𒈬𒌝e2-g̃u10-um "it is my house". Like other final consonants, the-m may not be expressed in early spelling.[453]
These enclitic forms are used instead of a simple sequence of finite prefix, root and personal suffix*i3-me-en,*i-me etc. For more complex forms, the independent copula form is used: 𒉌𒈨𒀀i3-me-a "that he is", 𒉡𒅇𒈨𒂗nu-u3-me-en "I am not". Unlike the enclitic, it typically uses the normal stem 𒈨 -me- in the 3rd person singular (𒁀𒊏𒈨ba-ra-me "should not be"), except for the form prefixed withḫa-, which is 𒃶𒅎ḫe2-em or 𒃶𒀀𒀭ḫe2-am3.[454]
For a negative equivalent of the copula in the 3rd person, it seems that the word 𒉡nu "not" alone instead of*nu-um is used predicatively (e.g. 𒍏𒉡urud nu "it is not copper"[455]) although the form 𒉡(𒌦)𒂵𒀀𒀭nu-(un)-ga-am3 "it is also not ..." is attested.[454] A different word is used to express existence or being present/located somewhere:𒅅 g̃al2.[456]
A peculiar feature of the copula is that it seems to form a relative clause without the nominalizing suffix /-a/ and thus uses the finite form: thus, instead of 𒉌𒈨𒀀i3-me-a, simply 𒀀𒀭 -am3 is used: 𒆬𒃻𒂵𒊏𒉌𒅎𒈠𒀭𒋧kug nig̃2-gur11-ra-ni-im ma-an-šum2 "he gave me silver (which)was his property", which appears to say "The silver was his property, he gave it to me". In the negative, the full form 𒉡𒈨𒀀nu-me-a "which is not" is used, and likewise in non-relative functions.[457]
Some scholars believe that it is possible to speak of apassive voice in Sumerian. Jagersma (2010) distinguishes three attested passive constructions.[458] In each case, the ergative participant and the corresponding agreement marker on the verb are removed, so that the verb is inflected intransitively, but there may also be some additional cues to ensure a passive interpretation. The passive may be formed:
By simply eliminating the agent of a transitive verb and the corresponding agreement marker: {engar-e e i-n-řu} "the farmer built the house" > † {e i-řu} "the house was built".[459] As a dynamic passive, in reference to the event itself, this construction is obsolete inḫamṭu by the time of the earliest records according to Jagersma. However, it is still used with modal prefixes and inmarû: e.g. {e ḫa-i-řu} "May the house be built!" Moreover, it continues to be used as a stative passive in Southern Sumerian, so {e i-řu} can mean "the house is built (i.e. complete)".
With the prefix 𒁀ba-, e.g. {e ba-řu}. This is only found in Southern Sumerian and expresses only a dynamic passive, i.e. it refers to the event itself: "The house was (came to be) built".[cb][460]
With the prefix {a-}, e.g. {e al-řu}. This is only found in Northern Sumerian and can have both a stative and a dynamic sense: "The house is built (complete)" or "The house was (came to be) built".[295]
The agent is never expressed in the passive clause in Sumerian.[461]
While the existence of such intransitive constructions of normally transitive verbs is widely recognized, some other scholars have disputed the view that these constructions should be called "passives". They prefer to speak of one-participant or agentless constructions and to limit themselves to the observation that the prefixesba- anda- tend to be preferred with such constructions, apparently as a secondary effect of another, more subtle feature of their meaning.[462] Concerning the history of the constructions, it has been claimed that the passive(-like) use ofba- does not appear before the Ur III period;[463] Jagersma, on the contrary, states that it is attested already in the Old Sumerian period, although it becomes especially frequent in Ur III times.[464]
A different construction has been posited and labelled "Sumerian passive voice" by a significant number of scholars.[465][466][467] According to them, too, a passive is formed by removing the ergative participant and the verbal marker that agrees with it, but the verb isnot inflected as an intransitive one: instead, it has a personal prefix, which refers to the "logical object": {e i-b-řu} or {e ba-b-řu} "the house is being built". The stem is alwaysḫamṭu. Some consider this construction to have only the function and meaning of amarû form[465], while others consider the tense-aspect opposition to be neutralized in it.[466] The personal prefix is nearly always -b- in identified cases; views differ on whether it agrees in gender with an animate logical object, appearing as-n-,[466] or whether it remains-b-.[468] Critics have argued that most alleged examples of the construction are actually instances ofthe pre-stem personal prefix referring to the directive participant in an intransitive verb, at least before the Old Babylonian period.[469][470] Pascal Attinger considers it plausible that the original construction was indeed a directive one, whereas its new passive function as described by him arose via a reinterpretation in the Old Babylonian period;[466] Walther Sallaberger, on the contrary, believes this kind of passive to be characteristic of Neo-Sumerian and to have been lost in Old Babylonian.[465] A further possibility is that at least some of these cases actually have animpersonal 3rd person inanimate subject: "'it' has / they have built the house".[466]
Sumerian doesn't have dedicated causative morphology.Causativity is expressed syntactically in two ways, depending on the transitivity of the verb.
An intransitive verb is made transitive and thus acquires causative meaning merely by adding an ergative participant and the appropriate agreement marker: {gud i-gub} "the ox stood" – {engar-e gud i-n-gub} "the farmer made the ox stand".
A transitive verb is made causative by placing the ergative participant in the directive: {engar-e gud-e u b-i-n-gu} "the farmer made the ox eat grass". For animates, as usual, the directive case marker is replaced by the dative one: {engar-e dumu-ra ninda i-nn-i-n-gu} "the farmer made the child eat bread". A further example can be {dig̃ir-e engar-ra gud i-nn-i-n-gub}: "the god made the farmer make the ox stand".
A specific problem of Sumerian syntax is posed by the numerousphrasal verbs (traditionally called "compound verbs" in Sumerology in spite of the fact that they are not compounds, but idiomatic combinations[472]). They usually involve a noun immediately before the verb, forming a lexical/idiomatic unit:[473] e.g. 𒅆...𒂃igi ...du8, lit. "open the eye" = "see, look". Theircase government and agreement patterns vary depending on the specific verb.[474][367][cc] The component noun is usually in the absolutive case, but may be in the directive. If the phrasal verb takes another noun as a "logical object", the verbal infix is typically the directive, while the noun case is most commonly either the directive (dative if animate), which otherwise has the meaning "at / with respect to", or the locative (dative if animate), which otherwise has the meaning "on":
Directive:
𒅆...𒂃igi ...du8 ({NOUN-e igi ...-e~i-...du}), lit. "open the eye at something" > "see"[475]
𒆥...𒀝kig̃2 ...ak, lit. "do work with respect to something" > "work (on) something"[476]
𒋗𒋳...𒅗 šu-tag ...dug4, lit. "do hand-touching with respect to something" > "decorate"[365]
𒊓...𒅗sa2 dug4, lit. "do equal with respect to something" > "reach"[477]
𒋛...𒁲si ...sa2 ({NOUN-e si ...-e~i-...sa}), lit. "make the horns(?) equal with respect to something" > "put something in order";[475][191] likewise used intransitively: {NOUN-e si b-i-sa}, lit. "the horns (?) are equal with respect to something" > "something is in order".[191]
Locative "on":
𒅗...𒃻inim ...g̃ar ({NOUN-a inim ...-e~i-...g̃ar}), lit. "place a word on something" > "claim, place a claim on"[475]
𒋗...𒁇šu ...bar, lit. "open / remove the hand on something" > "release"[479][480]
𒈬...𒄷𒈿 mu ...sa4, lit. "call a name on someone" > "to name"[481]
𒉆...𒋻 nam ...tar, lit. "cut a fate upon someone" > "determine the fate of someone"[479]
𒀠...𒆕 al ...řu2, lit. "raise the hoe upon something" > "dig"[479]
𒇷...𒋻 en3 ...tar, lit. "cut a question(?) on something" > "investigate"[479]
Less commonly, the case of the logical object and the pronominal infix may be:
Dative (directive if inanimate):
𒆠...𒉘ki ...ag̃2 ({NOUN-ra ki ...ag̃}) lit. "to measure out a place for someone" = "to love someone"[474]
𒅗 ...𒌣 gu3 ...de2, lit. "to pour out the voice for someone" = "to call for someone"[482]
𒀀 ...𒊒 a ...ru, lit. "to eject water for someone" = "to dedicate something to someone"[483]
Terminative: 𒅆 ...𒁇igi ...bar (NOUN-še igi ...bar) lit. "bring out the eye towards something" = "see, look"[484]
Comitative: 𒀉 ...𒉘a2 ...ag̃2 ({NOUN-da a ...ag̃}) lit. "measure out power (?) with someone" = "to give orders to someone"[474]
Locative "in":
𒋗... 𒁍šu ...gid2 ({NOUN-a šu ... gid}), lit. "stretch out the hand into something" = "to performextispicy on"[485]
𒋗... 𒁄šu ...bala, lit. "let one's hand go across in something" = "alter"[486]
Another possibility is for the component noun to be in the dative (directive if inanimate), while the object is in the absolutive:
𒋗...𒋾šu ...ti ({šu-e NOUN...ti}) lit. "make something come close to the hand" = "to receive something" ("from someone" is expressed by the terminative: {NOUN2-še šu-e NOUN1 ...ti})[487]
The basic word order issubject–object–verb; verb finality is only violated in rare instances, in poetry. The moving of a constituent towards the beginning of the phrase may be a way to highlight it,[488] as may the addition of the copula to it.Modifiers (adjectives, genitive phrases etc.) are normally placed after the noun: 𒂍𒉋e2 gibil "a new house" 𒂍𒈗𒆷e2 lugal-la "the house of the owner". However, the so-called anticipatory genitive (𒂍𒀀𒈗𒉈e2-a lugal-bi "the owner of the house", lit. "of the house, its owner") is common and may signal the possessor'stopicality.[488] There are no adpositions, but noun phrases in a certain case may resemble prepositions and have a similar function:[489]
𒊮...𒀀𒅗šag4 X-a-ka, lit. "in the heart of X" = "inside/among X".
