Sumerian language
Sumerian | |
---|---|
đ
Žđ EmegÌir | |
Native to | Sumer and Akkad |
Region | Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) |
Era | Attested from c. 2900 BC. Went out of vernacular use around 1700 BC; used as a classical language until about 100 AD.[1] |
Language family | Language isolate |
Dialects | |
Writing system | Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-2 | sux |
ISO 639-3 | sux |
Linguist List | uga |
Glottolog | sume1241 |
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA. |
Sumerian (Sumerian: đ Žđ , romanized: EmegÌir, lit. ''native language'') was the language of ancient Sumer. It is one of the oldest attested languages, dating back to at least 2900 BC. It is a local language isolate that was spoken in ancient Mesopotamia, in the area that is modern-day Iraq.
Akkadian, a Semitic language, gradually replaced Sumerian as the primary spoken language in the area c. 2000 BC (the exact date is debated),[4] but Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Akkadian-speaking Mesopotamian states such as Assyria and Babylonia until the 1st century AD.[5][6] Thereafter, it seems to have fallen into obscurity until the 19th century, when Assyriologists began deciphering the cuneiform inscriptions and excavated tablets that had been left by its speakers.
In spite of its extinction, Sumerian exerted a significant impact on the languages of the area. The cuneiform script, originally used for Sumerian, was widely adopted by numerous regional languages such as Akkadian, Elamite, Eblaite, Hittite, Hurrian, Luwian and Urartian; it similarly inspired the Old Persian alphabet which was used to write the eponymous language. The impact was perhaps the greatest on Akkadian whose grammar and vocabulary were significantly influenced by Sumerian.[7]
Stages
The history of written Sumerian can be divided into several periods:[9][10][11][12]
- Proto-literate period â c. 3200 BC to c. 3000 BC
- Archaic Sumerian â c. 3000 BC to c. 2600 BC
- Old or Classical Sumerian â c. 2500 BC to c. 2350 BC
- Old Akkadian Sumerian â c. 2350 â 2200 BC
- Neo-Sumerian â c. 2200 BC to c. 2000 BC, further divided into:
- Old Babylonian Sumerian â c. 2000 BC to c. 1600 BC
- Post-Old Babylonian Sumerian â after c. 1600 BC.
The pictographic writing system used during the Proto-literate period (3200 BC â 3000 BC), corresponding to the Uruk 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.[13] The texts from this period are mostly administrative.[9]
The next period, Archaic Sumerian (3000 BC â 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 from Ur (c. 2800 BC). Texts from Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh from 2600 to 2500 BC (the so-called Fara period or Early Dynastic Period IIIa) are the first to span a greater variety of genres, including not only administrative texts and sign lists, but also legal and literary texts (including proverbs) and incantations; however, the spelling of grammatical elements remains optional.[9]
The Old 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 of Lagash, from where the overwhelming majority of surviving texts come. The sources include important royal inscriptions with historical content as well as extensive administrative records.[9] Sometimes included in the Old Sumerian stage is also the Old Akkadian period (c. 2350 BC â c. 2200 BC),[14] during which Mesopotamia, including Sumer, was united under the rule of the Akkadian Empire. At this time Akkadian functioned as the primary official language, but texts in Sumerian (primarily administrative) did continue to be produced as well.[9]
The first phase of the Neo-Sumerian period corresponds to the time of Gutian rule in Mesopotamia; the most important sources come from the autonomous Second Dynasty of Lagash, especially from the rule of Gudea, which has produced extensive royal inscriptions. The second phase corresponds to the unification of Mesopotamia under the Third 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 â besides the extremely detailed and meticulous administrative records, there are numerous royal inscriptions, legal documents, letters and incantations.[14] 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,[4][15] as there are indications that many scribes[4][16] and even the royal court actually used Akkadian as their main spoken and native language.[16] Evidence has been adduced to the effect that native Sumerian speakers persisted, but only as a minority of the population.[16]
By the Old Babylonian period (c. 2000 â 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 a liturgical and classical 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) until as late as 1700 BC.[4] 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.[17] 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-called Isin-Larsa period (c. 2000 BC â c. 1750 BC). The Old Babylonian Empire, however, mostly used Akkadian in inscriptions, sometimes adding Sumerian versions.[16][18]
The Old Babylonian period, especially its early part,[9] 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[19] and the overwhelming majority of surviving manuscripts of Sumerian literary texts in general[20][21] can be dated to that time, and it is often seen as the "classical age" of Sumerian literature.[22] 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.[23][24][21] 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.[25][21] In addition, some of the first bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical 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)[26] and there are also grammatical texts - essentially bilingual paradigms listing Sumerian grammatical forms and their postulated Akkadian equivalents.[27]
After the Old Babylonian period[11] or, according to some, as early as 1700 BC,[9] 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[28] and only part of the literature known in the Old Babylonian period continued to be copied after its end around 1600 BC.[19] During the Middle Babylonian period, approximately from 1600 to 1000 BC, the Kassite rulers continued to use Sumerian in many of their inscriptions,[29][30] but Akkadian seems to have taken the place of Sumerian as the primary language of texts used for the training of scribes[31] and their Sumerian itself acquires an increasingly artificial and Akkadian-influenced form.[19][32][33] 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 via Sumerograms (cf. Japanese kanbun).[32] 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[29][30][34][35][a] and it retained that role until the eclipse of the tradition of cuneiform literacy itself in the beginning of the Common Era. The most popular genres for Sumerian texts after the Old Babylonian period were incantations, liturgical texts and proverbs; most commonly, the classics Lugal-e and An-gim were copied.[19]
Classification
Sumerian is widely accepted to be a local language isolate.[37][38][39][40] Sumerian was at one time widely held to be an Indo-European language, but that view has been almost universally rejected.[41] Since its decipherment in the early 20th century, scholars have tried to relate Sumerian to a wide variety of languages. Because Sumerian has prestige as the first attested written language, proposals for linguistic affinity sometimes have a nationalistic flavour, leading to attempts to link Sumerian with a range of widely disparate groups such as the Austroasiatic languages,[42] Dravidian languages,[43] Uralic languages such as Hungarian and Finnish,[44][45][46][47] and Sino-Tibetan languages.[48] Turkish nationalists have claimed that Sumerian was a Turkic language as part of the Sun language theory.[49][50] Additionally, long-range proposals have attempted to include Sumerian in broad macrofamilies.[51][52] Such proposals enjoy virtually no support among modern linguists, Sumerologists and Assyriologists and are typically seen as fringe theories.[53]
It has also been suggested that the Sumerian language descended from a late prehistoric creole language (HĂžyrup 1992).[54] However, no conclusive evidence, only some typological features, can be found to support HĂžyrup's view. A more widespread hypothesis posits a Proto-Euphratean language that preceded Sumerian in Mesopotamia and exerted an areal influence on it, especially in the form of polysyllabic words that appear "un-Sumerian"âmaking them suspect of being loanwordsâand are not traceable to any other known language. There is little speculation as to the affinities of this substratum language, or these languages, and it is thus best treated as unclassified.[55] Other researchers disagree with the assumption of a single substratum language and argue that several languages are involved.[56] A related proposal by Gordon Whittaker[57] is that the language of the proto-literary texts from the Late Uruk period (c. 3350â3100 BC) is really an early Indo-European language which he terms "Euphratic".
Writing system
Development
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,[58][59] cuneiform symbols were developed using a wedge-shaped stylus to impress the shapes into wet clay. This cuneiform ("wedge-shaped") mode of writing co-existed with the proto-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 a logosyllabic script comprising several hundred signs. Rosengarten (1967) lists 468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian) Lagash.
The cuneiform script was adapted to Akkadian 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.[60]
Transcription
Depending on the context, a cuneiform sign can be read either as one of several possible logograms, each of which corresponds to a word in the Sumerian spoken language, as a phonetic syllable (V, VC, CV, or CVC), or as a determinative (a marker of semantic category, such as occupation or place). (See the article Cuneiform.) Some Sumerian logograms were written with multiple cuneiform signs. These logograms are called diri-spellings, after the logogram đđ 'diri' which is written with the signs đ SI and đ A. The text transliteration of a tablet will show just the logogram, such as the word 'diri', 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 transcription against the actual tablet, to see if any signs, especially broken or damaged signs, should be represented differently.
Historiography
The key to reading logosyllabic cuneiform came from the Behistun inscription, a trilingual cuneiform inscription written in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian. (In a similar manner, the key to understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs was the bilingual [Greek and Egyptian with the Egyptian text in two scripts] Rosetta stone and Jean-François Champollion's transcription in 1822.)
In 1838 Henry Rawlinson, building on the 1802 work of Georg Friedrich Grotefend, was able to decipher 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 from archaeological excavations, mostly in the Semitic Akkadian language, which were duly deciphered.
By 1850, however, Edward Hincks came to suspect a non-Semitic origin for cuneiform. Semitic languages are structured according to consonantal forms, whereas cuneiform, when functioning phonetically, was a syllabary, binding consonants to particular vowels. Furthermore, no Semitic words could be found to explain the syllabic values given to particular signs.[63] 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 of Nippur, Larsa, and Uruk.
In 1856, Hincks argued that the untranslated language was agglutinative 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 if Akkad 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 to Paul Haupt, who published Die sumerischen Familiengesetze (The Sumerian family laws) in 1879.[64]
Ernest de Sarzec began excavating the Sumerian site of Tello (ancient Girsu, capital of the state of Lagash) in 1877, and published the first part of Découvertes en Chaldée with transcriptions of Sumerian tablets in 1884. The University of Pennsylvania began excavating Sumerian Nippur in 1888.
A Classified List of Sumerian Ideographs by R. BrĂŒnnow 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 â a Paris-based orientalist, Joseph HalĂ©vy, argued from 1874 onward that Sumerian was not a natural language, but rather a secret code (a cryptolect), and for over a decade the leading Assyriologists battled over this issue. For a dozen years, starting in 1885, Friedrich Delitzsch accepted HalĂ©vy's arguments, not renouncing HalĂ©vy until 1897.[65]
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 of Les inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad. Charles Fossey at the CollĂšge de France in Paris was another prolific and reliable scholar. His pioneering Contribution au Dictionnaire sumĂ©rienâassyrien, Paris 1905â1907, turns out to provide the foundation for P. Anton Deimel's 1934 Sumerisch-Akkadisches Glossar (vol. III of Deimel's 4-volume Sumerisches Lexikon).
In 1908, Stephen Herbert Langdon summarized the rapid expansion in knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian vocabulary in the pages of Babyloniaca, a journal edited by Charles Virolleaud, in an article "Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies", which reviewed a valuable new book on rare logograms by Bruno Meissner.[66] Subsequent scholars have found Langdon's work, including his tablet transcriptions, to be not entirely reliable.
In 1944, the Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer provided a detailed and readable summary of the decipherment of Sumerian in his Sumerian Mythology.[67]
Friedrich Delitzsch published a learned Sumerian dictionary and grammar in the form of his Sumerisches Glossar and GrundzĂŒge der sumerischen Grammatik, both appearing in 1914. Delitzsch's student, Arno Poebel, published a grammar with the same title, GrundzĂŒge der sumerischen Grammatik, in 1923, and for 50 years it would be the standard for students studying Sumerian. Poebel's grammar was finally superseded in 1984 on the publication of The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure, by Marie-Louise Thomsen. While much of Thomsen's understanding of Sumerian grammar would later be rejected by most or all Sumerologists, Thomsen's grammar (often with express mention of the critiques put forward by Pascal Attinger in his 1993 ElĂ©ments de linguistique sumĂ©rienne: 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 include Dietz-Otto Edzard's 2003 Sumerian Grammar and Bram Jagersma's 2010 A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian (currently digital, but soon to be printed in revised form by Oxford University Press). Piotr Michalowski's essay (entitled, simply, "Sumerian") in the 2004 The 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 the Pennsylvania 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.
Phonology
Assumed phonological or morphological forms will be between slashes //, with plain text used for the standard Assyriological 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 actually occur.
Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is flawed and incomplete because of the lack of speakers, the transmission through the filter of Akkadian phonology and the difficulties posed by the cuneiform script. As I. M. Diakonoff observes, "when we try to find out the morphophonological 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".[68]
Consonants
Early Sumerian is conjectured to have had at least the consonants listed in the table below. The consonants in brackets 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.
Bilabial | Alveolar | Postalveolar | Velar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nasal | m ⟨m⟩ | n ⟨n⟩ | Ć ⟨gÌ⟩ | |||
Plosive | plain | p ⟨b⟩ | t ⟨d⟩ | k ⟨g⟩ | (Ê) | |
aspirated | pÊ° ⟨p⟩ | tÊ° ⟨t⟩ | kÊ° ⟨k⟩ | |||
Fricative | s ⟨s⟩ | Ê ⟨ĆĄ⟩ | x ⟨áž«~h⟩ | (h) | ||
Affricate | plain | tÍĄs ⟨z⟩ | ||||
aspirated | tÍĄsÊ°? ⟨Ć~dr⟩ | |||||
Tap | ÉŸ ⟨r⟩ | |||||
Liquid | l ⟨l⟩ | |||||
Semivowel | (j) |
- a simple distribution of six stop consonants in three places of articulation, originally distinguished by aspiration. In the late 3rd millennium BC, the unaspirated stops are thought to have become voiced in most positions (although not word-finally):[69]
- p (voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive),
- t (voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive),
- k (voiceless aspirated velar plosive),
- As a rule, /p/, /t/ and /k/ did not occur word-finally.[70]
- b (voiced unaspirated bilabial plosive), later voiced;
- d (voiced unaspirated alveolar plosive), later voiced;
- g (voiced unaspirated velar plosive), later voiced.
- a phoneme usually represented by <Ć> (sometimes written dr), 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 /ÉŸ/, but Bram Jagersma argues that it was a voiceless aspirated alveolar affricate because of its reflection in loanwords in Akkadian, among other reasons,[69] and this view is accepted by ZĂłlyomi (2017: 28).
- a simple distribution of three nasal consonants in similar distribution to the stops:
- m (bilabial nasal),
- n (alveolar nasal),
- gÌ (frequently printed Ä due to typesetting constraints, increasingly transcribed as Ć) /Ć/ (likely a velar nasal, as in sing, it has also been argued to be a labiovelar nasal [ĆÊ·] or a nasalized labiovelar[71]).