𒅆 ... 𒀀𒂠igi X-a-še3, lit. "for the eyes of X" = "in front of X".
𒂕...𒀀𒅗egir X-a-ka, lit. "at the back of X" = "behind/after X".
𒀀𒅗...𒀀𒅗 Xugu2 X-a-ka, lit. "on the skull of X" = "on top of X", "concerning X"
𒁇...𒀀𒅗bar X-a-ka, lit. "outside of X" = "because of X" (in Old Sumerian).
𒈬/𒉆 ... 𒀀𒂠mu/nam X-a-še3, lit. "for the name/fate of X" = "because of X" (in Neo-Sumerian).[490][489]
There are various ways to expresssubordination. Many of them include the nominalization of a finite verb with the suffix -/a/, which is also used to form participles, as shown above. Like the participles, this nominalized clause can either modify a noun, as adjectives do, or refer to the event itself, as nouns do. It usually functions as arelative clause, corresponding to an English clause with "which ..." or "who ...", as in the following example:
Like the participles, the relative clauses can describe any participant involved in the action or state expressed by the verb, and the specific participant is determined by context: e.g. 𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀭𒋧𒈠 {mu-nna-n-šum-a} can be "which he gave to him", "who gave (something) to him", etc. The nominalized clause can also be a complement clause, corresponding to an English clause with "that ...", e.g.e2 in-řu2-a (in-zu) "(he knows) that he built the house". Like a noun, it can be followed by case morphemes:
In the locative case (with added 𒀀-a), it means "when":e2 in-řu2-a-a "when he built the house" (more literally "in his building of the house"), although this is more common in Old Sumerian.
In the ablative case (with added 𒋫-ta), it means "after" or "since":e2 in-řu2-a-ta "after he built the house"; the particle 𒊑-ri may express the same meaning as 𒋫-ta.[491]
In the terminative case (with added 𒂠 -še3), it has a meaning close to "before" or "as to the fact that":e2 nu-řu2-a-še3 "while he had not yet built the house".
In the equative case (with added 𒁶 -gen7), it can mean "as (if)", "as (when)", "when" or "because":e2 in-řu2-a-gen7 "as he built the house".
It can also host the enclitics -/akanam/ and -/akeš/ "because":e2 in-řu2-a-ka-nam "because he built the house".
More surprisingly, it can add both the genitive and the locative morpheme with a meaning close to "when", possibly "as soon as": (e2 in-řu2-a-(a-)ka) "as soon as he built the house".[492]
The nominalized clause can directly modify a noun expressing time such as 𒌓ud "day, time", 𒈬mu "year" and 𒌗itid "month", and this in turn can then stand in the locative and ablative in the same meanings as the clauses themselves:ud e2 in-řu2-a-a/ta "when/after he built the house".[493] In this case, the particle-bi sometimes precedes the case morpheme:ud e2 in-řu2-a-ba; the basic meaning is still of "when".[494]
The nominalized clause can also be included in the various "prepositional constructions" mentioned above:
bar e2 in-řu2-a-ka "because he built the house" (in Old Sumerian)
mu X-a-še3 "because he built the house" (in Neo-Sumerian),
egir e2 in-řu2-a-ka "after he built the house".[492]
The structure is shown more clearly in the following example:
Several clauses can be nominalized by a single {-a} enclitic: {kaʾa ba-zaḫ engar-e nu-i-b-dab-a b-i-n-dug} "he saidthat the fox had escaped and the farmer had not caught it".[495]
Participles can function in a very similar way to the nominalized clauses and be combined with the same kinds of adjuncts. One peculiarity is that, unlike nominalized clauses, they may also express the agent as a possessor, in the genitive case: 𒂍𒆕𒀀𒈗𒆷e2 řu2-a lugal-la "the house built by the king". However, when the head noun (e2) is specified as here, a more common construction uses the ergative: 𒂍𒈗𒂊𒆕𒀀e2 lugal-e řu2-a.[496]
A special subordinating construction with the temporal meaning of an Englishwhen-clause is the so-calledpronominal conjugation, which contains a verb nominalized with -/a/ and following possessive pronominal markers referring to the subject (transitive or intransitive). In the 3rd person, the form appears to end in the possessive pronominal marker alone: 𒆭𒊏𒉌kur9-ra-ni "when he entered", lit. "his entering", etc. It has been suggested that these forms actually also contain a final directive marker-e; in this example, the analysis would be {kur-a-ni-e}, "at his entering".[497] Similarly, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, one sometimes finds the locative or ablative markers after the possessive (kur9-ra-na, kur9-ra-ni-ta).[498] In contrast, in the 1st and 2nd persons, the 1st and 2nd person pronouns are followed by the syllable 𒉈-ne:[cd] 𒍣𒂵𒈬𒉈zig3-ga-g̃u10-ne "as I rose"). The verb itself may be inḫamṭu, as in the above examples, or inmarû followed by the modal/imperfective suffix -/ed/-: 𒍣𒍣𒁕𒈬𒉈zi-zi-da-g̃u10-ne "when I rise".[502] The same construction is used with the word 𒀸dili "alone": 𒀸𒈬𒉈dili-g̃u10-ne "I alone", etc.[503]
Coordinating conjunctions are rarely used. The most common way to express the sense of "and" is by simple juxtaposition. Nominal phrases may be conjoined, perhaps emphatically, by adding 𒁉 -bi to the second one: 𒀭𒂗𒆤𒀭𒎏𒆤𒉌en-lil2 nin-lil2-bi "bothEnlil andNinlil"; sometimes the enclitic is further reinforced by 𒁕-da "with". More surprisingly, 𒋫-ta "from" is also sometimes used in the sense of "and".[505] The word 𒅇u3 "and" was borrowed from Akkadian in the Old Akkadian period and occurs mostly in relatively colloquial texts;[506] Old Babylonian Sumerian also borrowed from Akkadian the enclitic 𒈠-ma "and".[507] There is no conjunction "or" and its sense can also be expressed by simple juxtaposition; a more explicit and emphatic alternative is the repetition of 𒃶𒅎ḫe2-em, "let it be": 𒇻𒃶𒅎𒈧𒃶𒅎udu ḫe2-em maš ḫe2-em "(be it) a sheep or a goat".[508]
A quotative particle -/(e)še/ or -/ši/ "saying", variously spelt 𒂠 -eše2, 𒅆 -ši or 𒀪𒊺 -e-še, has been identified.[509] Its use is not obligatory and it is attested only or almost only in texts from the Old Babylonian period or later.[510] Another, rarely attested, particle, 𒄑(𒊺)𒂗 -g̃eš(-še)-en, apparently expresses irrealis modality: "were it that ...".[511]
Highlighting uses of the copula somewhat similar to Englishcleft constructions are present: 𒈗𒀀𒀭𒉌𒁺lugal-am3 i3-g̃en "It is the king who came", 𒀀𒈾𒀸𒀀𒀭𒉌𒁺a-na-aš-am3 i3-g̃en "Why is it that he came?", 𒉌𒁺𒈾𒀀𒀭i3-g̃en "It is the case that he came".[512]
Sumerian generally links a nominal predicate to the subject using the copula verb, like English. However, it does usezero-copula constructions in some contexts. In interrogative sentences, the 3rd person copula is omitted: 𒀀𒈾𒈬𒍪a-na mu-zu "What is your name?", 𒉈𒂗𒈬𒍪ne-en mu-zu "Is this your name?". Sumerian proper names that consist of entire sentences normally lack a copula as well, e.g. 𒀀𒁀𒀭𒌓𒁶a-badutu-gen7 "Who is likeUtu?" As explainedabove, negative sentences also omit the copula in *nu-am3/nu-um "isn't" and use simply 𒉡nu instead.[513]
Yes/no-interrogative sentences appear to have been marked only by intonation and possibly by resulting lengthening of final vowels.[514] There is nowh-movement to the beginning of the clause, but the interrogative words are placed immediately before the verb: e.g. 𒈗𒂊𒀀𒈾𒈬𒌦𒀝lugal-ea-na mu-un-ak "What did the king do?", 𒂍𒀀𒁀𒀀𒅔𒆕e2a-ba-a in-řu3 "Who built the temple?" Two exceptions from this are that the constituent noun of aphrasal verb is normally closer to the verb,[515][516] and that an interrogative word emphasized with a copula such as 𒀀𒈾𒀸𒀀𒀭a-na-aš-am3 "why is it that ...?" is placed at the beginning of the clause.[515] In addition, as already mentioned, interrogative sentences omit the copula where a declarative would have used it.
Derivation byaffixation is largely non-existent.[517][518] An exception may be a few nouns ending in -/u/ denoting the object of a corresponding verb: 𒊬𒊒sar-ru "document" < 𒊬sar "write".[519] Compounding, on the other hand, is common in nouns. Compounds are normally left-headed. The dependent may be:
Another noun: 𒂍e2 "house" + 𒈬muḫaldim "cook" > 𒂍𒈬e2-muḫaldim "kitchen"
An adjective: 𒌨ur "dog" + 𒈤maḫ "great" > 𒌨𒈤ur-maḫ "lion"
A participle (consisting of the bare verb stem): 𒃻nig̃2 "thing" + 𒁀ba "give(n)" > 𒃻𒁀nig̃2-ba "present",
A participle with a dependent word: 𒃻nig̃2 "thing"+ 𒍣 zi "breath"+ 𒅅 g̃al2 "be there" > 𒃻𒍣𒅅nig̃2-zi-g̃al2 "living thing"
An older obsolete pattern was right-headed instead:
𒂍 e2 "house"+ 𒊮 šag4 "heart"> 𒂍𒊮 e2-šag4 "innermost part of a house"
A participle may be the head of the compound, preceded by a dependent:
𒁾dub "clay tablet" +𒊬 sar "write" > 𒁾𒊬 dub-sar "scribe"
𒋗šu "hand" + 𒋳tag "touch" > 𒋗𒋳šu-tag "decoration" (corresponding to the phrasal verb 𒋗...𒋳šu...tag "decorate")
There are a few cases of nominalized finite verbs, too: 𒁀𒍗ba-uš4 "(who) has died" > "dead"
Abstract nouns are formed as compounds headed by the word 𒉆nam- "fate, status": 𒌉dumu "child" > 𒉆𒌉nam-dumu "childhood", 𒋻tar "cut, decide" > 𒉆𒋻nam-tar "fate".[520][521] Nouns that express the object of an action or an object possessing a characteristic are formed as compounds headed by the word 𒃻nig̃2 "thing": 𒅥gu4 "eat" > 𒃻𒅥nig̃2-gu7 "food", 𒄭 "good, sweet" > 𒃻𒄭nig̃2-dug "something sweet". The meaning may also be abstract: 𒋛...𒁲si...sa2 "straighten, put in order" >nig̃2-si-sa2 "justice".[522] A small number of terms of professions are derived with the preposed element 𒉡nu-: 𒄑𒊬g̃eškiri6 "garden"> 𒉡𒄑𒊬 nu-g̃eškiri6-(k) "gardener".[523]
Apparent coordinative compounds also exist, e.g. 𒀭𒆠an-ki "the universe", lit. "heaven and earth".[524]
A noun can be formed from an adjective by conversion: for example, 𒂼dag̃al "wide" also means "width".[525]
On verbs acquiring the properties of adjectives and nouns (agent nouns and action nouns), see the section onParticiples.
While new verbs cannot be derived, verbal meanings may be expressed by phrasal verbs (see above); in particular, new phrasal verbs are often formed on the basis of nouns by making them the object of the verbs 𒅗dug4 "do" or 𒀝ak "make": 𒀀...𒅗a ...dug4, lit. "to do water" > "to irrigate", 𒄑𒂵...𒍮g̃ešga-rig2 ...ak, lit. "to do the comb" > "to comb".[526]
The standard variety of Sumerian wasEmegir (𒅴𒂠:eme-gir15). A notable variety or sociolect wasEmesal (𒅴𒊩:eme-sal), possibly to be interpreted as "fine tongue" or "high-pitched voice".[527] Other apparent terms forregisters or dialects wereeme-galam "high tongue",eme-si-sa2 "straight tongue",eme-te-na2 "oblique[?] tongue",[528]emesukudda,emesuha,emesidi[529][530] andemeku.[531] Recently, a regional differentiation into a Northern and a Southern Sumerian dialect area has been posited.[3]
Emesal is used exclusively by female characters in some literary texts.[532] In addition, it is dominant in certain genres of cult songs such as the hymns sung byGala priests.[533][534][535] It has been argued that it might have been afemale language variety of the kind that exists or has existed in some cultures, such as among theChukchis and theGarifuna. Alternatively, it has been contended that it must have been originally a regional dialect, since instances of apparent Emesal-like forms are attested in the area of late 3rd millennium Lagash,[536] and some loanwords into Akkadian appear to come from Emesal rather than Emegir.[537] Apart from such isolated glosses, Emesal is first attested in writing in the early Old Babylonian period.[538] It is typically written with syllable signs rather than logograms. A text is often not written consistently in Emesal, but contains apparent Emegir forms as well.
The special features ofEmesal are mostly phonological and lexical. In terms of phonology, the following are some of the most common sound correspondences:[532][539]
There are also specifically Emesal lexemes that do not seem to be cognate with their Emegir counterparts, for example:
Emegir
Emesal
𒎏nin
𒂵𒊭𒀭ga-ša-an, later spelling𒃽 gašan
"lady"
𒀀𒈾a-na
𒋫ta
"what"
𒁺 tum2
𒅕 ir
"bring"
In grammar, both the cohortative prefix 𒂵ga- and the precative prefix 𒄩ḫa- are replaced by the morpheme 𒁕da- (with the allomorphs 𒉈de3- and 𒂅du5- conditioned by context in the same way as that of the corresponding Emegir prefixes).[540][541]
Bram Jagersma[542] and Gábor Zólyomi[543] distinguish two regional dialects of Sumerian: the Southern Sumerian dialect ofLagash,Umma,Ur andUruk, which eventually formed the basis for the common standard of the Neo-Sumerian (Ur III) period, and the Northern Sumerian dialect as seen in texts fromNippur,Adab,Isin andShuruppak (although eventually texts in the standard variety begin to be produced in that area as well). The differences that he finds between the two varieties are:
In Southern Sumerian, the conjugation prefix 𒉌 /i/- alternated with 𒂊 /e/- in accordance with vowel harmony during the Old Sumerian period, while Northern Sumerian only had /i/-. Later Southern Sumerian generalized /i/- as well.
In Southern Sumerian, the conjugation prefix expressing the passive was 𒁀ba-, while in Northern Sumerian, it was 𒀀a-.