- a set of three sibilants:
- s, likely a voiceless alveolar fricative,
- z, likely a voiceless unaspirated alveolar affricate, /tÍĄs/, as shown by Akkadian loans from /s/=[tÍĄs] to Sumerian /z/. In early Sumerian, this would have been the unaspirated counterpart to <Ć>.[72] Like the stop series /b/, /d/ and /g/, it is thought to have become voiced /dz/ in some positions in the late 3rd millennium.[73]
- ĆĄ (generally described as a voiceless postalveolar fricative, /Ê/, as in ship)
- áž« (a velar fricative, /x/, sometimes written <h>)
- two liquid consonants:
- l (a lateral consonant)
- r (a rhotic consonant), which Jagersma argues was realized as a tap [ÉŸ] because of various evidence suggesting its phonetic similarity to /t/ and /d/.[74]
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 the g in đ zag > za3) and consonants that remain (such as the g in đ·đ lag). Other "hidden" consonant phonemes that have been suggested include semivowels such as /j/ and /w/,[75] and a glottal fricative /h/ or a glottal stop that could explain the absence of vowel contraction in some words[76]âthough objections have been raised against that as well.[77] A recent descriptive grammar by Bram Jagersma includes /j/, /h/, and /Ê/ 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.[78]
Very often, a word-final consonant was not expressed in writingâand was possibly omitted in pronunciationâso it surfaced only when followed by a vowel: for example the /k/ of the genitive case ending -ak does not appear in đđđ· e2 lugal-la "the king's house", but it becomes obvious in đđđ·đ° e2 lugal-la-kam "(it) is the king's house" (compare liaison in French). Jagersma believes that the lack of expression of word-final consonants was originally mostly a graphic convention,[79] but that in the late 3rd millennium voiceless aspirated stops and affricates (/pÊ°/, /tÊ°/, /kÊ°/ and /tsÊ°/ were, indeed, gradually lost in syllable-final position, as were the unaspirated stops /d/ and /g/.[80]
Vowels
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 /É/ and /É/, which would have been concealed by the transmission through Akkadian, as that language does not distinguish them.[81][82] 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.[83] These hypotheses are not yet generally accepted.[71] Phonemic vowel length has also been posited by some scholars based on vowel length in Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian and occasional so-called plene spellings with extra vowel signs.[84][85]
During the Old Sumerian period, the southern dialects (Lagash, Umma, Ur and Uruk),[86] which also provide the overwhelming majority of material from that stage, exhibited a vowel harmony rule based on vowel height or advanced tongue root.[81] Essentially, morphemes containing /e/ alternated between [e] in front of syllables containing open vowels and [i] in front of syllables containing close vowels; e.g. đđœ e-kaĆĄ4 "he runs", but đđș i3-du he goes". Jagersma explains some absences of such an alternation with the fact that the unaffected vowels were long or stressed.[86] In addition, some have argued for a second vowel harmony rule.[87][82]
There also appear to be many cases of partial or complete assimilation 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.[88] These patterns, too, are interpreted as evidence for a richer vowel inventory by some researchers.[81][82] For example, we find forms like đ”đœ ga-kaĆĄ4 "let me run", but, from the Neo-Sumerian period onwards, occasional spellings like đđș gu2-du "let me go". According to Jagersma, these assimilations are limited to open syllables[89] and, as with vowel harmony, Jagersma interprets their absence as the result of vowel length or of stress in at least some cases.[89] There is evidence of various cases of elision of vowels, apparently in unstressed syllables; in particular an initial vowel in a word of more than two syllables seems to have been elided in many cases.[89] What appears to be vowel contraction in hiatus (*/aa/, */ia/, */ua/ > a, */ae/ > a, */ie/ > i or e, */ue/ > u or e, etc.) is also very common.[90]
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.
Stress
Sumerian stress is usually presumed to have been dynamic, since it seems to have caused vowel elisions on many occasions. Opinions vary on its placement. 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.[91][92] The treatment of forms with enclitics is less clear. Many cases of apheresis 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. /âĆĄe/ ~ /-ĆĄ/) suggests that they were, on the contrary, unstressed when these allomorphs arose.[91]
Orthography
Sumerian writing expressed pronunciation only roughly. It was often morphophonemic, so much of the allomorphic variation could be ignored.[93] Especially in earlier Sumerian, coda consonants were often ignored in spelling; e.g. /mungÌareĆĄ/ 'they put it here' could be written đŹđ»đ· mu-gÌar-re2. The use of VC signs for that purpose, producing more elaborate spellings such as đŹđŠđ»đ·đ mu-un-gÌar-re2-eĆĄ3, became more common only in the Neo-Sumerian and especially in the Old Babylonian period.[94] 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. đŹ sar 'write' - đŹđ sar-ra 'written'. This results in orthographic gemination that is usually reflected in Sumerological transliteration, but does not actually designate any phonological phenomenon such as length.[95] In fact, as noted above, many consonants seem to have been elided unless followed by a vowel at various stages in the history of Sumerian, so when the following consonant appears in front of a vowel, it can be said to be expressed only by the next sign. For example, đź ĆĄag4 "heart" may also be transliterated as ĆĄa3, and accordingly đźđ” ĆĄag4-ga "in the heart" can also be interpreted as ĆĄa3-ga.
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 an additional 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. đŒđ ama-a for /amaa/ < {ama-e} 'the mother (ergative case)').[96]
Sumerian texts vary in the degree to which they use logograms or opt for syllabic (phonetic) spellings instead: e.g. the word đ» gÌar "put" may also be written phonetically as đ·đ gÌa2-ar. They also vary in the degree to which allomorphic variation was expressed: đ đđ im-gi4-eĆĄ or đ đđ im-gi4-iĆĄ for "they returned". While early Sumerian writing was highly logographic, there was a tendency towards more phonetic spelling in the Neo-Sumerian period.[97] 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.[98]
Grammar
Ever since its decipherment, research of Sumerian has been made difficult not only by the lack of any native speakers, but also by the relative sparseness of linguistic data, the apparent lack of a closely related language, and the features of the writing system. Typologically, Sumerian is classified as an agglutinative, ergative (consistently so in its nominal morphology and split ergative in its verbal morphology), and subject-object-verb language.[99]
Nominal morphology
Noun phrases
The Sumerian noun is typically a one or two-syllable root (đ igi "eye", đ e2 "house, household", đ nin "lady"), although there are also some roots with three syllables like đ đŽ ĆĄakanka "market". There are two grammatical genders, which have been variously called animate and inanimate,[100][101][102][103] human and non-human,[104][105] or personal/person and impersonal/non-person.[106][107] Their assignment is semantically predictable: the first gender includes humans, gods and, in some instances, the word for "statue", while the second one includes animals, plants, non-living objects, abstract concepts and collective plural nouns. Since the second gender includes animals, the use of the terms animate and inanimate is somewhat misleading[106] and conventional,[101] but since it is most common in the literature, it will be maintained in this article.
The adjectives and other modifiers follow the noun (đđ€ lugal maáž« "great king"). The noun itself is not inflected; rather, grammatical markers attach to the noun phrase as a whole, in a certain order. Typically, that order would be:
noun | adjective | numeral | genitive phrase | relative clause | possessive marker | plural marker | case marker |
---|
An example may be:[108]
digÌir
god
digÌir gal-gal-gÌu-(e)ne-ra
god great-REDUP-1.POSS-PL.AN-DAT
"for my great gods"
The possessive, plural and case markers are traditionally referred to as "suffixes", but have recently also been described as enclitics[109] or postpositions.[110]
The plural marker proper is (đ)đ /-(e)ne/. It is used only with nouns of the animate gender and its use is optional. It is generally omitted when other parts of the clause indicate the plurality of the referent.[111] Thus, it is not used if the noun is modified by a numeral. It is also not used when the verb form in the clause indicates the number of the noun. This is generally the case when the noun phrase is in the absolutive case: e.g. lu2 ba-zaáž«3-zaáž«3-eĆĄ đœđđđđ "the men ran away", đœđŹđđȘđđ lu2 mu-e-dab5-be2-eĆĄ "I caught the men". The plural marker is not used when referring to a collective, because a collective is treated as inanimate; e.g. đł engar "farmer" with no plural marker may refer to "(the group of) farmers".[111]
As the following example shows, the marker is appended to the end of the phrase, even after a relative clause:[111]
lu2 e2 in-Ću2-a-ne
lu
man
e
house
lu e i-n-Ću-a-(e)ne
man house FIN-3.A-build-NMLZ-PL.AN
"the men who built the house"
Likewise, the plural marker is usually (albeit not always) added only once when a whole series of coordinated nouns have plural reference:[111]
engar sipad ĆĄu-kuĆ-e-ne
engar
farmer
sipad
shepherd
engar sipad ĆĄukuĆ-ene
farmer shepherd fisherman-PL.AN
"farmers, shepherds and fishermen"
Another way in which a kind of plurality is expressed is by means of reduplication of the noun: đđ digÌir-digÌir "gods", đđ ib2-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")[112] or distribution/separateness ("each of the gods taken separately").[113][114] An especially frequently occurring reduplicated word, đłđł kur-kur "foreign lands", may have simply plural meaning,[113] and in very late usage, the meaning of the reduplication in general might be simple plurality.[112]
At least a few adjectives (notably đČ gal "great" and đ tur "small") are also reduplicated when the noun they modify has plural reference: đđČđČ a gal-gal "the great waters".[115] This is sometimes interpreted as an expression of simple plurality,[116] while a minority view is that the meaning of these forms is not purely plural, but rather the same as that of noun reduplication.[114]
Two other ways of expressing plurality are characteristic only of very late Sumerian usage and have made their way into Sumerograms used in writing Akkadian and other languages. One is used with inanimate nouns and consists of the modification of the noun with the adjective đđ áž«i-a "various" (lit. "mixed"), e.g. đ»đđ udu áž«i-a "sheep".[117] The other is adding the 3rd person plural form of the enclitic copula đšđ -me-eĆĄ to a noun (đđšđ lugal-me-eĆĄ "kings", originally "they (who) are kings").[118]
The generally recognized case markers are:
case | ending | most common spelling[119] | approximate English equivalents and function[120] |
---|---|---|---|
absolutive | /-Ă/ | intransitive subject or transitive object | |
ergative | /-e/[b] (primarily with animates)[c] | (đ -e) | transitive subject |
directive | /-e/ (only with inanimates)[d] | (đ -e) | "in(to) contact with", "upon", "for", "as for"; causee |
genitive | /-a(k)/[e] | (đ -a) | "of" |
equative | /-gin/ | đ¶ -gin7 | "as", "like" |
dative | /-r(a)/[f] (only with animates)[g] | đ -ra | "to", "for", "upon", causee |
terminative | /-(e)ĆĄ(e)/[h] | đ -ĆĄe3 | "to", "towards", "for", "until", "in exchange (for)", "instead if", "as for", "because of" |
comitative | /-d(a)/[i] | đ -da | "(together) with", "because of" |
locative | /-a/ (only with inanimates)[j] | (đ -a) | "in/into", "on/onto", "about" |
ablative (only with inanimates)[k] | /-ta/ | đ« -ta | "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.
More endings are recognized by some researchers; e.g. Bram Jagersma notes a separate adverbiative case in đ /đ eĆĄ2/eĆĄ "in the manner of", e.g. đ°đ numun-eĆĄ2 'as seeds', 'in the manner of seeds', and a second locative in đ/đ -ne/ne2 used mostly with non-finite verb forms (see the Syntax section).[127] In addition, there are the enclitic particles đŸđđŸ na-an-na meaning "without"[128] and (đ)đ đ (-a)-ka-nam -/akanam/ (in earlier Sumerian) or (đ)đ€đ (-a)-ke4-eĆĄ2 -/akeĆĄ/ "because of" (in later Sumerian).[129]
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.:
bar udu áž«ad2-ak-a
bar
outer.side
udu
sheep
bar udu áž«ad-ak-a
outer.side sheep white-GEN-LOC
"because of a white sheep"
The embedded structure of the noun phrase can be further illustrated with the following phrase:
sipad udu siki-ka-ke4-ne
sipad
shepherd
udu
sheep
sipad udu siki-(a)k-ak-ene
shepherd sheep wool-GEN-GEN-PL.AN
"shepherds of woolly sheep"
Here, the first genitive morpheme (-a(k)) subordinates đ siki "wool" to đ» udu "sheep", and the second subordinates đ»đ udu siki-(a)k "sheep of wool" (or "woolly sheep") to đșđ» sipad "shepherd".[130]
Pronouns
The attested personal pronouns are:
independent | possessive suffix/enclitic | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | đ·(đ) gÌe26(-e) | đŹ -gÌu10 |
2nd person singular | đą ze2, Old Babylonian đđ za-e | đȘ -zu |
3rd person singular animate | đđ a-ne or đđ e-ne[l] | (đ)đ -(a)-ni |
3rd person inanimate[m] | đ -bi | |
1st person plural | (đšđđđ me-en-de3-en?, đš me?)[n] | đš -me |
2nd person plural | (đšđđąđ me-en-ze2-en?)[o] | đȘđđ -zu-ne-ne |
3rd person plural animate | đ/đđđ a/e-ne-ne[p] | đ/đđđ (-a)-ne-ne, đ -bi[137] |
The stem vowels of đ·(đ) gÌe26(-e) and đ ze2 are assimilated to a following case suffix containing /a/ and then have the forms đ· gÌa- and đ za-; e.g. đđ za-ra 'to you (sg.)'.