In Southern Sumerian after the Old Akkadian period, the conjugation prefix 𒀀a-, which had originally existed in both dialects, disappears entirely apart from the variant 𒀠al-, which only appears in subordinate clauses.
In Southern Sumerian, the Old Sumerian phonemeř merged withr, while in Northern Sumerian, it merged withd.
The dominant Sumerian variety of the Old Babylonian period, in turn, reflected a different regional dialect from the standard Neo-Sumerian of the Ur III period:
Neo-Sumerian elides the conjugation prefixes 𒉌 /i/- and 𒀀 /a/- in front of the prefixes 𒉌-/ni/-, 𒊏 -/ra/- and 𒊑 -/ri/-, while Old Babylonian Sumerian retains them.
The original sequence 𒈬𒂊mu-e-, consisting of the ventive conjugation prefix 𒈬mu- and the 2nd person prefix 𒂊-e-, is contracted into 𒈬 /muː/ in the Ur III standard, but into 𒈨 /meː/ in the most common Old Babylonian variety.[544]
In general, Old Babylonian Sumerian preserved many features of Northern Sumerian, in contrast to the decidedly Southern character of the Ur III standard. This is doubtlessly connected to the fact that the centre of power in Babylonia moved to the north.[543] In particular, it uses spellings that show that its reflex of the Old Sumerianř phoneme is /d/.[545]
Interference from Akkadian and other late phenomena
In the Old Babylonian period and after it, the Sumerian used by scribes was influenced by their mother tongue, Akkadian, and sometimes more generally by imperfect acquisition of the language. As a result, various deviations from its original structure occur in texts or copies of texts from these times. The following effects have been found in the Old Babylonian period:[23]
confusion of the animate and inanimate gender, resulting in use of incorrect gender pronouns;[23]
occasional use of the animate plural-ene with inanimates;[159]
occasional use of the directive case marker -/e/ with animates;[546]
changes in the use of the nominal case markers so as to parallel the use of Akkadian prepositions, whereas the verbal case markers remain unchanged, resulting in mismatches between nominal and verbal case;[547]
generalized use of terminative -/še/ to express direction, displacing locative -/a/ as the expression ofillative andsublative meanings ("into" and "onto") and directive -/e/ as the expression of achieving contiguity with something;[548]
treatment of the prefix sequences /b/-/i/- and /n/-/i/-, which originally could mark the causee in transitive verbs, as causative markers even with intransitive verbs;[547]
dropping of final -/m/ in the copula -/am/ and sometimes its replacement with -/e/;
occurrence of -/e/ as amarû 3rd person singular marker even in intransitive verbs;[549]
occurrence of -/n/- as a transitive subject prefix in forms with a1st (and, rarely, also 2nd) person ergative participant;[549][550]
occurrence of pre-stem pronominal prefixes in ḫamṭu referring to anintransitive subject;[551]
occasional incorporation of the constituent noun of the phrasal verb into the verb stem: e.g.ki-ag̃2 orki ...ki-ag̃2 instead ofki ...ag̃2 "to love";[552]
confusion of the locative case (-/a/) and the directive case (-/e/), as well as the various prefix-case combinations;[547]
occasional use of the ergative/directive ending -/e/ instead of the genitive case marker -/a(k)/.
For Middle Babylonian and later texts, additional deviations have been noted:[39]
loss of the contrast between the phonemesg (/g/) andg̃ (/ŋ/), with the latter merging into the former, and use of the signs forg also for words with originalg̃[553]
omission of the ergative marker -/e/ and apparent loss of the notion of an ergative case;
use of 𒆤-ke4, originally expressing a sequence of the genitive marker -/ak/ and the ergative marker -/e/, simply as a marker of the genitive, equivalent to -/a(k)/ alone;
use of the ablative -/ta/ instead of the locative -/a/;
use of infrequent words, sometimes inappropriately, apparently extracted from lexical lists.[40][39]
use of Emesal forms in non-Emesal contexts: e.g. /umun/ "lord" and /gašan/ "lady" (instead of 𒂗en and 𒎏nin), moreover written with the innovated logograms 𒌋 and 𒃽, respectively.[554]
The table below shows signs used for simple syllables of the form CV or VC. As used for the Sumerian language, the cuneiform script was in principle capable of distinguishing at least 16 consonants,[555][556] transliterated as
b, d, g, g̃, ḫ, k, l, m, n, p, r, ř, s, š, t, z
as well as four vowel qualities,a, e, i, u.
Sale of a number of fields, probably from Isin,c. 2600 BC.
^Interestingly, the poorly documentedSealand Dynasty (c. 1732–1460 BC), which ruled in a region in Southern Mesopotamia corresponding to historical Sumer, appears to have particularly favoured Sumerian; Sumerian school documents from that time were found atTell Khaiber, some of which contain year names from the reign of a king with the Sumerian throne nameAya-dara-galama.[43]
^For words occurring in this article, proposed revised readings based on Old Babylonian lexical lists areambar >abbar,banšur >bansur,daḫ >taḫ,diš >deš,eden >edin,gig2 >geg2,imin >umun7,inim >enim,lagaš >lagas,nig̃in >nig̃en,ninda >inda,sa4 >še21,ugu2 >aagu2, andzaḫ3 >saḫ7.
^Since Akkadian, too, had developed aspiration in the realization of its voiceless (non-emphatic) consonants by that time,[86] that aspiration was also preserved after the extinction of Sumerian, in Akkadian native speakers' pronunciation of the language, and is hence reflected even inAncient Greek transcriptions of Sumerian words with the lettersφ,θ andχ.[86]
^Another, relatively uncommon opinion based on loanwords to and from Old Akkadian is that it was actually avoiceless dental fricative/θ/ as inthink or a sound similar to it.[92][93]
^Above all, two different signs for the syllable /ne/, which are systematically used in different morphemes, sometimes alternate so that a contraction with a following vowel /e/ causes the replacement of 𒉌ne2 by 𒉈ne:ne2 */ne/ + */e/ >ne */neː/. The suspected long /eː/ also seems to be resistant to apocope and assimilation which are undergone by the suspected short /e/.[106]
^Some frequent words considered to contain long vowels based on borrowings into or from Akkadian are𒆹ambār "marsh",𒀭ān "sky",𒄑𒍎g̃ešbanšūr,𒁓būr "vessel",𒁮𒃼dam-gār3 "merchant",𒂍ē2 (from earlier /haj/) "house",𒂊ēg2 "levee",𒂗ēn "highpriest",𒄀gīn6 "firm, true",𒋼𒀀kār "harbour",𒆤kīd "reed mat",𒈜nār "musician",𒉣nūn "prince",𒊕sāg̃ "head",𒉪𒁕šēr7-da "crime" and𒍣zīd "right".[104][105] Among grammatical morphemes, length has been posited with greater or lesser confidence for the nominal plural marker𒂊𒉈-enē, the 3rd person singular animate pronoun𒀀𒉈a-nē or𒂊𒉈e-nē, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person plural possessive enclitics𒈨-mē,𒍪𒉈𒉈-zu-nē-nē and𒀀𒉈𒉈-a-nē-nē, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person plural verbal prefixes𒈨-mē-,𒂊𒉈-e-nē- and𒉈-nnē-, the ablative𒋫-tā, the prospective prefix𒅇-ū3 (but shortened andqualitatively assimilated in an open syllable), the affirmative prefix𒈾nā- and the 1st and 2nd person pronouns𒂷g̃ē26 and𒍢zē2 in position before the enclitic copula𒈨-me-.[109]
^In particular, the verbs 𒊒ru "lay down", 𒋩sur "produce fluid", 𒃡ur3 "drag", and 𒌴ur4 "pluck" take open-vowel prefixes; and the verbs 𒌣de2 "pour", 𒂊e "do, say", 𒇯𒁺ed3 "go out", 𒆟keš2(d) "bind", and 𒅊se12 "live/dwell (plural)" take close-vowel prefixes.[101][110]
^This is most consistent with stops. With other consonants, there is some vacillation depending on the consonant, the following vowel, the relevant morpheme, the time period and the region; overall, sonorants favour doubling more than fricatives (especially sibilants) and affricates do, /a/ favours it more than /e/, and doubling is more extensive in Old Sumerian than in subsequent periods.[128]
^Nonetheless, some Sumerologists also posit genuine geminate consonants in Sumerian, as exemplified later in the article,[130] but orthographic doubling as seen above usually is not sufficient to se predict its presence.
^Here and in the following, the first line in the interlinear glosses shows a cuneiform spelling of a Sumerian word, phrase or sentence, the second line (in asmall font) shows the way in which that spelling is conventionallytransliterated into the Latin alphabet, the third one (initalics) shows a segmentation of the Sumerian phrases intomorphemes, the fourth one contains agloss for each of the morphemes, and the fifth one displays a translation into English.
^The initial vowel /e/ appears only after a consonant and is absent after a vowel.[152] Jagersma believes that it contracts with a preceding vowel, while lengthening it.[153] In Old Babylonian Sumerian, spellings suggesting such assimilation are found: 𒇽𒅇𒉈lu2-u3-ne "men".[152]
^As is generally the case with the vowel -/e/, the vowel of the ergative ending can contract with a preceding vowel, lengthening it:lu2-e > 𒇽𒅇lu2-u3 "man (erg.)". In early texts, the length of the vowel isn't marked at all, leaving the ending with no reflection in the spelling.
^According to Jagersma, this is a tendency due to semantic reasons, but not a strict rule of the language.[170]
^Also known traditionally as the "locative-terminative".[171] It has been pointed out that the term "directive" is misleading, since this Sumerian case simply expresses contiguity, which may or maynot be the result of movement in a certain direction. Based on its meaning, it could be calledadessive,[172] but itcan also express the destination of a movement, making the meaningallative.[173] Similarly, the Sumerian locative expresses internal location both as a stative condition (inessive meaning) or as the result of a movement (illative meaning).[173]
^With animates, the dative is usually used instead.[174]
^The final consonant /k/ appears only in front of a following vowel (in the spelling, and at least by Ur III times in pronunciation as well[175]); see the section onConsonants above for this phenomenon. Thus, we find 𒈗𒆷lugal-la for {lugal-ak} "of the king", but 𒈗𒆷𒄰lugal-la-kam for {lugal-ak-am} "(it) is of the king". Moreover, if /k/ is preserved, the preceding vowel often seems to be omitted at least in writing, especially after /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /s/, /š/ and /ḫ/: 𒈗𒄰lugal-kam.[176] Conversely, the initial vowel /a/ of the genitive marker appears to be dropped or assimilated after a preceding stem-final vowel incontent words: e.g. {dumu-ak} is written simply 𒌉dumu, presumably standing for */dumu(k)/.[177] The same appears to happen after the plural marker 𒂊𒉈-e-ne and the plural possessive pronominal enclitics 𒈨-me "our", 𒍪𒉈𒉈-zu-ne-ne "your (pl.)" and (𒀀/𒂊)𒉈𒉈-a/e-ne-ne "their", so that the sequences of these morphemes and the genitive end in -/e(k)/. However, there is some disagreement on the treatment of content words and the nature of the whole process; see the following footnote on this matter. Finally, the genitive marker occasionally seems to be simply omitted in writing,[175] especially after a fricative.[178]
^In front of the vowel /a/ of the genitive marker -/ak/ and the locative marker /a/, the possessive pronominal enclitics 𒈬-g̃u10 "my", 𒍪-zu "your (sing.)", 𒉌-ni "his/her" and 𒁉-bi "its" are contracted and/or assimilated, so that they appear as 𒂷-g̃a2, 𒍝-za, 𒈾-na and 𒁀-ba, respectively. In contrast, these case markers do not cause the loss of the final /e/ in the plural marker 𒂊𒉈-e-ne and in the plural possessive pronominal enclitics 𒈨-me "our", 𒍪𒉈𒉈-zu-ne-ne "your (pl.)" and (𒀀/𒂊)𒉈𒉈-a/e-ne-ne "their". In the case of the genitive, the -/a/ of the case marker is elided instead, so that the genitive sequence ends in -/e(k)/.[177][175] There is some evidence that the stem-final vowel was also dropped in somecontent words under unclear circumstances, but that this was obscured by the spelling.[175] With respect to the genitive, Jagersma tentatively suggests and Zólyomi (2017: 42–43) concurs that the variation in both content words and enclitics was determined by vowel length: a preceding short vowel generally assimilated to the /a/ and the product was a long /aː/, whereas a preceding long vowel (as in the plural marker, which they believe to have been pronounced -/eneː/) caused dropping of the following /a/.
^The allomorph -/r/ is used after vowels. In early texts, it may not be expressed at all. Alternatively, the alternation may be ignored in the spelling, so that-ra is written even after vowels.[179] Additionally, in the Ur III period,-a may occur instead of-ra after possessive pronominal enclitics or the genitive marker.[180]
^With inanimates, the directive is usually used instead.[181]
^The meaning is not necessarily "up to" or "until" as with a terminative case, but rather expresses a general direction, so this case could have been calleddirective.
^The allomorph -/š/ is used after vowels. In early texts, it may not be expressed graphically at all. Alternatively, the alternation may be ignored in the spelling, so that-še3 is written even after vowels.[182]
^Although the marker is never written with a sign for VC, it seems likely that there was an allomorph -/d/ used after vowels, leading to the dative marker remaining unwritten in this position in early texts.[183]
^Unlike the Indo-European locative cases, the Sumerian locative can express not only a static location, but also the direction of a movement; the key feature is that the spatial meaning isinessive ("in") orsuperessive ("on").[173]
^Jagersma believes that, like the nominalizing enclitic, this marker originally began in a glottal stop (/ʔa/).[184] The glottal stop, in his view, later assimilated to the preceding consonant and caused it to be geminated.[185]
^With animates, the corresponding case in some constructions is the dative.[186]
^With animates, the construction 𒆠...(𒀀)𒋫 /ki X-a(k)-ta/, lit. "from the place of X" is used.[187]
^The substance someone fills somethingwith is in the absolutive.
^The variant with /e/ is found in Old Babylonian and has a few attestations in Ur III Neo-Sumerian.
^The initial /a/ is present after consonants (albeit not always written, especially in earlier periods), but contracts with a preceding vowel.[198]
^The inanimate has no number distinction, so 𒁉-bi can mean both "its" and "their".
^The forms /menden/ or /me/ for "we" and /menzen/ for "you (pl.)" are only attested in Sumero-Akkadian lexical lists and, in the case of /mende(n)/, in an Old Babylonian literary text. Two of them seem to consist of the enclitic copula conjugated in the corresponding person and number ("(who) we are", "(who) you (pl.) are"). Another form given in lexical lists is 𒍝𒂊𒈨𒂗𒍢𒂗za-e-me-en-ze2-en, clearly a combination of the personal pluralyou (sing.) and the 2nd person plural form of the copula. For these reasons, their authenticity is considered dubious.[199][200]
^The forms /menden/ or /me/ for "we" and /menzen/ for "you (pl.)" are only attested in Sumero-Akkadian lexical lists and, in the case of /mende(n)/, in an Old Babylonian literary text. Two of them seem to consist of the enclitic copula conjugated in the corresponding person and number ("(who) we are", "(who) you (pl.) are"). Another form given in lexical lists is 𒍝𒂊𒈨𒂗𒍢𒂗za-e-me-ze2-en, clearly a combination of the personal plural "you" (sing.) and the 2nd person plural form of the copula. For these reasons, their authenticity is considered dubious.[199][200]
^The variant with /e/ is found in Old Babylonian and has a few attestations in Ur III Neo-Sumerian.[201][202][203][204]
^The initial /a/ is present after consonants (albeit not always written, especially in earlier periods), but contracts with a preceding vowel.[198]
^It has been ascribed a more contrastive nuance "this (as opposed to others)".[207]
^Jagersma considers the correct reading of the sign 𒁉bi in the possessive/demonstrative enclitic to bebe2.
^These variants are generally not used as counting words, but rather as adjectives meaning "single", "alone" and the like, but there are some indications that they might have functioned as numerals in very early periods or occasionally.[240]
^With a long vowel due to the origin from a contraction according to Jagersma.