As far as demonstrative pronouns are concerned, Sumerian most commonly uses the enclitic đ -bi to express the meaning "this". There are rare instances of other demonstrative enclitics such as đ -e "this", đș -ĆĄe "that" and đ -re "that", where perhaps the third denoted something further away than the second.[138] The independent demonstrative pronouns are đđ/đđ ne-e(n) "this (thing)" and đŻ ur5 "that (thing)";[139] -ne(n) might also be used as another enclitic.[140] "Now" is đđđ§ i3-ne-ĆĄe3. For "then" and "there", the declined noun phrases đđ ud-ba "at that time" and đ đ ki-ba "at that place" are used; "so" is đŻđ¶ ur5-gin7, lit. "like that".[141]
The interrogative pronouns are đđ a-ba "who" and đđŸ a-na "what" (also used as "whoever" and "whatever" when introducing dependent clauses). The stem for "where" is đš me-[142] (used in the locative, terminative and ablative to express "where", "whither" and "whence", respectively[143][144][145]) . "When" is đ·/đ en3/en,[142] but also the stem đš(đ)đŸ me-(e)-na is attested for "when" (in the emphatic form me-na-am3 and in the terminative me-na-ĆĄe3 "until when?", "how long?").[146] "How" and "why" are expressed by đđŸđž a-na-aĆĄ (lit. "what for?") and đđ¶ a-gin7 "how" (an equative case form, perhaps "like what?").[142] The expected form đđŸđ¶ a-na-gin7 is used in Old Babylonian.[144]
An indefinite pronoun is đŸđš na-me "any", which is only attested in attributive function until Old Babylonian,[147] but may also stand alone in the sense "anyone, anything" in late texts.[148] It can be added to nouns to produce further expressions with pronominal meaning such as đœđŸđš lu2 na-me "anyone", đ»đŸđš nigÌ2 na-me "anything", đ đŸđš ki na-me "anywhere", đđŸđš ud4 na-me "ever, any time". The nouns đœ lu2 "man" and đ» nigÌ2 "thing" are also used for "someone, anyone" and "something, anything".[149] With negation, all of these expressions naturally acquire the meanings "nobody", "nothing", "nowhere" and "never".[150]
The reflexive pronoun is đ (đŒ) ni2(-te) "self", which generally occurs with possessive pronouns attached: đ đŹ ni2-gÌu10 "my-self", etc. The longer form appears in the third person animate (đ đŒđ ni2-te-ni "him/herself", đ đŒđđ ni2-te-ne-ne "themselves").[151]
Adjectives
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: đ€ maáž« "great" > đđ đ€ nin al-maáž« "the lady is great".[152][153] According to Jagersma, 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: đČ gal "big", but đđ gu-ul "be big".[154] Forms with the nominalizing suffix /-a/ have a restrictive meaning: đđ e2 gibil "a new house", but đđđ· e2 gibil-la "the new house (as contrasted with the old one)", "a/the newer (kind of) house" or "the newest house".[155]
A few adjectives, like đČ gal "big" and đ tur "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 đ(đ) bar6-bar6 / babbar "white" appears to have always been reduplicated, and the same may be true of đȘ gig2 (actually giggig) "black".[115]
To express adverbial function, the enclitic đ -bi can be added to an adjectival stem: đđ gibil-bi "newly". Jagersma interprets this as a deadjectival noun with a possessive clitic in the directive case: {gibil.â .bi-e}, lit. "at its newness".[q] Another way of expressing more or less the same function is with the adverbiative ending đ -eĆĄ2, e.g. đŁđđ zid-de3eĆĄ2 "rightly", "in the right way".[156]
To express the comparative or superlative degree, various constructions with the word đđ dirig "exceed"/"excess" are used: X + locative + dirig-ga "which exceeds (all) X", dirig + X + genitive + terminative "exceeding X", lit. "to the excess of X".[157]
Numerals
Sumerian has a combination decimal and sexagesimal system (for example, 600 is 'ten sixties'), so that the Sumerian lexical numeral system is sexagesimal with 10 as a subbase.[158] The cardinal numerals and ways of forming composite numbers are as follows:
number | name | explanation notes | cuneiform sign |
---|---|---|---|
1 | diĆĄ, deĆĄ[159] | đč | |
2 | min, mina[160] | đ« | |
3 | eĆĄ5[161] | đ, đ | |
4 | limmu, lim2[162] | đč, đ, đŒ | |
5 | ia, i2[163] | đ | |
6 | aĆĄ[164] | ia2 "five" + aĆĄ "one" | đ |
7 | imin[165] | ia2 "five" + min "two" | đ |
8 | ussu[166] | đ | |
9 | ilimmu[165] | ia2/i2 (5) + limmu (4) | đ |
10 | u, ha3, hu3[163] | đ | |
11 | u-diĆĄ (?) | đđč | |
20 | niĆĄ | đđ | |
30 | uĆĄu | đđđ | |
40 | nimin | 'less two [tens]' | đ |
50 | ninnu | 'less ten' | đ |
60 | gÌiĆĄ(d), gÌeĆĄ(d)[167] | đčđ, đč, đ | |
120 | gÌeĆĄ(d)-min | two gÌeĆĄ(d) | đčđ« |
240 | gÌeĆĄ(d)-limmu | four gÌeĆĄ(d) | đčđ |
420 | gÌeĆĄ(d)-imin | seven gÌeĆĄ(d) | đčđ |
600 | gÌeĆĄ(d)u | ten gÌeĆĄ(d) | đ |
1000 | limum | borrowed from Akkadian | đ·đŹđ |
1200 | gÌeĆĄ(d)u-min | two gÌeĆĄ(d)u | đđ« |
3600 | ĆĄar | 'totality' | đč |
36000 | ĆĄar-u | 'ten totalities' | đŹ |
216000 | ĆĄar gal | 'a big totality' | đčđČ |
Ordinal numerals are formed with the suffix đ°đ -kam-ma in Old Sumerian and đ°(đ ) -kam(-ma) (with the final vowel still surfacing in front of enclitics) in subsequent periods.[168] However, a cardinal numeral may also have ordinal meaning sometimes.[169]
The syntax of numerals has some peculiarities. Besides just being placed after a noun like other modifiers (đđ dumu eĆĄ5 "three children" - which may, however, also be written đđ 3 dumu), the numeral may be reinforced by the copula (đđđđ dumu eĆĄ5-am3). If a possessive pronoun is added after the numeral, the construction has definite meaning: đđđđ dumu eĆĄ5-a-bi: "the three children" (lit. "children - the three of them"). The numerals đ« min "two" and đ eĆĄ5 "three" are supplied with a nominalizer in this construction.[169]
Fractions are formed with the phrase đ ...N...đ igi-N-gÌal2 : "one-Nth"; where đ gÌal2 may be omitted. "One-half", however, is đđđ ĆĄu-ru-a, later đđđ ĆĄu-ri-a. Another way of expressing fractions was originally limited to weight measures, specifically fractions of the mina (đ đŸ ma-na): đ ĆĄuĆĄĆĄana "one-third" (literarlly "two-sixths"), đ ĆĄanabi "two-thirds" (the former two words are of Akkadian origins), đ gigÌusila or đČđđ la2 gigÌ4 u "five-sixths" (literally "ten shekels split off (from the mina)" or "(a mina) minus ten shekels", respectively), đ gigÌ4 "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 is đđčđčđ "12Ă1/60 = 1/5", and two-fifths are đđčđ "2/3 + (4 Ă 1/60) = 5/15 + 1/15 = 6/15 = 2/5".[170]
Verbal morphology
General
The Sumerian finite verb distinguishes a number of moods and agrees (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 reference and the presence of an actual modifier in the clause need not co-occur: not only đđ đđđ đșđŠ e2-ĆĄe3 ib2-ĆĄi-du-un "I'm going to the house", but also đđ đđșđŠ e2-ĆĄe3 i3-du-un "I'm going to the house" and simply đđ đșđŠ ib2-ĆĄi-du-un "I'm going to it" are possible.[110]
The Sumerian verb also makes a binary distinction according to a category that some regard as tense (past vs present-future), others as aspect (perfective vs imperfective), and that will be designated as TA (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 the Akkadian grammatical terms for the two respective forms â áž«amáču (quick) and marĂ» (slow, fat). Finally, opinions differ on whether the verb has a passive or a middle voice and how it is expressed.
The verbal root is almost always a monosyllable and, together with various affixes, forms a so-called verbal chain which is described as a sequence of about 15 slots, though the precise models differ.[171] The finite verb has both prefixes and suffixes, while the non-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", and pronominal and dimensional prefixes.[172] 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:
slot | modal prefix | "conjugation prefixes" | pronominal prefix | dimensional prefix | pronominal prefix | stem | future/imperfective | pronominal suffix | nominalizer | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
finite prefix | coordinator prefix | ventive prefix | middle prefix | |||||||||
common morphemes | /Ă/-, /áž«a/-, /u/-, /ga/-, /nu/-,/la/- | /i/- (/e/-,/a/-) | -/nga/- | /mu/-, -/m/- | -/ba/- | -/Ă/-, -/e/~/r/-, -/n/-, -/b/- | -/a/-, -/da/-, -/ta/-, -/ĆĄi/-, -/i/-, -/ni/- | -/Ă/-, -/e/-/r/-, -/n/-, -/b/- | -/e(d)/- | -/en/ -/en/ -/Ă/, -/e/ -/enden/ | -/a/ |
Examples using most of the above slots may be:
áž«a-mu-na-ab-ĆĄum2-mu-ne
áž«a-
-mu-
-VEN-
-a-
-DAT-
-ĆĄum-
-give-
áž«a- -mu- -n- -a- -b- -ĆĄum- -ene
PREC -VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O- -give- -3.PL.AN.A/S.IPFV
'Let them give it to him here!'
nu-ub-ĆĄi-e-gi4-gi4-a
nu-
NEG-
-i-
-FIN-
-b-
-INAN-
-ĆĄi-
-TERM-
-e-
-2.O-
-gi4-gi4-
-return.IPFV-
-a
-NMLZ
nu- -i- -b- -ĆĄi- -e- -gi4-gi4- -e- -a
NEG- -FIN- -INAN- -TERM- -2.O- -return.IPFV- -3.A.IPFV- -NMLZ
'(one) who does not bring you back to it'
More than one pairing of a pronominal prefix and a dimensional prefix may occur within the verb chain. If so, the pairings are placed in a specific order, which is shown the section Pronominal and Dimensional Prefixes below. The "conjugation prefixes" appear to be mutually exclusive to a great extent, since the "finite" prefixes /i/~/e/ or /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 spellings im-, im-ma- and im-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/- or /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 đ /-r-a/ and the second person directive đ /-r-i/, where the dominant dialect of the Old Babylonian period retains them.[173]
Modal prefixes
The modal prefixes express modality. Some of them are generally combined with certain TAs; in other cases, the meaning of a modal prefix can depend on the TA.
- /Ă-/ is the prefix of the simple indicative mood; in other words, the indicative is unmarked.
- đĄ nu- and đ· la-, đ· li- (đ li2- in Ur III spelling) have negative meaning and can be translated as "not". The allomorphs /la-/ and /li-/ are used before the "conjugation prefixes" đ ba- and đ bi2-, respectively. A following vowel /i/ or /e/ is contracted with the preceding /u/ of nu- with compensatory lengthening (which is often graphically unexpressed): compare đđș i2-du "he is walking", but /nu-i-du/ > /nuË-du/ đĄđ đș nu(-u3)-du "he isn't walking". If followed by a consonant, on the other hand, the vowel of nu- appears to have been assimilated to the vowel of the following syllable, because it occasionally appears written as đŸ /na-/ in front of a syllable containing /a/.[174]
- đ© áž«a- has either precative/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 the marĂ» form, and affirmative with the áž«amáču form. In contrast, if the verbal form is intransitive or stative, the TA used is always áž«amáču.[175] In open syllables, the prefix merges with a following conjugation prefix i3- into đ¶ áž«e2-. Beginning in the later Old Akkadian period, the spelling also shows assimilation of the vowel of the prefix to đ¶ áž«e2- in front of a syllable containing /e/ and to đ· áž«u- in front of a syllable containing /u/. Finally, Ur III spelling has a tendency to generalize the variant đ¶ áž«e2-.[176]
- đ” ga- has cohortative meaning and can be translated as "let me/us do X" or "I/you will do X". Occasional phonetic spellings show that its vowel is assimilated to following vowels, producing the allomorphs written đ gi4- and đ gu2-. It is only used with áž«amáču stems,[177] but nevertheless uses personal prefixes to express objects, which is otherwise characteristic of the marĂ» conjugation: đ”đđđ» ga-ni-ib2-gÌar "let me put it there!".[178] The plural number of the subject was not specially marked until the Old Babylonian period,[178] during which the 1st person plural suffix began to be added: đ”đđđ»đđđđ ga-ni-ib2-gÌar-re-en-de-en "let us put it there!".[179]
- đ u3- is a prospective "after/when/if" and is also used as a mild imperative "Please do X". It is only used with áž«amáču forms.[177] In open syllables, the vowel of the prefix is assimilated to i3- and a- in front of syllables containing these vowels. The prefix acquires an additional /l/ when located immediately before the stem, resulting in the allomorph đ đ u3-ul-.[180]
- đŸ na- expresses a negative wish ("May he not do it!") or affirmative meaning ("he does it indeed"), depending on the TA of verb: it expresses negative meaning with the marĂ» TA and affirmative /na-/ with the áž«amáču TA.[181]
- đđ ba-ra- has emphatic negative meaning ("He certainly doesn't/won't do it")[182] or prohibitative meaning ("Don't do it!").[183] It is combined with the marĂ» TA if the verb denies an action (always present or future), and with the áž«amáču TA if it denies a state (past, present or future) or an action (always in the past).[182] According to Edzard, the prohibitative meaning requires it to be combined with the marĂ» TA if the action is transitive.[184]
- đĄđ nu-uĆĄ- 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!").
- đ ĆĄi-, earlier đ ĆĄe3-, is a rare prefix, with unclear and disputed meaning, which has been variously described as affirmative ("he does it indeed"),[185] contrapunctive ("correspondingly", "on his part"[186]), as "reconfirming something that already ha(s) been stated or ha(s) occurred",[187] or as "so", "therefore"[188]). 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,[185] depending on the vowel of the following syllable, to /ĆĄa-/ (đ ĆĄa-/ đș ĆĄa4-) and (first attested in Old Babylonian) to đ /ĆĄu-/.[187]
Although the modal prefixes are traditionally grouped together in one slot in the verbal chain, their behaviour suggests a certain difference in status: only nu- and áž«a- 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".[189]
"Conjugation prefixes"
The meaning, structure, identity and even the number of "conjugation prefixes" have always been a subject of disagreements. The term "conjugation prefix" simply alludes to the fact that a finite verb must (nearly) always contain one of them. Proposed explanations of their use usually revolve around the subtleties of spatial grammar, information structure (focus[190]), verb valency, and, most recently, voice.[191] The following description primarily follows the analysis of Jagersma (2010), largely seconded by ZĂłlyomi (2018), in its specifics; nonetheless, most of the interpretations in it are held widely, if not universally.
- đ i3- (Southern Old Sumerian variant: đ e- in front of open vowels), sometimes described as a finite prefix[192], appears to have a neutral finite meaning.[193][194] As mentioned above, it generally does not occur in front of a prefix or prefix sequence of the shape CV except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix đ /ni/, the second person dative đ /-r-a/ and the second person directive đ /-r-i/.[193]
- đ a-, with the variant đ al- used in front of the stem[193][195], the other finite prefix, is rare in most Sumerian texts outside of the imperative form,[193] but when it occurs, it usually has stative meaning.[196] It is common in the Northern Old Sumerian dialect, where it can also have a passive meaning.[197][196] 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 both marĂ» and stative áž«amáču verbs; in the Neo-Sumerian period, only the pre-stem form al- was still used and it no longer occurred with marĂ» forms.[198][r] Like i3-, it does not occur in front of a CV sequence except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix đ /ni/, the second person dative đ /-r-a/ and the second person directive đ /-r-i/.[193]
- đŹ mu- is most commonly considered to be a ventive prefix[199], expressing movement towards the speaker or proximity to the speaker; in particular, it is an obligatory part of the 1st person dative form đ ma- (mu- + -a-).[200] However, many of its occurrences appear to express more subtle and abstract nuances or general senses, which different scholars have sought to pinpoint. Some of these have been derived from "abstract nearness to the speaker" or "involvement of the speaker".[201] It has been suggested, variously, that mu- may be adding nuances of topicality, foregrounding of the event as something essential to the message with a focus on a person[202], prototypical transitivity with its close association with "control, agency, and animacy"[203], telicity as such[204] or that it is attracted by personal dative prefixes in general, as is the Akkadian ventive.[204]
- đ im- and đđam3- are widely seen as being formally related to mu-[205] and as also having ventive meaning[206]; according to Jagersma, they consist of an allomorph of mu-, namely -/m/-, and the preceding prefixes đ i3- and đ a-. In his analysis, these combinations occur in front of a CV sequence, where the vowel -u- of mu- is lost, whereas the historically preceding finite prefix is preserved: */i-mu-ĆĄi-gÌen/ > đ đ đș im-ĆĄi-gÌen "he came for it". The vowel of the finite prefix is lengthened immediately before the stem */i-mu-gÌen/ > đđ đș i3-im-gÌen "he came".[207]
- The vowel of mu- is not elided in front of the locative prefix đ -ni-, the second person dative đ /-r-a/ and the second person directive đ /-r-i/. It may, however, be assimilated to the vowel of the following syllable, producing two allomorphs:[208]
- đȘ mi- in the sequences đȘđ mi-ni- and đȘđ mi-ri-.[209]
- đ ma- in the sequence đ đ ma-ra-.