^The earliest attestation of these terms is from the Middle Babylonian period. The original Sumerian terms may have been 𒆸lugud2 "short" and 𒁍gid2 "long".[252]
^As a first stage in this development, Jagersma reconstructs a prehistoric Sumerian system where /a/- signalled imperfectivity and /i/- perfectivity, before themarû-ḫamṭu tense-aspect distinction took over that role.ḫamṭu forms with /a/- were interpreted as statives, increasingly marginalised in the South, but given a new additional function in the North as early as the Fara period texts (Jagersma 2010: 548–549).
^The common denominator is that these sequences begin in a single consonant, which makes the syllable containing /u/ anopen syllable. As already seen with a number of other prefixes above, assimilation generally happens in open syllables and not in closed ones. For example, no assimilation happens in the sequence /mu-n-ši-/.
^In particular, this is shown by the fact that sequences like {ba-n-ši-} and {ba-n-da-} are possible in attested Sumerian (even though {ba-b-ši-} and {ba-b-da-} remain impossible because of the origin ofba-[320]).
^It has been claimed that the reflexive object may also be direct in some cases[325]
^It has been claimed by some that the marker on the noun can also be omitted when the corresponding verb prefix expresses the same meaning, but this has been interpreted as a purely graphical phenomenon.[343]
^Also-e- in some Old Babylonian texts. Note that-e-, too, had a tendency to assimilate to the preceding vowel.[347][348]
^Among other things, the assumption of a geminate allomorph-nn- explains the fact that the finite prefix /i/- occurs in front of the dative prefix sequence written 𒈾-na- and the directive prefix sequence written 𒉌-ni-.[351] This would have been unexpected if -n- were a single consonant, because /i/- otherwise never appears in front of a single consonant (unless it is the stem-initial one).[256] It also explains why /mu-/ is sometimes assimilated before the locative ({mu-ni-}mi-ni-), but never before the personal prefix followed by the directive ({mu-nn-i})mu-ni-/mu-un-ni-.[352]
^The 1st person plural dative marker, like the corresponding singular, seems to include the ventive prefix (Jagersma 2010: 390, 410).
^Only attested in late texts.[354] For the dative and the directive, the singular form {-r-} is sometimes used with plural reference as well (resulting in {-r-a-} and {-r-i-}, respectively), and this is sometimes combined with the plural suffix {-enzen}, which otherwise normally refers only to subjects and direct objects.[355] This may be an Old Babylonian innovation.[356]
^However, the plural pronominal markers usually don't take the dative marker and never take the directive marker; intead, they express a dative or directive participant on their own (although there are some attestations of the expected /-ne-a/ and /-me-a/ from the Ur III period and Old Babylonian periods.[358]
'^The allomorph-di3- is used before the locative prefix/-ni-/).[359]) The variant 𒉈de3 / 𒉈 𒋼de4, found in Old Babylonian Sumerian, is the result of the contraction of-da- and a following-e-, but sometimes also seems to occur because of assimilation to apreceding' -e-: /ba-e-da-/ > /ba-e-de-/.[360]
^Thomsen and Foxvog believe that there is also an allomorph /-ra-/ used between vowels.[361] Jagersma (2010) generally assumes idiosyncratic case use in such cases.
^However, the plural pronominal markers usually don't take the dative marker and never take the directive marker; instead, they express a dative or directive participant on their own (although there are some attestations of the expected /-ne-a/ and /-me-a/ from the Ur III period and Old Babylonian periods.[358]
^According to Jagersma (2010: 476–482) and Zólyomi (2017: 206, 215), the allomorph-i- is used after consonant, while-e- is used after vowels. In the latter case,-e- may be assimilated to the preceding vowel, while the vowel undergoescompensatory lengthening: 𒈬𒂊mu-e- > 𒈬𒅇mu-u3- etc. In Old Babylonian Sumerian, it is the preceding vowel that assimilated to-e-: 𒁕𒂊-da-e- > 𒉈de3 The prefix does not seem to surface at all between a vowel and a subject/object prefix as inma2-a mu-na-*(e)-n-g̃ar "he loaded it on the boat for her".[363] This restricts the possibilities of the co-occurrence of directive forms and forces the grammar to choose which participant to express: e.g. the dative prefixes andba- take precedence over the inanimate directive-b-i, while there is vacillation in the choice between prioritizing it or the locative (Jagersma 2010: 442–444).
^The locative prefix is unique in that it is never attached to a pronominal prefix, but rather combines in itself the pronominal and dimensional meanings, meaning "there" or "in there".
^For this reason, it appears that a directive participant is sometimes untypically cross-referenced with adative prefix in order to allow the locative to also occur in the verb form (/b-i-/, but /b-a-ni-/).[365]
^Zólyomi (2017: 201–222) refers to the "in(to)", "on(to)" and "at" constructions as "locative1", "locative2" and "locative3", respectively. Jagersma (2010: 416–428) refers to the "at" construction as the "oblique object".
^Occasional exceptions from this restriction occur only in Old Babylonian texts (Jagersma 2010: 509).
^In Old Babylonian texts,-e- for the 1st person singular may occur, making it identical with the 2nd person singular just as they are identical in the suffixes, but this may be the result of a late analogy (Edzard 2003: 87, cf. Michalowski 2007).
^A significant minority of Sumerologists believe that the prefixes of the 1st and 2nd person are /-en-/ rather than /-V-/ and /-e-/ when they stand for the object (i.e. inmarû). That would be indistinguishable in writing (and even possibly, according to some, also in speech[394]) from the 3rd person animate-n-.[394][395][396]
^A significant minority of Sumerologists believe that the prefixes of the 1st and 2nd person are /-en-/ rather than /-e-/ when they stand for the object (i.e. inmarû); that would often be indistinguishable from the 3rd person animate-n-.[394][395][396]
^The inanimate agreement marker has no number distinction.
^According to several researchers, -/b/- as a direct object marker may be absent under conditions that are not entirely clear; in particular, several verbs such as 𒌣de2 "pour", 𒆕řu2 "build", 𒃻g̃ar "put" and 𒂊e "say" very often (but not always) lack it.[397]
^-/nne/- with geminate /n/ according to Jagersma (2010: 339–340)
^The morpheme -/ne/- for the 3rd person animate plural subject was used in Old Sumerian and was replaced by -/b/- in Neo-Sumerian.[399]
^Jagersma (2010: 311) treats this as a suppletive stem. As another instance of the same pattern, Zólyomi (2017) cites 𒌓𒁺e3 vsed2.[410] Foxvog (2010: 120) points out that this class has at most these two members and considers its status to be suspect.
^More unpredictable stem alternations of Sumerian verbs, specificallymarû reduplicating stems, are indicated in the catalogue of verbs in Thomsen (2001: 295–323) and inHalloran (1999).
^In addition, Sallaberger (2020: 59) believes that there was an additional stem used in Old Sumerian specifically for leading animals, namely 𒊏ra.
^Traditionally, this verb was considered a four-stem verb with the alternationře6 (sing.ḫamṭu),tum2/tum3 (sing.marû),laḫ4 (plur.ḫamṭu andmarû)[414]); newer research has promoted a split into two verbs, although there are disagreements about the semantic/functional difference between them.[415][413]
^Traditionally, this verb was considered a four stem verb with the alternationře6 (sing.ḫamṭu),tum2/tum3 (sing.marû),laḫ4 (plur.ḫamṭu andmarû);[414] newer research has prompted a split into two verbs.[415][413]
^The stem 𒉐tum3 has, exceptionally, aḫamṭu agreement pattern in spite of the verb itself being used withmarû meaning".:[418] e.g. 𒁀𒀭𒉐ba-an-tum3 "he will take it away" (Jagersma 2010: 266–367).
^Traditionally, this verb was considered a four stem verb with the alternationře6 (sing.ḫamṭu),tum2/tum3 (sing.marû),laḫ4 (plur.ḫamṭu andmarû);[414] newer research has prompted a split into two verbs.[415][413]
^𒆪suš in intransitive usage anddur in transitive usage "to seat, set" according to Sallaberger (2023: 57). Cf. Foxvog (2016: 82) citing Attinger.
^The use of capitals indicate that the pronunciation of the reduplicated stem is unknown or uncertain.