- đ bi2- (Old Sumerian LagaĆĄ spelling: đ bi- or be2-; Old Sumerian Ur spelling: đż be6-) is usually seen as a sequence of the personal prefix -/b/-[210][211] and the directive prefix -/i/- or -/e/-.[210][212]
- đ ba- can be analysed as a sequence of the personal prefix /b/- and the dative prefix /a/[213][214] and accordingly have the meaning "for it", "to it"[213][215], but also a number of other meanings have been observed. It has also been argued that, in spite of its origin as b-a-, /ba-/ now occupies a slot of its own before the first pronominal prefix and the dimensional prefixes.[216][217][s] The various non-dative meanings of ba- are subsumed by Jagersma under the overarching function of a middle voice marker.[220][221] As a middle voice marker, ba- can express:
- đ đȘ im-mi- (Southern Old Sumerian đđȘ i3-mi or đđš e-me-) and đ đ im-ma- (Southern Old Sumerian đđ e-ma-) are often analysed as sequences of đ im- and the following prefixes đ bi2- (Southern Old Sumerian: đ bi- or be2) and đ ba-, respectively, where the consonant /b/ has undergone assimilation to the preceding /m/.[225][226]
- đđđȘ am3-mi- and đđđ am3-ma- are the result of the same assimilation, but with a preceding đđam3-.
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 i3- and the pronominal prefix, e.g. đ đ”đđȘ in-ga-an-zu 'he, too, knows it', but it precedes the conjugation prefix mu-: đŸđ”đŹđȘ na-ga-mu-zu 'he also understood it'.[227] This suggests that these two conjugation prefixes must belong to different slots.[228]
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 prefixes i3-/e- and a- are apparently elided in front of them.[229]
Pronominal and dimensional prefixes
The dimensional 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 "head" â a pronominal prefix. The other place where a pronominal prefix can be placed is immediately before the stem, where it can have a different allomorph and expresses the absolutive or the ergative participant (the transitive subject, the intransitive subject or the direct object), depending on the TA and other factors, as explained below.
Pronominal prefixes
The forms of the pronominal prefixes are the following:[230]
prefix | Notes | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | -/Ê/-? > /âV-/[t] | The vowel -/V/- is identical to that of the preceding prefix (đŹđ mu-u3-, đđ ba-a-, đđ bi2-i3- etc.). Possibly originally a glottal stop /Ê/,[233][234] which was later elided with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. |
2nd person singular | đ -e-, â/r/â | -/r/- before a vowel (before the dative and the directive prefixes, resulting in đ -ra- and đ âri-); -/e/- before a consonant. -/e/- is assimilated to the preceding vowel, lengthening it (e.g. đŹđ mu-e- > đŹđ mu-u3- etc.) in the dialects attested before the Old Babylonian period.[233][234] In the Old Babylonian dialect -e- is preserved (e.g. đŹđ mu-e-) and the preceding vowel may assimilate to the -/e/- instead: e.g. đš me-.[234] |
3rd person singular animate | â/n/- | According to Jagersma,[235] the pronominal form that appears in front of the vowel-initial dimensional prefixes, i.e. in front of dative -/a/- and directive -/i/-, is actually geminate /nn/, hence the preservation of the finite prefix i3- in front of them. |
3rd person inanimate | â/b/â | Seems to be absent in some cases, see the main text. Note that the inanimate agreement marker has no number distinction. |
1st person plural | đš -me-[u] | For a subject or object (immediately before the stem), the singular is used instead. |
2nd person plural | đđ âeâne-[v], -re-?[236] | |
3rd person plural (animate only) | đ âne- |
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 the Third Dynasty of Ur (in the Neo-Sumerian period) and especially during the Old Babylonian period. Thus, in earlier texts, one finds đŹđ mu-ak and đđ i3-ak (đđ e-ak in Southern Sumerian) instead of đŹđŠđ mu-un-ak and đ đ in-ak for {mu-n-ak} and {i-n-ak} "he/she made", and also đŹđ mu-ak instead of Neo-Sumerian đŹ(đ )đ mu(-u3)-ak or Old Babylonian đŹđđ mu-e-ak "you made". Vowel length never came to be expressed systematically, so the 1st person prefix was often graphically -â - during the entire existence of Sumerian.
Dimensional prefixes
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.
dative | comitative | ablative | terminative | directive | locative |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
/-a-/[w] | đ -da- (đŸ -di3-[x]) | đ« -ta- (đ /-ra-/)[y] | đ -ĆĄi- (early đ -ĆĄe3-) | /-i-/~/-e-/ đ [z] | đ -ni-[aa] |
The comitative prefix -da- can, in addition, express the meaning "to be able to".[240] The directive has the meaning "on(to)" when the verb is combined with a noun in the locative case.[241] The directive does not co-occur with the locative, and the ablative does not co-occur with the terminative.[242]
A major exception from the general system of personal and dimensional prefixes is the very frequent prefix đ -ni- "(in) there", which corresponds to a noun phrase in the locative, but doesn't seem to be preceded by any pronominal prefix and had demonstrative meaning by itself. This prefix is not to be confused with the homophonic sequence -ni- which corresponds to an animate noun phrase in the directive. In the latter case, ni is analysed as a combination of pronominal /-n-/ and directive /-i-/ (roughly: "at him/her", "on him/her", etc.), whereas in the former, ni is unanalysable.[243]
An example of a verb chain where several dimensional slots are occupied can be:
i3-na-ta-ni-in-ed2
i-
FIN-
-a-
-DAT-
-ta-
-ABL-
-ni-
-LOC-
-ed
-go.out
i- -n- -a- -ta- -ni- -n- -ed
FIN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -ABL- -LOC- -3.SG.AN.A- -go.out
'He made it (the dike) go out of it (a canal) for him into it (a locality)'
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 like since 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).[244]
- The use of dimensional prefixes is sometimes more closely connected to special meanings of specific verbs and to lexical idiosyncrasies. For instance, the verb đŻđș ed3 has the meaning "go up" with the directive prefix, but "go down" with the ablative one, the verb đ sa10 means "sell" with the ablative prefix and "buy" with the terminative, the verb đđș e3 always has the ablative prefix, and the phrasal verb đ ... đ inim ... gi4 "answer" (lit. "return a word") always includes the locative.[244]
Further, 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.[243] The combinations may be summarised as follows:[245][246][125][247]
meaning | nominal case marker (inanimate) | nominal case marker (animate) | verbal prefix |
---|---|---|---|
"in(to)" | /-a/ (locative) | ---- | /-ni-/ (locative) |
"on(to)" | /-a/ (locative) | /-ra/ (dative) | /-i-/~/-e-/ (directive) |
"at" / causee | /-e/ (directive) | /-ra/ (dative) | /-i-/~/-e-/ (directive) |
dative | /-e/ (directive) | /-ra/ (dative) | /-a-/ (dative) |
Combinations of personal and dimensional prefixes and other issues
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-/ â đ ma-.[248][249][250] 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 đŹ mu- alone serves to express it.[248][249]
Two special phenomena occur if there is no absolutiveâergative pronominal prefix in the pre-stem position.
1. The sequences đ /-ni-/ (locative {-ni-} and personal + directive {-n-i-}) and đ /bi-/ (personal + directive {b-i-}) acquire the forms /-n-/ and /-b-/ (coinciding with the absolutiveâergative pronominal prefixes) before the stem if there isn't already an absolutiveâergative pronominal prefix in pre-stem position. This is typically the case when the verb is used intransitively.[251][252] For example, the normal appearance of -ni- is seen in:
- {mu-ni-n-kur} "he brought in â caused [something or someone] to go in â there" > /muninkur/, written đŹđđ mu-ni-kur9 in early texts, later đŹđđ đ mu-ni-in-kur9.
In contrast, in an intransitive form, we find a syncopated realization:
- {mu-ni-kur} "he went in there" > /muËnkur/, written đŹđ mu-kur9 in early texts, later đŹđŠđ mu-un-kur9.
The preceding vowel undergoes compensatory lengthening, which is sometimes indicated by its doubling in the spelling:
- {i-ni-kur} > i3-in-kur9 đđ đ "he went in".
Likewise, the normal realisation of bi- is seen in:
- {i-b-i-n-si} > bi2-in-si đđ đ "he loaded (it) on it".
This is to be contrasted with the syncopated version in an intransitive form:
- {i-b-i-si} > i3-ib2-si đđđ "(it) was loaded on it".[253]
The same phonological pattern is claimed to account for the alternation between the forms of the ventive prefix. The standard appearance is seen in:
{i-mu-n-ak} > mu-un-ak đŹđŠđ "he did it".
In an intransitive form, however, we find:
{i-mu-gÌen} > i3-im-gÌen đđ đș "he came".[252]
2. A superficially similar, but distinct phenomenon is that if there isn't already an absolutiveâergative 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 đđ đ "he applied (it) to it" (said of oil).
In contrast, in an intransitive form, we find:
- {ba-b-ak} ba-ab-ak đđđ "it was applied to it".
In the same way, the normal position is seen in:
- {b-i-n-us} bi2-in-us2 đđ đ â "he adjoined (it) to it".
This can be contrasted with an intransitive form:
- {i-b-us} ib2-us2 đđ â "(it) was adjoined to it".[254]
Another deviation from the main scheme is that in some cases, an expected personal prefix is absent.
- If there are several dimensional prefixes in the verb chain, only the first one can have an explicit head and only the first one can refer to an animate noun.[255]
- The personal prefix -b- isn't used after the ventive "conjugation prefix" mu-: instead of expected *đŹđđ đș mu-ub-ĆĄi-gÌen, the meaning "he came for it" is expressed by đ đ đș im-ĆĄi-gÌen. Similarly, instead of *đŹđđ·đ· mu-ub-gÌa2-gÌa2 for "he is placing it", we find đ đ·đ· im-gÌa2-gÌa2.[256] Alternatively, some have argued that such forms might contain an assimilated sequence -/mb/- > -/mm/- > -/m/- as in im-mi- and im-ma-.[257]
- The personal prefix -b- isn't used after the "conjugation prefix" ba-, either, but only if -b- is the head of a dimensional prefix: thus đđđđ ba-ab-gi4-gi4 "he will return it (for himself)" is possible, but not *đđđ đđđ ba-ab-ĆĄi-ib2-gi4-gi4 "he will return it to it (for himself)".[258]
- 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 on Pronominal agreement in conjugation.
Pronominal suffixes
The pronominal suffixes are as follows:
marĂ» | áž«amáču | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | đ -en | |
2nd person singular | đ -en | |
3rd person singular | (đ) -e | /-Ă/ |
1st person plural | đđđ -en-de3-en | |
2nd person plural | đđąđ -en-ze2-en | |
3rd person plural (animate only) | (đ)đ -e-ne | đ /đ -eĆĄ2/eĆĄ |
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.[259] Pre-Ur III texts also spell the first- and second-person suffix /-en/ as /-e/, making it coincide with the third person in the marĂ» form.
Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects
Sumerian verbal agreement follows a nominativeâaccusative pattern in the 1st and 2nd persons of the marĂ» tense-aspect, but an ergativeâabsolutive pattern in most other forms of the indicative mood. The general principle is that in áž«amáču TA, the transitive subject is expressed by the prefix, and the direct object by the suffix, and in the marĂ» TA it is the other way round.[ab] As for the intransitive subject, it is expressed, in both TAs, by the suffixes and is thus treated like the object in áž«amáču and like the subject in marĂ». An exception is that its third person is expressed, not only in áž«amáču but also in marĂ», by the suffixes used for the object in the áž«amáču TA). A major exception from this generalization are the plural forms â in them, the transitive subject is expressed not only by the prefix (as in the singular), but also by the suffix.
Note that the prefixes of the plural are identical to those of the singular â /-V-/, /-e-/, /-n-/, /-b-/ â as opposed to the special plural forms -me-, -e-ne- (/-re-?), -ne- found in non-pre-stem position.
The use of the personal affixes in conjugation can be summarized as follows:[260]
áž«amáču | marĂ» | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct object | Intransitive subject | Transitive subject | Direct object | Intransitive subject | Transitive subject | |
1st sing | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ | -/V/-... | -/V/[ac]-... | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ |
2nd sing | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ | -/e/-... | -/e/[ad]-... | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ |
3rd sing animate | ...-/Ă/ | ...-/Ă/ | -/n/-... | -/n/-... | ...-/Ă/ | ...-/e/ |
3rd inanimate[ae] | ...-/Ă/ | ...-/Ă/ | -/b/-... | -/b/-[af] | ...-/Ă/ | ...-/e/ |
1st pl | ...-/enden/ | ...-/enden/ | -/V/-...-/enden/ | -/V/-...? | ...-/enden/ | ...-/enden/ |
2nd pl | ...-/enzen/ | ...-/enzen/ | -/e/-...-/enzen/ | -/e/-...? | ...-/enzen/ | ...-/enzen/ |
3rd pl (animate only) | ...-/eĆĄ/ | ...-/eĆĄ/ | -/n/-...-/eĆĄ/ | -/ne/-[ag], -/b/-[ah] | ...-/eĆĄ/ | ...-/ene/ |
Examples for TA and pronominal agreement: (áž«amáču is rendered with past tense, marĂ» with present):
- {i-gub-en} (đđșđđ): "I stood" or "I stand"
- {i-n-gub-en} (đ đșđđ): "he placed me" or "I place him"
- {i-sug-enden} (đđ»đđđ): "we stood/stand"
- {i-n-dim-enden} (đ đ¶đđđ): "he created us" or "we create him"
- {mu-V-dim-enden} (đŹđ¶đđđ): "we created [someone or something]"
- {i-b-gub-e} (đđșđ) "he places it"
- {i-b-dim-ene} (đđ¶đšđ): "they create it"
- {i-n-dim-eĆĄ} (đ đ¶đšđ): "they created [someone or something]" or "he created them"
- {i-sug-eĆĄ} (đđ»đđ): "they stood" or "they stand".
Stem
The verbal stem itself can also express grammatical distinctions within the categories of number and tense-aspect.
1. With respect to number, plurality can be expressed by complete reduplication of the áž«amáču stem (e.g. đđ kur9-kur9 "enter (pl.)" or by a suppletive stem (e.g. đș gub "stand (sing.)" - đ» sug2 "stand (pl.)".[ai] The traditional view is that both of these morphological means express plurality of the absolutive participant in Sumerian.[268][269] However, it has often been pointed out that complete reduplication of the verb in Sumerian can also express "plurality of the action itself",[270] intensity or iterativity,[75] and that it is not obligatory in the presence of plural participants, but rather seems to expressly emphasize the plurality.[268][269] According to some researchers[271][272][273], 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 is a single one.[274]
2. With respect to tense-aspect marking, verbs are divided in four types; áž«amáču is always the unmarked TA.
- The stems of the 1st type, regular verbs, do not express TA at all according to most scholars, or, according to M. Yoshikawa and others, express marĂ» TA by adding an (assimilating) /-e-/ as in đșđ gub-be2 or đșđ gub-bu vs đș gub "stand". This /-e-/ would, however, nowhere be distinguishable from the first vowel of the pronominal suffixes except for intransitive marĂ» 3rd person singular).