^Only in post-Ur III texts (Jagersma 2010: 312–314)
^In some analyses, this is because the forms are morphologically identical: 1st and 2nd person singular is {i-zaḫ-en} and even 3rd person singular is {i-zaḫ} in bothḫamṭu andmarû.[425] In others, it is because the /-e/ of the imperfective stem suffix is not visible in front of the person suffixes: 1st and 2nd person singularḫamṭu {i-zaḫ-en} andmarû {i-zaḫ-e-en} are written identically.[426]
^In fact, Zólyomi (2017: 123–124) retains the terminology of tense, preterite forḫamṭu and present-future formarû, but describes them as expressing anterior actions (ḫamṭu) vs simultaneous or posterior actions (marû)relative to a reference point which is not necessarily the present and is not specified by the verb form itself.
^Edzard (2003: 95) believes that this use ofba- first occurs in Neo-Sumerian, but Jagersma (2010: 496) states that it was already present in Old Sumerian.
^Some information regarding the case markers governed by individual Sumerian verbs is listed in the verb catalogue of Thomsen (2001: 295–323).
^Especially in earlier scholarship, the sign 𒉈 was read in this context asde3.[499] The-ne has been variously interpreted as an obsolete locative ending, producing the interpretation of {zig-a-g̃u-ne} as 'at my rising'[500] or as identical to the demonstrative enclitic-ne "this".[501]
^abcKrecher, J. 1992: UD.GAL.NUN versus ‘Normal’ Sumerian: Two Literatures or One? Fronzaroli, P. (ed.).Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. Firenze. 285–303.Online
^[1] Eleanor Robson, Information Flows in Rural Babylonia c. 1500 BC, in C. Johnston (ed.), The Concept of the Book: the Production, Progression and Dissemination of Information, London: Institute of English Studies/School of Advanced Study, January 2019ISBN978-0-9927257-4-7
^[2] Al-Rawi, Farouk N.H., "A Fragment of a Cylinder of Adad-Apla-Iddina", Sumer 37, pp. 116–117, 1981
^[3] McGrath, William, "Resurgent Babylon: A Cultural, Political and Intellectual History of the Second Dynasty of Isin", Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2024
^Piotr Michalowski, "Sumerian," "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages." Ed. Roger D. Woodard (2004, Cambridge University Press). Pages 19–59
^Joan Oates (1986).Babylon (Rev. ed.). London: Thames and Hudson. p. 19.
^John Haywood (2005).The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations. London: Penguin Books. p. 28.
^Dewart, Leslie (1989).Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. p. 260.
^abPiotr Michalowski, "Sumerian,"The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (2004, Cambridge), pg. 22
^Diakonoff, Igor M. (1997). "External Connections of the Sumerian Language".Mother Tongue.3:54–63.
^Sathasivam, A (2017).Proto-Sumero-Dravidian: The Common Origin of Sumerian and Dravidian Languages. Kingston, UK: History and Heritage Unit, Tamil Information Centre.ISBN978-1-85201-024-9.
^Parpola, S., "Sumerian: A Uralic Language (I)", Proceedings of the 53th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: Vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East (2 parts), edited by Leonid E. Kogan, Natalia Koslova, Sergey Loesov and Serguei Tishchenko, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, pp. 181–210, 2010
^Gostony, C. G. 1975: Dictionnaire d'étymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée. Paris.
^Bobula, Ida (1951).Sumerian affiliations. A Plea for Reconsideration. Washington D.C.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) (Mimeographed ms.)
^Jan Braun (2004). "SUMERIAN AND TIBETO-BURMAN, Additional Studies".Wydawnictwo Agade. Warszawa.ISBN83-87111-32-5..
^"Urges Turks to teach culture of their race, Kemal says historians have maligned people, Sun Language revived".The News Journal. 2 March 1936. p. 24.
^Kurtkaya, Mehmet (2017).Sumerian Turks: Civilization's Journey from Siberia to Mesopotamia. Independently Published.ISBN9781521532362.
^Bomhard, Allan R.; Hopper, Paul J. (1984). "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory".Toward Proto-Nostratic: a new approach to the comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.ISBN9789027235190.
^Ruhlen, Merritt (1994).The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 143.
^Høyrup, Jens (1998). "Sumerian: The descendant of a proto-historical creole? An alternative approach to the Sumerian problem".Published: AIΩN. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione linguistica.14 (1992, publ. 1994). Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli:21–72, Figs. 1–3. Available in:http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368171.pdf
^Monaco, Salvatore F., "Proto-Cuneiform And Sumerians", Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, vol. 87, no. 1/4, pp. 277–82, 2014
^Whittaker, Gordon (2008)."The Case for Euphratic"(PDF).Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences.2 (3). Tbilisi:156–168.Archived(PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved11 December 2012.
^InKeilschrift, Transcription und Übersetzung : nebst ausführlichem Commentar und zahlreichen Excursen : eine assyriologische Studie (Leipzig : J.C. Hinrichs, 1879)
^Prince, J. Dyneley, "The Vocabulary of Sumerian", Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 25, pp. 49–67, 1904
^abMichalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.)The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.16
^ab"Sumerian language".The ETCSL project. Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. 2005-03-29.Archived from the original on 2008-09-02. Retrieved2011-07-30.
^Attinger, Pascal, 1993.Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. p. 212[4]()
^[Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es einh im Sumerischen?" In:Babel und Bibel 3,passim]
^Besides Edzard, Attinger and Jagersma, also accepted by Zólyomi (2017: 29 and passim), Sallaberger (2023: 35), Zamudio (2017: 45) and by Kogan and Krebernik (2021). Rejected by Michalowski (2020: 93) and Foxvog (2016: 18).
^Michalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.)The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.17
^Falkenstein, A. 1959. Untersuchungen zur sumerischen Grammatik. Zum Akzent des Sumerischen.Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 53 (1959) 104.
^Krecher, J. 1969. Verschlußlaute und Betonung im Sumerischen, in: M. Dietrich, W. Röllig, ed.,Lišan mitḥurti (Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden). Alter Orient und Altes Tetament 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn. 1969. 157–197.
^Zólyomi, Gábor, 1993:Voice and Topicalization in Sumerian. PhD Dissertation[5]Archived 2008-10-01 at theWayback Machine
^abJohnson, Cale, 2004:In the Eye of the Beholder: Quantificational, Pragmatic and Aspectual Features of the *bí- Verbal Formation in Sumerian, Dissertation. UCLA, Los Angeles. P.83–84[6]Archived 2013-06-22 at theWayback Machine
^Here and in the following, vowel-initial morphemes are denoted in parentheses with the cuneiform sign for the corresponding vowel-initial syllable, but in actual spelling, signs for consonant-vowel sequences are typically used after consonant-final stems.
^abWilcke, Claus 2013. ’Dieser Ur-Namma hier… Eine auf die Darstellung weisende Statueninschrift.’Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 107: 173–186.Online.
^Civil, Miguel. The Forerunners ofMarû andḪamṭu in Old Babylonian. In:Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, T. Abusch (ed.). Eisenbrauns, 2002, pp. 63–71.
^Sallaberger (2023: 54), Foxvog (2016: 60), cf. Edzard (2003: 36). Attinger (1993: 148) describes the logic of this reasoning, although he does not entirely agree with it.
^The view of Falkenstein cited in Jagersma (2010: 579). Cf. Edzard (2003: 119) for a slightly different description. Civil (2020: 139), too, admits that it sometimes simply gives "an emphatic sense".
^Foxvog (2016: 108), Rubio (2007: 1342–1343). Originally posited by Miguel Civil (also in Civil 2020: 139).
^Sallaberger (2023: 128), somewhat similarly in Edzard (2003: 119).
^Jagersma (2010: 579), Zamudio (2017: 183–184, 188–189), Attinger (1993: 289), Sallaberger (2023: 128, 132). In contrast, Zólyomi (2017: 240) assumes the formna(n)- with an underlying final nasal for both meanings.
^Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Rubio (2007: 1355), and Falkenstein cited in Thomsen (2001: 177). Some authors, including Thomsen (2001) herself, instead believe /mi-ni-/ to be derived from /bi-ni-/.
^Thomsen (2001: 183–184) accepts this with reservations. Foxvog (2016: 85) recognises the connection and the directive meaning, but rejects the /b-i-/ sequence as a whole, viewing the /i/ as epenthetic.
^Rubio (2007: 1347) recognises this, but considers the first element to be /ba-/. Thomsen (2001: 183–184) accepts the analysis as /b-i/ with reservations.