- The 2nd type expresses marĂ» by partial reduplication of the stem, e.g. đ kur9 vs đđ ku4-ku4 "enter".[aj] Usually, as in this example, this marĂ» 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.[275]
- The 3rd type expresses marĂ» by adding a consonant, e.g. te vs tegÌ4 "approach" (both written đŒ). A number of scholars do not recognise the existence of such a class or consider it dubious.[ak]
- The 4th type uses a suppletive stem, e.g. đ dug4 vs đ e "do, say". Thus, as many as four different suppletive stems can exist, as in the admittedly extreme case of the verb "to go": đș gÌen ("to go", áž«amáču sing.), đș du (marĂ» sing.), (đ)đ» (e-)re7 (áž«amáču plur.), đ» sub2 (marĂ» plur.).[al]
The modal or imperfective suffix -/ed/
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. đđ(đ)đđ i3-zaáž«3(-e)-de3-en {i-zaáž«-ed-en} "I will/must escape", đđđ i3-zaáž«3-e {i-zaáž«-ed} "he will/must escape". This suffix is considered to account for occurrences of -e in the third-person singular marĂ» of intransitive forms by those who do not accept Yoshikawa's theory that -e itself is a marĂ» stem formant.[281] The status of the suffix is somewhat controversial. Some view it as having a primarily modal meaning of "must" or "can"[282] or future meaning.[283] Others believe that it primarily signals simply the imperfective status of a verb form, i.e. a marĂ» form, although its presence is obligatory only in intransitive marĂ» forms and in non-finite forms. In intransitive forms, it thus distinguishes marĂ» from áž«amáču[284]; for instance, in the above example, đđđ i3-zaáž«3-en alone, without -/ed/-, could have been interpreted as a áž«amáču form "I escaped".
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. đ§đŹđ ĆĄum2-mu(-d) (< {ĆĄum-ed}). It is also assimilated and contracted with immediately preceding vowels, e.g. đ gi4-gi4 /gi-gi-i(d)/ < {gi-gi-ed} "which will/should return". The verb đș du "go" never takes the suffix.[285]
Use of tense-aspect forms
The use of the tense-aspect forms has the following patterns according to Jagersma:[286]
- áž«amáču is used to express completed (perfective) actions in the past, but also states (past or present) and timeless truths. It is also used in conditional clauses with the conjunction đđ»đđČđ tukumbi 'if'.
- marĂ» is used to express actions in the present and future, but also non-complete (imperfective) actions in the past (like the English past progressive tense), and, rarely, actions in the past that are still relevant or operative (like the English present perfect tense). It is also used in conditional clauses with the conjunction đđ ud-da 'if'.
The imperative mood
The imperative mood construction is produced with a áž«amáču stem, but using the marĂ» agreement pattern, by turning all prefixes into suffixes.[287] 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.[288] Compare the following indicative-imperative pairs:
Indicative | Imperative |
---|---|
This may be compared with the French pair vous le lui donnez, but donnez-le-lui![250]
In addition, the prefix đ i3- is replaced by /-a/: đđș i3-gÌen "he went", but đșđŸ gÌen-na "go!", đđŸđđ i3-na-ab-be2 "he will say it to him", but dug4-ga-na(-ab) 'say it to him!'.[287] The ventive prefix mu-, if not followed by others, has the form đ -um in the imperative: đșđ Će6-um 'bring it here!'[289]
Participles
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, đ§đ ĆĄum2-ma may mean either "(which was) given (to someone)", "who was given (something)" or "who gave".[290] As verbal nouns, they denote the action or state itself, so đ§đ ĆĄum2-ma may also mean '(the act of) giving' or 'the fact that X gave Y'.[290] Participles are formed in the following ways.
- The bare áž«amáču stem can function as a participle. It usually expresses timeless truths: đ§ ĆĄum2 may be a person who regularly/constantly gives, something regularly given, or the regular act of giving.[291]
- Another way to form participles is by means of the nominalizing suffix -/a/, which also converts finite verbs into relative clauses: đ§đ ĆĄum2-ma "given",[292] đŹđŸđđ§đ {mu-na-n-ĆĄum-a} "which he gave to him", "who gave (something) to him", etc. 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 (đŸđ· til3-la "alive").[293] According to Jagersma, the stem used in this form is normally áž«amáču.[294] The verbs đ tuku "have" and đȘ zu "know" usually omit the ending -/a/, as does the verb đ ak "do".[295]
- The marĂ» stem can be combined with the suffix /-ed/ to form another participle, which often has a future and modal meaning similar to the Latin gerundive, e.g. đ¶đš dim2-me(-d) "which will/should be made". Adding a locative-terminative marker /-e/ after the /-ed/ yields a form with a meaning similar to the Latin ad + gerund (acc.) construction: đ¶(đš)đ dim2(-me)-de3 = "(in order) to make".[296] A similar meaning can be expressed by adding the locative marker: đ¶(đš)đ dim2(-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.[297] 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 the marĂ» stem alone, e.g. đ¶đš dim2-me 'which is/was making', đđ gi4-gi4 "returning".[298] Others believe that it this is also the normal marĂ» participle and that it has, in addition, the imperfective meanings "which is/was cutting" and "which is/was being cut".[299] Besides the allomorphy of the suffix -/ed/ already treated above, the verb đ dug4 "do, say" has a suppletive participial stem in this form: đČ di(-d).[285]
- The marĂ» stem can also occur with the suffix -/a/.[300] Nonetheless, according to Jagersma, this form is rare outside the combination with a following possessive pronominal marker to express temporal meaning, as explained in the Syntax section: e.g. đ¶(đš)đđ dim2(-me)-da-ni 'when he makes'.[294]
Copula verb
The copula verb /me/ "to be" is mostly used in an enclitic form. Its conjugation is as follows:
singular | plural | |
---|---|---|
1st person | đšđ -me-en | đšđđđ -me-en-de3-en |
2nd person | đšđ -me-en | đšđđąđ -me-en-ze2-en |
3rd person | đđ -am3 (Old Sumerian đ -am6) | đđšđ -me-eĆĄ |
In addition, the initial vowel of the form -am3 is reduced to /-m/ after enclitics ending in a vowel: đđŹđ e2-gÌu10-um "it is my house". Like other final consonants, the -m may not be expressed in early spelling.[301]
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: đđšđ i3-me-a "that he is", đĄđ đšđ nu-u3-me-en "I am not". Unlike the enclitic, it typically uses the normal stem đš -me- in the 3rd person singular (đđđš ba-ra-me "should not be"), except for the form prefixed with áž«a-, which is đ¶đ áž«e3-em or đ¶đđ áž«e3-am3.[302]
For a negative equivalent of the copula, it seems that the word đĄ nu "not" alone instead of *nu-um is used predicatively (e.g. đđĄ urud nu "it is not copper"[303]) although the form đĄ(đŠ)đ”đđ nu-(un)-ga-am3 "it is also not ..." is attested.[302] A different word is used to express existence or being present/located somewhere: đ gÌal2.[304]
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 đđšđ i3-me-a, simply đđ -am3 is used: đŹđ»đ”đđđ đ đđ§ kug2 nigÌ2-gur11-ra-ni-im ma-an-ĆĄum2 "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 đĄđšđ nu-me-a "which is not" is used, and likewise in non-relative functions.[305]
Passive voice
A passive can be formed in several different ways in Sumerian.[306]
- By simply eliminating the agent of a transitive verb and the corresponding agreement marker: â {engar-e e i-n-Ću} "the farmer built the house" > {e i-Ću} "the house was built". As a dynamic passive, in reference to the event itself, this construction is obsolete in áž«amáču by the time of the earliest records. However, it is still used with modal prefixes and in marĂ»: e.g. {e áž«a-i-Ću} "May the house be built!" Moreover, it continues to be used as a stative passive in Southern Sumerian, so {e i-Ću} can mean "the house is built (i.e. complete)".
- With the prefix đ ba-, e.g. {e ba-Ću}. This is only found in Southern Sumerian according to Jagersma and expresses only a dynamic passive, i.e. it refers to the event itself: "The house was (came to be) built".[am]
- With the prefix {a-}, e.g. {e al-Ću}. 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".
The agent is never expressed in the passive clause in Sumerian.[307]
Causative construction
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-n-i-n-gu} "the farmer made the child eat bread". A further example can be {digÌir-e engar-ra gud i-n-i-n-gub}: "the god made the farmer make the ox stand". The causative constructions can in turn be passivized using the prefix ba-: {gud ba-gub} "the ox was caused to stand", {gud-e u ba-b-gu} "the ox was caused to eat grass" (lit. "grass was caused to be eaten by the ox"), {dumu-ra ninda ba-n-gu} "the child was caused to eat bread".[308]
Syntax
General features
The basic word order is subjectâobjectâverb; 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,[309] as may the addition of the copula to it. Modifiers (adjectives, genitive phrases etc.) are normally placed after the noun: đđ e2 gibil "a new house" đđđ· e2 lugal-la "the house of the owner". However, the so-called anticipatory genitive (đđđđ e2-a lugal-bi "the owner of the house", lit. "of the house, its owner") is common and may signal the possessor's topicality.[309] There are no adpositions, but noun phrases in a certain case may resemble prepositions and have a similar function:
- đź...đđ ĆĄag4 X-a-ka, lit. "in the heart of X" = "inside/among X".
- đ ... đđ igi X-a-ĆĄe3, lit. "for the eyes of X" = "in front of X".
- đ...đđ egÌer X-a-ka, lit. "at the back of X" = "behind/after X".
- đđ ...đđ X ugu2 X-a-ka, lit. "on the skull of X" = "on top of X"
- đ...đđ bar X-a-ka, lit. "outside of X" = "because of X" (in Old Sumerian).
- đŹ ... đđ mu X-a-ĆĄe3, lit. "for the name of X" = "because of X" (in Neo-Sumerian).[310]
Subordinate clauses
There are various ways to express subordination, some of which have already been hinted at. Many of them include the nominalization of a verb with the suffix -/a/. Alone, the resulting clause usually functions as a relative clause, corresponding to an English clause with "which ...", as in the following example:
lu2 e2 in-Ću2-a
lu
man
e
house
lu e i-n-Ću-a
man house FIN-3.A-build-NMLZ
"the man who built the house"
The nominalized clause can also be a complement clause, corresponding to an English clause with "that ...", e.g. e2 in-Ću2-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 đ -a), it means "when" (e2 in-Ću2-a-a "when he built the house"), although this is more common in Old Sumerian. In the ablative case (with added đ« -ta), it means "after" or "since" (e2 in-Ću2-a-ta "after he built the house"); the particle đ -ri may express the same meaning as đ« -ta.[311] In the terminative case (with added đ -ĆĄe3), it has a meaning close to "before" (e2 nu-Ću2-a-ĆĄe3 "while he had not yet built the house") or "as to the fact that". In the equative case (with added đ¶ -gin7), it can mean "as (if)", "as (when)", "when" or "because" (e2 in-Ću2-a-gin7 "as he built the house"). It can also host the enclitics -/akanam/ and -/akeĆĄ/ "because" (e2 in-Ću2-a-ka-nam "because he built the house"). More surprisingly, it can add both the genitive and the locative morpheme (e2 nu-Ću2-a-(a-)ka) with a meaning close to "when", possibly "as soon as".[312]
The nominalized clause can directly modify a noun expressing time such as đ ud "day, time", đŹ mu "year" and đ itid "month", and this in turn can then stand in the locative and ablative in the same meanings as the clauses themselves: ud e2 in-Ću2-a-a/ta "when/after he built the house".[313] In this case, the particle -bi sometimes precedes the case morpheme: ud e2 in-Ću2-a-ba; the basic meaning is still of "when".[314] It can also be included in the various "prepositional constructions" mentioned above: bar e2 in-Ću2-a-ka "because he built the house" (in Old Sumerian), mu X-a-ĆĄe3 "because he built the house" (in Neo-Sumerian), egÌer e2 in-Ću2-a-ka "after he built the house", .[312] The structure is shown more clearly in the following example:
egÌer a-ma-ru ba-ur3-ra-ta
egÌer
back
amaru
flood
egÌer amaru ba-ur-a-ak-ta
back flood MID-sweep.over-NMLZ-GEN-ABL
"after the Flood had swept over"
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: đđđđđ· e2 Ću2-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: đđđđđ e2 lugal-e Ću2-a.[315]
A special subordinating construction with the temporal meaning of an English when-clause is the so-called pronominal conjugation, which contains a verb nominalized with -/a/ and following possessive pronouns. In the third person, the form appears to end in the possessive pronoun: đđđ kur9-ra-ni "when he entered", lit. "his entering". A newer interpretation is that the last syllable in such examples is actually to be read -ne, i.e. 3rd person possessive -ni plus directive -e "at his entering". In contrast, in the 1st and 2nd persons, we find this apparent -ni attached to 1st and 2nd person pronouns: đŁđ”đŹđ zig3-ga-gÌu-ni "as I rose"). This leads Jagersma to interpret the -ni as an otherwise obsolete locative ending: lit. 'at my rising').[316]
Subordinating conjunctions such as đđ ud-da "when, if", đđ»đđČđ tukum-bi "if" and đđŸ en-na "until" also exist.[317]
Coordination
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 đ -bi to the second one: đđđ€đđđ€đ en-lil2 nin-lil2-bi "both Enlil and Ninlil"; sometimes the enclitic is further reinforced by đ -da "with". More surprisingly, đ« -ta "from" is also sometimes used in the sense of "and".[318] The word đ u3 "and" was borrowed from Akkadian in the Old Akkadian period and occurs mostly in relatively colloquial texts;[319] Old Babylonian Sumerian also borrowed from Akkadian the enclitic đ -ma "and".[320] 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 đ¶đ áž«e2-em, "let it be": đ»đ¶đ đ§đ¶đ udu áž«e2-em maĆĄ áž«e2-em "(be it) a sheep or a goat".[321]
Other issues
A quotative particle -/(e)ĆĄe/ or -/ĆĄi/ "saying", variously spelt đ -eĆĄe2, đ -ĆĄi or đȘđș -e-ĆĄe, has been identified.[322]
Highlighting uses of the copula somewhat similar to English cleft constructions are present: đđđđđș lugal-am3 i3-gÌen3 "It is the king who came", đđŸđžđđđđș a-na-aĆĄ-am3 i3-gÌen3 "Why is it that he came?", đđșđđ i3-gÌen3-am3 "It is the case that he came".[323]
Yes/no-interrogative sentences appear to have been marked only by intonation and possibly by resulting lengthening of final vowels, but where a declarative would have used a copula, a yes/no-interrogative omits it.[324] There is no wh-movement: wh-questions generally have the same word order as declaratives.[325]
A specific problem of Sumerian syntax is posed by the numerous so-called "compound verbs", which are in fact not compounds[326] but phrasal combinations akin to English phrasal verbs: they usually involve a noun immediately before the verb, forming a lexical/idiomatic unit[327] (e.g. đ...đŸ ĆĄu...ti, lit. "hand-approach" = "receive"; đ ...đ igi...du8, lit. "eye-open" = "see", đ ...đ ki ... agÌ2, lit. "to measure out ... a place" = "to love"). Some of them are claimed to have a special agreement pattern that they share with causative constructions: their logical object, like the causee, receives, in the verb, the directive prefix, but in the noun, the dative suffix if animate and the directive if inanimate.[243]
Word formation
Derivation by affixation is largely non-existent.[328][329] An exception may be a few nouns ending in /-u/ denoting the object of a corresponding verb: đŹđ sar-ru "document" < đŹ sar "write".[330] Compounding, on the other hand, is common in nouns. Compounds are normally left-headed. The dependent may be:
- Another noun: đ e2 "house" + đŹ muáž«aldim "cook" > đđŹ e2-muáž«aldim "kitchen"
- An adjective: đš ur "dog" + đ€maáž« "great" > đšđ€ ur-maáž« "lion"
- A participle (consisting of the bare verb stem): đ» nigÌ2 "thing" + đ ba "give(n)" > đ»đ nigÌ2-ba "present",
- A participle with a dependent word: đ» nigÌ2 "thing" + đŁ zi "breath" + đ gÌal2 "be there" > đ»đŁđ nigÌ2-zi-gÌal2 "living thing"
An older obsolete pattern was right-headed instead:
- đ e2 "house" + đź ĆĄag4 "heart" > đđź e2-ĆĄag4 "innermost part of a house"
- đČ gal "big" + đ nar "musician" > đČđ gal-nar "chief musician"
A participle may be the head of the compound, preceded by a dependent:
- đŸ dub "clay tablet" + đŹ sar "write" > đŸđŹ dub-sar "scribe"
- đ ĆĄu "hand" + đł tag "touch" > đđł ĆĄu-tag "decoration" (corresponding to the phrasal verb đ...đł ĆĄu...tag "decorate")
There are a few cases of nominalized finite verbs, too: đđ ba-uĆĄ4 "(who) has died" > "dead"
Abstract nouns are formed as compounds headed by the word đ nam- "fate, status": đ dumu "child" > đđ nam-dumu "childhood", đ» tar "cut, decide" > đđ» nam-tar "fate".[331][332] Nouns that express the object of an action or an object possessing a characteristic are formed as compounds headed by the word đ» nigÌ2 "thing": đ „ gu4 "eat" > đ»đ „ nigÌ2-gu4 "food", đ "good, sweet" > đ»đ nigÌ2-dug "something sweet". The meaning may also be abstract: đ...đČ si...sa2 "straighten, put in order" > nigÌ2-si-sa2 "justice".[333]
Apparent coordinative compounds also exist, e.g. đđ an-ki "the universe", lit. "heaven and earth".[334]
A noun can be formed from an adjective by conversion: for example, đŒ dagÌal "wide" also means "width".[335]
On verbs acquiring the properties of adjectives and nouns (agent nouns and action nouns), see the section on Participles above.
Dialects
The standard variety of Sumerian was Emegir (đ Žđ : eme-girââ ). A notable variety or sociolect was Emesal (đ Žđ©: eme-sal), possibly to be interpreted as "fine tongue" or "high-pitched voice".[336] Other terms for dialects or registers were eme-galam "high tongue", eme-si-sa "straight tongue", eme-te-na "oblique[?] tongue", etc.[337]
Emesal is used exclusively by female characters in some literary texts (that may be compared to the female languages or language varieties that exist or have existed in some cultures, such as among the Chukchis and the Garifuna). In addition, it is dominant in certain genres of cult songs such as the hymns sung by Gala priests.[338] The special features of Emesal are mostly phonological (for example, m is often used instead of gÌ [i.e. /Ć/, as in đš me instead of standard đ· gÌe26 for "I"), but words different from the standard language are also used (đ”đđ ga-ĆĄa-an rather than standard đ nin, "lady").[339]
Bram Jagersma believes that he can distinguish two regional dialects of Sumerian - the Southern Sumerian that eventually formed the basis for the common standard of the Neo-Sumerian (Ur III) period and Northern Sumerian as seen in texts from Nippur, Adab and Isin (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 đ /i-/ alternated with đ /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 đ ba-, while in Northern Sumerian, it was đ a-.
- In Southern Sumerian after the Old Akkadian period, the conjugation prefix đ a-, which had originally existed in both dialects, disappears entirely apart from the variant đ al-, which only appears in subordinate clauses.
- In Southern Sumerian, the Old Sumerian phoneme Ć merged with r, while in Northern Sumerian, it merged with d.
Furthermore, the standard Neo-Sumerian variety of Ur III period and the dominant Sumerian variety of the Old Babylonian period also reflect different regional dialects:
- Neo-Sumerian elides the conjugation prefixes đ /i/- and đ /a/- in front of the prefixes đ-/ni/-, đ -/ra/- and đ -/ri/-, while Old Babylonian Sumerian retains them.
- The original sequence đŹđ mu-e-, consisting of the ventive conjugation prefix đŹ mu- and the 2nd person prefix đ -e-, is contracted into đŹ /muË/ in the Ur III standard, but into đš /meË/ in the most common Old Babylonian variety.[340]
Interference from Akkadian
In the Old Babylonian period and after it, the Sumerian used by scribes was influenced by their mother tongue, Akkadian, and 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:[17]
- confusion of the animate and inanimate gender (use of the directive -e instead of the dative -ra with animate nouns, especially after the genitive -/(a)k/, is attested as early as the Ur III period);
- confusion of the locative case (-a) and the directive case (-e);
- occasional use of the ergative/directive ending -e instead of the genitive case marker -a(k);
- treatment of the prefix sequences đ b-i- and đ n-i-, which originally could mark the causee in transitive verbs, as causative markers even with intransitive verbs;
- use of terminative đ -ĆĄe3 instead of locative -a to express the meaning "into";
- dropping of final -/m/ in the copula -am3 and sometimes its replacement with /e/.
For Middle Babylonian and later texts, even more deviations have been noted:[32]
- use of the ablative đ« -ta instead of the locative -a;
- use of đ€ -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;
- omission of the ergative marker -e and apparent loss of the notion of an ergative case;
- omission of the genitive marker -a(k).[32]
- use of infrequent words, sometimes inappropriately, apparently extracted from lexical lists.[33]
Syllabary
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,[341][342] transliterated as
as well as four vowel qualities, a, e, i, u.
Ca | Ce | Ci | Cu | aC | eC | iC | uC | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a đ, ĂĄ đ | e đ, Ă© đ | i đż, Ă=IĂ đ, | u đ, Ăș đ, | a đ, ĂĄ đ | e đ, Ă© đ | i đż, Ă=IĂ đ, | u đ, Ăș đ, | |||
b- | ba đ, bĂĄ=PA đș, | be=BAD đ, bĂ©=BI đ, | bi đ, bĂ=NE đ, | bu đ, bĂș=KASKAL đ, | ab đ, ĂĄb đ | eb=IB đ
, Ă©b=TUM đ | ib đ
, Ăb=TUM đ | ub đ, Ășb=Ć Ă đ | -b | |
d- | da đ, dĂĄ=TA đ« | de=DI đČ, dĂ© đŁ, | di đČ, dĂ=TĂ đ | du đș, dĂș=TU đ
, | ad đ, ĂĄd đ | ed=Ă đ | id=Ă đ, Ăd=A.ENGUR đđ | ud đ, Ășd=ĂĆ đŸ | -d | |
g- | ga đ”, gĂĄ đ· | ge=GI đ, gĂ©=KID đ€, | gi đ, gĂ=KID đ€, | gu đ, gĂș đ, | ag đ, ĂĄg đ | eg=IG đ
, Ă©g=E đ | ig đ
, Ăg=E đ | ug đ | -g | |
áž«- | áž«a đ©, áž«ĂĄ=ážȘI.A đđ, | áž«e=ážȘI đ, áž«Ă©=GAN đ¶ | áž«i đ, áž«Ă=GAN đ¶ | áž«u đ· | aáž« đŽ, ĂĄáž«=Ć EĆ đ | eáž«=AážȘ đŽ | iáž«=AážȘ đŽ | uáž«=AážȘ đŽ, Ășáž« đ | -áž« | |
k- | ka đ
, kĂĄ đ, | ke=KI đ , kĂ©=GI đ | ki đ , kĂ=GI đ | ku đȘ/đ , kĂș=GU7 đ
„, | ak=AG đ | ek=IG đ | ik=IG đ | uk=UG đ | -k | |
l- | la đ·, lĂĄ=LAL đČ, | le=LI đ·, lĂ©=NI đ | li đ·, lĂ=NI đ | lu đ», lĂș đœ | al đ , ĂĄl=ALAM đ© | el đ, Ă©l=IL đ | il đ
, Ăl đ | ul đ, Ășl=NU đĄ | -l | |
m- | ma đ , mĂĄ đŁ | me đš, mĂ©=MI đȘ, | mi đȘ, mĂ=MUNUS đ©, | mu đŹ, mĂș=SAR đŹ | am đ /đ, ĂĄm=ĂG đ | em=IM đ | im đ
, Ăm=KAĆ 4 đœ | um đ, Ășm=UD đ | -m | |
n- | na đŸ, nĂĄ đż, | ne đ, nĂ©=NI đ | ni đ, nĂ=IM đ | nu đĄ, nĂș=NĂ đż | an đ | en đ, Ă©n, | in đ
, in4=EN đ, | un đŠ, Ășn=U đ | -n | |
p- | pa đș, pĂĄ=BA đ, | pe=PI đż, pĂ©=BI đ | pi đż, pĂ=BI đ, | pu=BU đ, pĂș=TĂL đ„, | ap=AB đ | ep=IB đ
, Ă©p=TUM đ | ip=IB đ
, Ăp=TUM đ | up=UB đ, Ășp=Ć Ă đ | -p | |
r- | ra đ, rĂĄ=DU đș | re=RI đ, rĂ©=URU đ·, | ri đ, rĂ=URU đ· | ru đ, rĂș=GAG đ, | ar đ
, ĂĄr=UB đ | er=IR đ | ir đ
, Ăr=A.IGI đđ | ur đš, Ășr đ« | -r | |
s- | sa đ, sĂĄ=DI đČ, | se=SI đ, sĂ©=ZI đŁ | si đ, sĂ=ZI đŁ | su đą, sĂș=ZU đȘ, | as=AZ đ | es=GIĆ đ, Ă©s=EĆ đ | is=GIĆ đ, Ăs=EĆ đ | us=UZ, Ășs=UĆ đ | -s | |
ĆĄ- | ĆĄa đ, ĆĄĂĄ=NĂG đŒ, | ĆĄe đș, ĆĄĂ©, | ĆĄi=IGI đ
, ĆĄĂ=SI đ | ĆĄu đ, ĆĄĂș đ, | aĆĄ đž, ĂĄĆĄ đŸ | eĆĄ đ/đ, Ă©ĆĄ=Ć Ă đ | iĆĄ đ
, ĂĆĄ=KASKAL đ | uĆĄ đ, ĂșĆĄ=BAD đ | -ĆĄ | |
t- | ta đ«, tĂĄ=DA đ | te đŒ, tĂ©=TĂ đč | ti đŸ, tĂ đč, | tu đ
, tĂș=UD đ, | at=AD đ, ĂĄt=GĂR gunĂ» đ | et=Ă đ | it=Ă đ | ut=UD đ, Ășt=ĂĆ đŸ | -t | |
z- | za đ, zĂĄ=NA4 đđ | ze=ZI đŁ, zĂ©=ZĂ đą | zi đŁ, zĂ đą, | zu đȘ, zĂș=KA đ | az đ | ez=GIĆ đ, Ă©z=EĆ đ | iz= GIĆ đ, Ăz=IĆ đ | uz=Ć E&HU đ» Ășz=UĆ đ, | -z | |
gÌ- | gÌĂĄ=GĂ đ· | gÌe26=GĂ đ· | gÌi6=MI đȘ | gÌu10=MU đŹ | ĂĄgÌ=ĂG đ | ĂšgÌ=ĂG đ | ĂŹgÌ=ĂG đ | ĂčgÌ=UN đŠ | -gÌ | |
Ć- | ĆĂĄ=DU đș | Će6=DU đș | -Ć |
Sample text
Inscription by Entemena of LagaĆĄ
This text was inscribed on a small clay cone c. 2400 BC. It recounts the beginning of a war between the city-states of LagaĆĄ and Umma during the Early Dynastic III period, one of the earliest border conflicts recorded. (RIME 1.09.05.01)[343]
đđđ€
den-lil2
đ
lugal
đłđłđ
kur-kur-ra
đđ
ab-ba
đđđ·đđ€
digÌir-digÌir-re2-ne-ke4
đ
inim
đđŸđđ«
gi-na-ni-ta
đđ©đđđą
dnin-gÌir2-su
đđđ
dĆĄara2-bi
đ
ki
đđđ©
e-ne-sur
đđđ€ đ đłđłđ đđ đđđ·đđ€ đ đđŸđđ« đđ©đđđą đđđ đ đđđ©
den-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra ab-ba digÌir-digÌir-re2-ne-ke4 inim gi-na-ni-ta dnin-gÌir2-su dĆĄara2-bi ki e-ne-sur
"Enlil, king of all the lands, father of all the gods, by his firm command, fixed the border between Ningirsu and Ć ara."
đšđČ
me-silim
đ
lugal
đ§đ đ€
kiĆĄki-ke4
đ
inim
đđ đČđŸđ«
diĆĄtaran-na-ta
đ
eĆĄ2
đ·
gana2
đđ
be2-ra
đ đ
ki-ba
đŸ
na
đđ
bi2-Ću2
đšđČ đ đ§đ đ€ đ đđ đČđŸđ« đ đ· đđ đ đ đŸ đđ
me-silim lugal kiĆĄki-ke4 inim diĆĄtaran-na-ta eĆĄ2 gana2 be2-ra ki-ba na bi2-Ću2
"Mesilim, king of KiĆĄ, at the command of IĆĄtaran, measured the field and set up a stele there."
đ
uĆĄ
đșđŒđ
ensi2
đđ”đ đ€
ummaki-ke4
đ
nam
đ đ
inim-ma
đđđđđ
diri-diri-ĆĄe3
đđ
e-ak
đ đșđŒđ đđ”đ đ€ đ đ đ đđđđđ đđ
uĆĄ ensi2 ummaki-ke4 nam inim-ma diri-diri-ĆĄe3 e-ak
"Ush, ruler of Umma, acted unspeakably."
đŸđđđ
na-ru2-a-bi
đđ»
i3-pad
đ
edin
đąđđ·đ đ
lagaĆĄki-ĆĄe3
đđș
i3-gÌen
đŸđđđ đđ» đ đąđđ·đ đ đđș
na-ru2-a-bi i3-pad edin lagaĆĄki-ĆĄe3 i3-gÌen
"He ripped out that stele and marched toward the plain of LagaĆĄ."