^abcCf. Edzard (2003: 95), Woods (2008: 303), Civil (2020: 172, 176). Foxvog (2016: 75), Thomsen (2001: 183) and Rubio (2007: 1349) dispute the accuracy of the term, but nonetheless acknowledge the tendency ofba- to occur in the absence of an (explicit) agent. Both Rubio and Thomsen view it as being in some sense the opposite ofmu- (as does Woods): according to Rubio (2007: 347–1348),ba- expresses "focus on locus" as opposed to person; according to Thomsen (2001: 179), it is "preferred with inanimate and non-agentive subjects" and, at least in early Neo-Sumerian texts, before case prefixes referring to inanimate beings.
^Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91–92), Edzard (2003: 92–93). Woods (2008: 306), too, believes that "the most viable candidate, on the basis of function and meaning, remains the one implied by the analysis of the ancients, namely,imma- <i+m+ba-". Thomsen (2003: 162–163), following Falkenstein, recognises the connection with /ba-/ and /bi-/, but not the connection with /im-/.
^Rubio (2007: 1348, 1350–1351), Civil (2020: 141–145, 167–179), Michalowski (2007). Woods (2008: 304), in spite of his statement on the origin and composition ofim-ma-, nevertheless calls it "a primary voice marker that is functionally independent ofba-". Specifically, Rubio and Michalowski consider /imma-/ a gemination of /mu-/, which is rejected by Woods on semantic grounds (2008: 306).
^abcFoxvog (2016: 69–70). Cf. Zólyomi (2017: 86–87), who does not mention such a possibility. Jagersma (2010) interprets such apparent absences of case markers mostly as orthographic omissions of consonant-final allomorphs.
^Jagersma (2010: 381–389, 327–338). The pronominal prefix set used before dimensional prefixes and the one used as subject/object markers before the stem are commonly listed separately, but the latter are a subset of the former.
^Zólyomi 1993 and 2017, Attinger 1993, Edzard (2003: 98), Jagersma 2010: 468, 477–478; originally posited by Falkenstein. Referenced and disputed by Foxvog (2016: 87–88)
^Mostly based on Jagersma (2010: 359–363) and Zólyomi (2017: 126–127). Cf. also Foxvog (2016: 62–63), Thomsen: (2001: 142–154), Michalowski (2004), Rubio (2007: 1357–1359), Edzard (2003: 81–89), Sallaberger (2023: 103–106) for slightly different descriptions or formulations.
^Jagersma (2010: 312–314), Zólyomi (2017: 129), Sallaberger (2023: 55–56). The spelling of the reduplicated form is indicated in the table only where it is not simply a doubling of the main form.
^Hartmann, Henrike (1960).Die Musik der Sumerischen Kultur. p. 138.
^Whittaker, Gordon. "Linguistic Anthropology and the Study of Emesal as (a) Women's Language". in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (eds).Sex and gender in the ancient Near East: proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002.
^Garcia-Ventura, A. (2017). Emesal studies today: a preliminary assessment. In L. Feliu, F. Karahashi and G. Rubio (eds.):The First Ninety Years. A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil, SANER 12, De Gruyter, Boston / Berlin, pp. 145–158.
^Foxvog, Daniel A.Introduction to Sumerian grammar(PDF). pp. 16–17,20–21.Archived(PDF) from the original on January 3, 2017 (about phonemes g̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs).
^Jagersma, A. H.A descriptive grammar of Sumerian(PDF) (Thesis). pp. 43–45,50–51.Archived(PDF) from the original on November 25, 2015 (about phonemes g̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs).
Attinger, Pascal (1993).Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.ISBN3-7278-0869-1.Online
Attinger, Pascal (2009).Tableau grammatical du sumérien (problèmes choisis).Online publication.
Bartelmus, Alexa (2016).Fragmente einer großen Sprache. Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Civil, Miquel (2020).Esbós de gramàtica sumèria. An outline of Sumerian grammar. A cura de Lluís Feliu Institut del Pròxim Orient Antic.
Dewart, Leslie (1989).Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.ISBN0-8020-2690-7.
Edzard, Dietz Otto (2003).Sumerian Grammar. Leiden: Brill.ISBN90-04-12608-2. (grammar treatment for the advanced student)
Falkenstein, Adam (1949).Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagas I: Schrift- und Formenlehre. Analecta orientalia 28. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Falkenstein, Adam (1950).Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagas II: Syntax. Analecta orientalia 29. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
George, Andrew (2007). "Babylonian and Assyrian: A History of Akkadian". In: Postgate, J. N., (ed.),Languages of Iraq, Ancient and Modern. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, p. 37.OnlineArchived 2020-07-31 at theWayback Machine
Halloran, John (11 August 1999)."Sumerian Lexicon"(PDF).Sumerian Language Page.Archived(PDF) from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved20 February 2021.
Hayes, John (1990; 2nd revised ed. 2000; 3rd revised ed. 2018).A Manual of Sumerian: Grammar and Texts. UNDENA, Malibu CA.ISBN978-0-9798937-4-2. (primer for the beginning student)
Hayes, John (1997),Sumerian. Languages of the World/Materials #68, LincomEuropa, Munich.ISBN3-929075-39-3. (41 pp. précis of the grammar)
Jagersma, B. (2009).A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, Universitet Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jestin, J. (1951).Abrégé de Grammaire Sumérienne, Geuthner, Paris.ISBN2-7053-1743-0. (118pp overview and sketch, in French)
Keetman, Jan (2017). Die Markierung des Passivs im Sumerischen.Wiener Zeitschrift fü die Kunde des Morgenlandes 107.
Kogan, L., Krebernik, M. (2021). A history of the Akkadian lexicon. In: J.-P. Vita (ed.),History of the Akkadian Language. Vol. I. Leiden–Boston, 366–476. P. 418–419.
Michalowski, Piotr (2004). "Sumerian",The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages pp 19–59, ed. Roger Woodward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-05-2156-256-0.
Michalowski, Piotr (2020). "Sumerian". In: Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee (ed.).A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pinches, Theophilus G. "Further Light upon the Sumerian Language.", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1914, pp. 436–40
Rubio, Gonzalo (2007). "Sumerian Morphology". InMorphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, pp. 1327–1379. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN,ISBN1-57506-109-0.
Rubio, Gonzalo (2009). "Sumerian Literature". In Carl S. Ehrlich (ed.). From an antique land : an introduction to ancient Near Eastern literature. Rowman & Littlefield.
Sallaberger, Walther (2023a).Sumerisch: Eine Einführung in Sprache, Schrift und Texte. Mit 50 Texten von Gudea von Lagaš bis Lipit-Eštar von Isin. Band 1. Die sumerische Sprache. Gladbeck: PeWe-Verlag.Online
Colonna d’Istria, Laurent (2023).Sumerisch: Eine Einführung in Sprache, Schrift und Texte II. Sumerische Texte in Keilschrift, Zeichenlisten. Gladbeck: PeWe-Verlag.Online
Sallaberger, Walther (2023b).Sumerisch: Eine Einführung in Sprache, Schrift und Texte. Band 3: Die Texte in Bearbeitung, Glossar. Gladbeck: PeWe-Verlag.Online
Thomsen, Marie-Louise (2001) [1984].The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.ISBN87-500-3654-8. (Well-organized with over 800 translated text excerpts.)
Viano, Maurizio (2016).The Reception of Sumerian Literature in the Western Periphery. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
Volk, Konrad (1997).A Sumerian Reader. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.ISBN88-7653-610-8. (collection of Sumerian texts, some transcribed, none translated)
Woods, Cristopher (2008).The Grammar of Perspective: The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice. Leiden: Brill.
Zamudio, Rafael Jiménez (2017).Nueva gramática de Sumerio. Madrid: Universidad de Alcalá.
Zólyomi, Gábor (2017).An Introduction to the Grammar of Sumerian. Open Access textbook, Budapest.Link 1Link 2
Debourse, Céline and Gabbay, Uri, "The Late Babylonian Series of ‘Ancient Sumerian’: Structure, Contents, and the Agency of Ritual Texts", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 28–42, 2024
[7] Geng, Jinrui, "An Outline of the Synchronic and Diachronic Variations of Sumerian", 2nd International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.
CDLI: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative a large corpus of Sumerian texts in transliteration, largely from the Early Dynastic and Ur III periods, accessible with images.
.jpg)
_circa_2400_BCE.jpg)