đđ©đđđą
dnin-gÌir2-su
đšđ
ur-sag
đđđ€đČđ€
den-lil2-la2-ke4
đ
inim
đđČđđ«
si-sa2-ni-ta
đđ”đ đ
ummaki-da
đźđ©đ
dam-áž«a-ra
đđđ
e-da-ak
đđ©đđđą đšđ đđđ€đČđ€ đ đđČđđ« đđ”đ đ đźđ©đ đđđ
dnin-gÌir2-su ur-sag den-lil2-la2-ke4 inim si-sa2-ni-ta ummaki-da dam-áž«a-ra e-da-ak
"Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, at his just command, made war with Umma."
đ
inim
đđđ€đČđ«
den-lil2-la2-ta
đ
sa
đ
ĆĄu4
đČ
gal
đđ
bi2-ĆĄu4
đ đŻđșđ
SAážȘAR.DU6.TAKA4-bi
đđŸ
eden-na
đ
ki
đđđđ
ba-ni-us2-us2
đ đđđ€đČđ« đ đ đČ đđ đ đŻđșđ đđŸ đ đđđđ
inim den-lil2-la2-ta sa ĆĄu4 gal bi2-ĆĄu4 SAážȘAR.DU6.TAKA4-bi eden-na ki ba-ni-us2-us2
"At Enlil's command, he threw his great battle net over it and heaped up burial mounds for it on the plain."
đđđŸđș
e2-an-na-tum2
đșđŒđ
ensi2
đąđđ·đ
lagaĆĄki
đșđđđ”
pa-bil3-ga
đđŒđšđŸ
en-mete-na
đșđŒđ
ensi2
đąđđ·đ đ đ€
lagaĆĄki-ka-ke4
đđđŸđș đșđŒđ đąđđ·đ đșđđđ” đđŒđšđŸ đșđŒđ đąđđ·đ đ đ€
e2-an-na-tum2 ensi2 lagaĆĄki pa-bil3-ga en-mete-na ensi2 lagaĆĄki-ka-ke4
"Eannatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Entemena, ruler of LagaĆĄ"
đđđđ·
en-a2-kal-le
đșđŒđ
ensi2
đđ”đ đ
ummaki-da
đ
ki
đđđ©
e-da-sur
đđđđ· đșđŒđ đđ”đ đ đ đđđ©
en-a2-kal-le ensi2 ummaki-da ki e-da-sur
See also
References
Notes
- ^ Interestingly, the poorly documented Sealand Dynasty (c. 1732â1460 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 at Tell Khaiber, some of which contain year names from the reign of a king with the Sumerian throne name Aya-dara-galama.[36]
- ^ 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 > đœđ lu2-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.[121]
- ^ With animates, the dative is usually used instead.
- ^ The final consonant appears only in front of a following vowel. See the section on Consonants above for this phenomenon.
- ^ 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.[122]
- ^ With inanimates, the directive is usually used instead.
- ^ The allomorph -/ĆĄ/ 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 -ĆĄe3 is written even after vowels.[123]
- ^ 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.[124]
- ^ With animates, the corresponding case in some constructions is the dative.[125]
- ^ With animates, the construction đ ...(đ)đ« ki X-a(k)-ta, lit. "from the place of X" is used.[126]
- ^ The variant with /e/ is found in Old Babylonian and has a few attestations in Ur III Neo-Sumerian.
- ^ The inanimate has no number distinction, so đ -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 đđđšđđąđ za-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.[131][132]
- ^ 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 đđđšđđąđ za-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.[131][132]
- ^ The variant with /e/ is found in Old Babylonian and has a few attestations in Ur III Neo-Sumerian.[133][134][135][136]
- ^ Jagersma considers the correct reading of the sign đ bi in the possessive/demonstrative enclitic to be be2.
- ^ As a first stage in this development, Jagersma reconstructs a prehistoric Sumerian system where /a-/ signalled imperfectivity and /i-/ perfectivity, before the marĂ»-áž«amáču tense-aspect distinction took over that role. áž«amáču 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).
- ^ In particular, this is shown by the fact that since sequences like ba.n.ĆĄi- and ba.n.da- are possible in attested Sumerian (even though ba.b.ĆĄi- and ba.b.da- remain impossible because of the origin of ba-[218]).[219]
- ^ Also -e- in some Old Babylonian texts. Note that -e-, too, had a tendency to assimilate to the preceding vowel.[231][232]
- ^ The 1st person plural dative marker, like the corresponding singular, seems to include the ventive prefix (Jagersma 2010: 410).
- ^ Only attested in late texts (Jagersma 2010: 381).
- ^ However, the plural pronominal markers usually don't take the dative marker and express an indirect object 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.[237]
- ^ The allomorph -di3- is used before the locative prefix /-ni-/).
- ^ The allomorph -ra- is used after vowels.[238]
- ^ According to Jagersma (2010: 476-482) and ZĂłlyomi (2018: 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 undergoes compensatory lengthening: đŹđ mu-e- > đŹđ mu-u3- etc. In Old Babylonian Sumerian, it is the preceding vowel that assimilated to -e-: đđ -da-e- > đ de3 The prefix does not seem to surface at all between a vowel and a subject/object prefix as in ma2-a mu-na-*(e)-n-gÌar2 "he loaded it on the boat for her".[239]
- ^ 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".
- ^ An alleged exception is the verb đ tum3 'bring', which appears to have imperfective meaning of a marĂ» form, but nonetheless follows the áž«amáču agreement pattern: đđđ ba-an-tum3 "he will take it away" (Jagersma 2010: 266-367).
- ^ 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. in marĂ»); that would often be indistinguishable from the 3rd person animate -n-.[261][262][263]
- ^ A significant minority of Sumerologists have posited a separate prefix -(e)n- for the 1st and 2nd person direct object in marĂ»; that would often be indistinguishable from the 3rd person animate -n-.[261][263]
- ^ 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 đŁ de2 "pour", đ Ću2 "build", đ» gÌar "put" and đ e "say" very often (but not always) lack it.[264]
- ^ -/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.[265]
- ^ Other verbs with such suppletion are đŸ til3 (đ» lug with non-humans) - đ se12/sig7 "live" and a number of verbs in whose paradigms there is additional interplay with tense/aspect, on which see below.[266] Another verb which may belong here is đș tum2 - đșđș laáž«5 "bring"[266] ("to lead" according to several researchers or "to bring" used with countable objects according to ZĂłlyomi 2018.[267])
- ^ Other common verbs of this type are đ đ·/đ gagÌ "carry" (red. ga6-ga6), đ» gÌar "put" (red. đ·đ· gÌa2-gÌa2), đ gi4 "turn", đ„ gur10 "reap", đ©đ· áž«a-la (red. áž«al-áž«a) "divide", đ đš áž«ulu (red. áž«uláž«u), đ„ kigÌ2 "seek", đŹ mĂș "grow", đ nagÌ (red. na8-na8) "drink", đžđž nigÌin2 (red. ne-ne) "go around", đ ra "hit", đ sa10 "barter", đą sug6 (red. su2-su2) "repay", đ ĆĄeĆĄ2 "anoint" (red. ĆĄe8-ĆĄe8 - reduplicating only in post-Ur III texts), đș taka4 (red. da13-da13) "leave behind", đŒđ te-en (red. te-en-te) "cool off", đđ tu5 "bathe in", đ tuku red. du12-du12) "have", đł tuku5 "weave", đŁ zig (red. zi-zi), "rise".[275][276]
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 311) treats this as a suppletive stem. As another instance of the same pattern, ZĂłlyomi (2018) cites đđș e3 vs ed2.[277] Foxvog (2010: 120) points out that this class has at most these two members and considers its status to be suspect.
- ^ đ dug4 - đ e "do, say" also has the marĂ» participle stem đČ did and, exceptionally, uses the stem đ e to agree with plural ergative subjects.[278] Other such verbs are đȘ tuĆĄ - đȘ dur2 "sit" (singular; the plural is always đȘ durun), and đ uĆĄ2 - đ/đŠ ug7/ug5 "die" (singular; the plural is always /ug/), and đș Će6 - đ tum3 (the latter with an exceptional áž«amáču agreement pattern) "bring".[279] The last verb is also traditionally ascribed the plural stem đșđș laáž«5,[280] but several researchers have recently argued that this is used for a separate verb with the áž«amáču stem đș tum2 ("to lead" or, according to ZĂłlyomi 2018, p. 141-142, "to bring" used for countable objects as opposed to Će6 for uncountable ones).
- ^ Edzard (2003: 95) believes that this use of ba- first occurs in Neo-Sumerian, but Jagersma (2010: 496) states that it was already present in Old Sumerian.
Citations
- ^ "Sumerian". Archived from the original on 27 June 2013. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
- ^ a b c d e Prince, J. Dyneley (1919). "Phonetic Relations in Sumerian". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 39: 265â279. doi:10.2307/592740. JSTOR 592740. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
- ^ Prince, J. Dyneley (1904). "The Vocabulary of Sumerian" (PDF). Journal of the American Oriental Society. 25: 49â67. doi:10.2307/592549. JSTOR 592549.
- ^ a b c d Woods C. 2006 "Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian". In S. L. Sanders (ed) Margins of Writing, Origins of Culture: 91â120 Chicago.
- ^ Joan Oates (1979). Babylon [Revised Edition] Thames and Hudston, Ltd. 1986 p. 30, 52â53.
- ^ The A.K. Grayson, Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, ed. Arthur Cotterell, Penguin Books Ltd. 1980. p. 92
- ^ Hasselbach-Andee, Rebecca (2020). A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 132. ISBN 978-1-119-19380-7.
- ^ THUREAU-DANGIN, F. (1911). "Notes Assyriologiques". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archĂ©ologie orientale. 8 (3): 138â141. ISSN 0373-6032. JSTOR 23284567.
- ^ a b c d e f g Jagersma (2010: 4-6)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 4)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 27-32)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 16)
- ^ Rubio (2009: 16).
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 16-17)
- ^ Michalowski, P., 2006: "The Lives of the Sumerian Language", in S.L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago, 159â184
- ^ a b c d Jagersma (2010: 9-10)
- ^ a b Black, J.A. and G. ZĂłlyomi (2007). The study of diachronic and synchronic variation in Sumerian. P. 10-14.
- ^ Andrew (2007: 43)
- ^ a b c d Thomsen (2001: 31)
- ^ Barthelmus (2016: 1-2)
- ^ a b c Viano (2016: 24)
- ^ Rubio (2009: 39)
- ^ George (2007: 45)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 17)
- ^ Rubio (2009: 37).
- ^ Rubio (2009: 40)
- ^ Huber, Peter. On the Old Babylonian Understanding of Sumerian Grammar. LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 87 (Munich 2018: LINCOM GmbH).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 6)
- ^ a b https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ckst/introduction/index.html
- ^ a b Barthelmus (2016: passim).
- ^ Andrew (2007: 49).
- ^ a b c d Barthelmus (2016: 230-250)
- ^ a b Veldhuis, Niek. 2008. Kurigalzu's statue inscription. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 60, 25â51. P. 28-31
- ^ Wagensonner. Klaus. 2018. Sumerian in the Middle Assyrian Period. In: M. J. Geller and J. Braarvig (eds.) Multilingualism, Lingua Franca and Lingua Sacra (Studies 10: Berlin): 225â297
- ^ Viano 2016: passim
- ^ [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 2019 ISBN 978-0-9927257-4-7
- ^ Piotr Michalowski, "Sumerian," "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages." Ed. Roger D. Woodard (2004, Cambridge University Press). Pages 19â59
- ^ Georges RoĆ (1993). Ancient Iraq (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books. p. 80-82.
- ^ 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.
- ^ DIAKONOFF, Igor M. (1997). "External Connections of the Sumerian Language". Mother Tongue. 3: 54â63.
- ^ Sathasivam, A (2017). Proto-Sumero-Dravidian: The Common Origin of Sumerian and Dravidian Languages. Kingston, UK: History and Heritage Unit, Tamil Information Centre. ISBN 978-1-85201-024-9.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Zakar, AndrĂĄs (1971). "Sumerian â Ural-Altaic affinities". Current Anthropology. 12 (2): 215â225. doi:10.1086/201193. JSTOR 2740574. S2CID 143879460..
- ^ 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. ISBN 83-87111-32-5..
- ^ "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. ISBN 9781521532362.
- ^ 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. ISBN 9789027235190.
- ^ Ruhlen, Merritt (1994). The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 143.
- ^ Piotr Michalowski, "Sumerian," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (2004, Cambridge), pg. 22
- ^ HĂžyrup, 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: 21â72, Figs. 1â3. 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. 277â82, 2014
- ^ Rubio, Gonzalo (1999). "On the alleged 'pre-Sumerian substratum'". Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 51 (1999): 1â16. doi:10.2307/1359726. JSTOR 1359726. S2CID 163985956.
- ^ Whittaker, Gordon (2008). "The Case for Euphratic" (PDF). Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. 2 (3). Tbilisi: 156â168. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
- ^ "Problems of absolute chronology in protohistoric Mesopotamia". Retrieved 2024-05-31.
- ^ "Inscriptions From Tell Abu Salabikh" (PDF). Retrieved 2024-05-31.
- ^ Edzard, Dietz Otto, "Wann ist Sumerisch als gesprochene Sprache ausgestorben?", Acta Sumerologica 22, pp. 53â70, 2000
- ^ Krejci, Jaroslav (1990). Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East. SUNY Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7914-0168-2.
- ^ Mémoires. Mission archéologique en Iran. 1900. p. 53.
- ^ Kevin J. Cathcart, "The Earliest Contributions to the Decipherment of Sumerian and Akkadian", Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, 2011
- ^ In Keilschrift, Transcription und Ăbersetzung : nebst ausfĂŒhrlichem 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. 49â67, 1904
- ^ "Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies".
- ^ Kramer, Samuel Noah (1961) [1944]. Sumerian Mythology. Archived from the original on 2005-05-25. Retrieved 2005-09-23.
- ^ "Diakonoff 1976:112" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 43-45)
- ^ [Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?" In: Babel und Bibel 3, p.21]
- ^ a b Michalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.16
- ^ Jagersma, Bram (January 2000). "Sound change in Sumerian: the so-called /dr/-phoneme". Acta Sumerologica 22: 81â87. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2015-11-23.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 42-43)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 53)
- ^ a b "Sumerian language". The ETCSL project. Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. 2005-03-29. Archived from the original on 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ Attinger, Pascal, 1993. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. p. 212 [2]()
- ^ [Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?" In: Babel und Bibel 3, passim]
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 38-41, 48-49, 53-54)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 62-63).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 35-36, 38)
- ^ a b c Smith, Eric J M. 2007. [-ATR] "Harmony and the Vowel Inventory of Sumerian". Journal of Cuneiform Studies, volume 57
- ^ a b c Keetman, J. 2013. "Die sumerische Wurzelharmonie". Babel und Bibel 7 p.109-154
- ^ "ZĂłlyomi, GĂĄbor. 2016. An introduction to the grammar of Sumerian. P. 12-13" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 56-57)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 13-14)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 58-59)
- ^ Keetman, J. 2009. "The limits of [ATR] vowel harmony in Sumerian and some remarks about the need of transparent data ". Nouvelles Assyriologiques BrĂšves et Utilitaires 2009, No. 65
- ^ Michalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.17
- ^ a b c Jagersma (2010: 60-62)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 40)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 63-67)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 33)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 18)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 19-24)
- ^ #
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 25-26)
- ^ Rubio, G. (2000). «On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period». ASJ, 22, pp. 203-225. P. 215-217, 218-220.
- ^ Viano (2016: 141)
- ^ GĂĄbor ZĂłlyomi: An Introduction to the Grammar of Sumerian Open Access textbook, Budapest 2017
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 49)
- ^ a b Rubio (2007: 1329)
- ^ Civil (2020: 43)
- ^ Michalowski 2008
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 101-102)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 15)
- ^ a b Foxvog (2016: 22)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 29)
- ^ "Kausen, Ernst. 2006. Sumerische Sprache. p.9". Archived from the original on 2009-09-27. Retrieved 2006-02-06.
- ^ ZĂłlyomi, GĂĄbor, 1993: Voice and Topicalization in Sumerian. PhD Dissertation [3] Archived 2008-10-01 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Johnson, Cale, 2004: In the Eye of the Beholder: Quantificational, Pragmatic and Aspectual Features of the *bĂ- Verbal Formation in Sumerian, Dissertation. UCLA, Los Angeles [4] Archived 2013-06-22 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b c d Jagersma (2010: 109-113)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 61)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 114-116)
- ^ a b Foxvog (2016: 23)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 270-272)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 25, 31-32), Jagersma (2010: 270-271), Rubio (2007: 1329), Mihalowski (2004). Thomsen (2001: 65) holds the minority view that they express a superlative.
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 62)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 63), Michalowski (2004)
- ^ 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.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 137-188, 428-441)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 154)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 161-163)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 180-182)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 196-200)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 439)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 193)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 137)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 158-159)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 615-617)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi, GĂĄbor (2014). Grzegorek, Katarzyna; Borowska, Anna; Kirk, Allison (eds.). Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. De Gruyter. p. 8. ISBN 978-3-11-040169-1. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
- ^ a b Edzard (2003: 55-56)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 67)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 210-211)
- ^ Thomsen 2001: 68
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 30)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 55)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 73), ZĂłlyomi (2017: 39)
- ^ Jagersma (2009: 220-225)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 225-228), Edzard (2003: 57)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 49)
- ^ Jagersma (2003: 228)
- ^ a b c Jagersma (2003: 228-229)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 35)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 119)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 27)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 77)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 59)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 59), Thomsen (2001: 78)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 231-234)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 36)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 234-239)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 92)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 268-269)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 278)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 279-281)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 282-283)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 284)
- ^ Stephen Chrisomalis (2010). Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. Cambridge University Press. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-521-87818-0. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 46.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 37.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 8.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 35.
- ^ a b Halloran pdf 1999, p. 11.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999.
- ^ a b Halloran pdf 1999, p. 59.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 20.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 244)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 256)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 246-250)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 260-267)
- ^ See e.g. Rubio 2007, Attinger 1993, ZĂłlyomi 2005 ("Sumerisch". In: Sprachen des Alten Orients, ed. M. Streck), PPCS Morphological model Archived October 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ E.g. Attinger 1993, Rubio 2007
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 526-528)
- ^ Jagersma 2010 (552-555)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 562)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 558-560)
- ^ a b Jagersma 2010: 518
- ^ a b Jagersma 2010: 569-570
- ^ Edzard (2003: 115)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 518-521)
- ^ Jagersma 2010: 579
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 574-575)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 240)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 117)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 578-579), citing Falkenstein.
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 207-208), citing Th. Jacobsen.
- ^ a b Edzard (2003: 120)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 109)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 287, 743)
- ^ Rubio 2007 and references therein
- ^ Woods 2008, ZĂłlyomi 1993.
- ^ Cf. Edzard (2003: 109).
- ^ a b c d e Jagersma (2010: 535-542)
- ^ Cf. Thomsen (2001: 163), Rubio (2007: 1347) and Foxvog (2016: 65), who even regards /i-/ as a mere "prosthetic vowel".
- ^ Cf. also Edzard (2003: 111-112), Foxvog (2016: 66).
- ^ a b Cf. Thomsen (2001: 187), Edzard (2003: 111-112), Foxvog (2016: 66), Rubio (2007: 1351).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 543-548)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 548-549)
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 92).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 504-509)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 507-508). Cf. Rubio (2007: 1347-1348), Thomsen (2001: 182-183).
- ^ Rubio (2007: 1347-1348), Thomsen (2001: 182-183)
- ^ Woods (2008: 303-307)
- ^ a b Foxvog (2016: 94-95)
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 103-109), partially accepted by Thomsen (2001: 173) and Woods (2008: 153-160).
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 103-109), Thomsen (2001: 173) and, with some reservations, Woods (2008: 143-153).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 530, 499)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 501)
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Rubio (2007: 1355), and Falkenstein cited in Thomsen (2001: 177); Thomsen (2001) herself instead believes /mi-ni-/ to be derived from /bi-ni-/.
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 417)
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 400-401)
- ^ Cf. Thomsen (2001: 183), Edzard (2003: 94), Foxvog (2016: 73). In contrast, Rubio (2007: 1349) and Woods (2008: 305) are sceptical.
- ^ Cf. Edzard (2003: 94), Foxvog (2016: 73).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 400, 742)
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 75) and the slightly different description in ZĂłlyomi (2018: 78, 80-81).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 383-384).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 447-448)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 487-496)
- ^ a b Cf. Thomsen (2001: 183), Edzard (2003: 95), Woods (2008: 303), Rubio (2007: 1349), Foxvog (2016: 75).
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 159), Jagersma (2010: 491-492)
- ^ Cf. Woods (2008: 306-307), Edzard (2003: 95), Foxvog (2016: 74-75).
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 487-494)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 400)
- ^ Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91-92), Woods (2008: 316), Edzard (2003: 92-93). Thomsen (2003: 162-163), following Falkenstein, recognises the connection with /ba-/ and /bi-/, but not the connection with /im-/. Rubio (2007: 1348, 1350-1351) does view /immi-/ as related to /imma-/ in the same as /bi-/ is to /ba-/ (as a sequence of it and the directive prefix), but rejects the connection with /ba-/ and /bi-/ and considers /imma-/ a gemination of /mu-/.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 513-516)
- ^ Jagersma 2010, Foxvog 2016, ZĂłlyomi 2017.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 8, 470-473)
- ^ 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.
- ^ Edzard 2003: 87
- ^ Michalowski 2004
- ^ a b Jagersma (2009: 337-339)
- ^ a b c ZĂłlyomi (2018: 125-126, 162-163)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 401, 421-423)
- ^ Rubio (2007: 1351)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 404, 409-410)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 454-455)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 481-482)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 449)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 482-486)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 442, 445)
- ^ a b c ZĂłlyomi (2000). "Structural interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian" (PDF). Acta Sumerologica. 22. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2008-07-20.
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 392-396, 458-459, 474)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 201-221)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 165)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 400-403)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 388, 508-509)
- ^ a b ZĂłlyomi (2018: 81)
- ^ a b Rubio 2007
- ^ ZĂłlyomi 1993 and 2018, Attinger 1993, Edzard (2003: 98), Jagersma 2010: 468, 477-478; originally posited by Falkenstein. Referenced and disputed by Foxvog (2016: 87-88)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 530, 499)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 478)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 418-419), Zolyomi (2018: 215, 219)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 381-382, 391-392, 447, 509-511)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 509-511)
- ^ The possibility is mentioned by Foxvog (2016: 93); the question is discussed in detail in Attinger (1993: §178a).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 391-392, 447, 509-511)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 353-356)
- ^ Mostly based on Jagersma (2010: 359-363) and ZĂłlyomi (2018: 126-127). Cf. also Foxvog (2016: 62-63), Thomsen: (2001: 142-154), Michalowski (2004), Rubio (2007: 1357-1359), Edzard (2003: 81-89) for slightly different descriptions or formulations.
- ^ a b Edzard (2003: 84-85)
- ^ Attinger 1993, Khachikyan 2007: "Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian". In: Babel und Bibel 3.)
- ^ a b See references and objections by Jagersma (2010: 363).
- ^ Jagersma 2010: (364-366)...
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 339-340)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010:314), ZĂłlyomi (2018: 139)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 139), Foxvog (2016: 120)
- ^ a b Rubio (2007: 1338)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 125)
- ^ Rubio (2007: 1337)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 314-315)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 137-140)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 74-79)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 318-319)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 312-314)
- ^ Zolyomi (2018: 129)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi 2018: 129
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 317)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 139), Jagersma (2010: 311), Thomsen (2001: 133-136)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 133-136)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi 2005
- ^ (Foxvog 2016: 126-127)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 82)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 368-371)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 656-660)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 372-380)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 556)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 128)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 504)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 628-629)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 630-636)
- ^ "Epsd2/Sux/ĆĄum[give]". Archived from the original on 2021-09-26. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 638-640)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 627)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 674-675)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 627-676)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 135-136)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 139-144)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 655-659)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 144-145)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 685)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 677-678)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 717-718)
- ^ ZĂłlyomi (2018: 112)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 706-710)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 303-307)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 494)
- ^ Zolyomi (2018: 223-226) Jagersma (2010: 429-433)
- ^ a b ZĂłlyomi 1993
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 614-615)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 160)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 594-626)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 152)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 154)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 644-649)
- ^ Jagersma (2009: 672â674)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 301)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 97-99)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 99-100)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 162)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 100)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 157-158)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 712-713)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 230-231)
- ^ (Jagersma 2010: 228)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 74)
- ^ Johnson 2004:22
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 101)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 309)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 130)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 118-119)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 116-126)
- ^ Thomsen (2003: 58)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 126)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 281-283)
- ^ Rubio 2007, p. 1369.
- ^ Sylvain Auroux (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-11-019400-5.
- ^ Hartmann, Henrike (1960). Die Musik der Sumerischen Kultur. p. 138.
- ^ Rubio (2007). Morphology of Asia and Africa. Eisenbrauns. p. 1370. ISBN 978-1-57506-109-2.
- ^ Jagersma 2010: 7
- ^ Foxvog, Daniel A. Introduction to Sumerian grammar (PDF). pp. 16â17, 20â21. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2017 (about phonemes gÌ and Ć and their representation using cuneiform signs).
- ^ Jagersma, A. H. A descriptive grammar of Sumerian (PDF) (Thesis). pp. 43â45, 50â51. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 25, 2015 (about phonemes gÌ and Ć and their representation using cuneiform signs).
- ^ a b "CDLI-Found Texts". cdli.ucla.edu. Retrieved 2018-03-12.
- ^ "Cone of Enmetena, king of Lagash". 2020. Archived from the original on 2020-02-27. Retrieved 2020-02-27.
Bibliography
- Attinger, Pascal (1993). Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. ISBN 3-7278-0869-1.
- Bartelmus, Alexa (2016). Fragmente einer groĂen Sprache. Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Civil, Miquel (2020). EsbĂłs de gramĂ tica sumĂšria. An outline of Sumerian grammar. A cura de LluĂs Feliu Institut del PrĂČxim Orient Antic.
- Delitzsch, Friedrich (1914). GrundzĂŒge der sumerischen Grammatik. J. C. Hinrichs. OCLC 923551546.
- Dewart, Leslie (1989). Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-2690-7.
- Diakonoff, I. M. (1976). "Ancient Writing and Ancient Written Language: Pitfalls and Peculiarities in the Study of Sumerian" (PDF). Assyriological Studies. 20 (Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jakobsen): 99â121. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
- Edzard, Dietz Otto (2003). Sumerian Grammar. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-12608-2. (grammar treatment for the advanced student)
- Halloran, John (11 August 1999). "Sumerian Lexicon" (PDF). Sumerian Language Page. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
- Halloran, John Alan (2006). Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language. Logogram Pub. ISBN 978-0978-64291-4.
- Hayes, John (1990; 3rd revised ed. 2018), A Manual of Sumerian: Grammar and Texts. UNDENA, Malibu CA. ISBN 978-0-9798937-4-2. (primer for the beginning student)
- Hayes, John (1997), Sumerian. Languages of the World/Materials #68, LincomEuropa, Munich. ISBN 3-929075-39-3. (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. ISBN 2-7053-1743-0. (118pp overview and sketch, in French)
- Langdon, Stephen Herbert (1911). A Sumerian Grammar and Chrestomathy, with a Vocabulary of the Principal Roots in Sumerian, and List of the Most Important Syllabic and Vowel Transcriptions, by Stephen Langdon ... P. Geuthner. OCLC 251014503.
- Michalowski, Piotr (1980). "Sumerian as an Ergative Language". Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 32 (2): 86â103. doi:10.2307/1359671. JSTOR 1359671. S2CID 164022054.
- Michalowski,Piotr, (2004), "Sumerian", The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages pp 19â59, ed. Roger Woodward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-05-2156-256-0.
- Pinches, Theophilus G., "Further Light upon the Sumerian Language.", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1914, pp. 436â40
- Prince, John D. (1908). Materials for a Sumerian lexicon with a grammatical introduction. Assyriologische Bibliothek, 19. Hinrichs. OCLC 474982763.
- Prince, J. Dynely (October 1914). "Delitzsch's Sumerian Grammar". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 31 (1). U of Chicago: 67â78. doi:10.1086/369755. ISSN 1062-0516. S2CID 170226826.
- Rubio, Gonzalo (2007), "Sumerian Morphology". In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, pp. 1327â1379. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, ISBN 1-57506-109-0.
- Rubio, Gonzalo (2009), "Sumerian Literature". In Carl S. Ehrlich (ed.). From an antique land : an introduction to ancient Near Eastern literature. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Thomsen, Marie-Louise (2001) [1984]. The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. ISBN 87-500-3654-8. (Well-organized with over 800 translated text excerpts.)
- Viano, Maurizio. 2016. The Reception of Sumerian Literature in the Western Periphery. Venezia: Edizioni Caâ Foscari.
- Volk, Konrad (1997). A Sumerian Reader. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ISBN 88-7653-610-8. (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.
- ZĂłlyomi, GĂĄbor. 2017. An Introduction to the Grammar of Sumerian. Open Access textbook, Budapest. Link 1 Link 2
Further reading
- Friedrich Delitzsch (1914). Sumerisches glossar. J. C. Hinrichs. p. 295. Retrieved 2011-07-05.
- Ebeling, J., & Cunningham, G. (2007). Analysing literary Sumerian : corpus-based approaches. London: Equinox. ISBN 1-84553-229-5
- [5] Archived 2023-03-11 at the Wayback MachineGeng, Jinrui, "An Outline of the Synchronic and Diachronic Variations of Sumerian", 2nd International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.
- Halloran, J. A. (2007). Sumerian lexicon: a dictionary guide to the ancient Sumerian language. Los Angeles, Calif: Logogram. ISBN 0-9786429-1-0
External links
- General
- Akkadian Unicode Font (to see Cuneiform text) Archive
- Linguistic overviews
- A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian by Abraham Hendrik Jagersma (preliminary version)
- Sumerisch (An overview of Sumerian by Ernst Kausen, in German)
- Chapter VI of Magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes (1874) by François Lenormant: the state of the art in the dawn of Sumerology, by the author of the first ever [6] grammar of "Akkadian"
- Dictionaries
- Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (EPSD)
- Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (EPSD) 2
- Elementary Sumerian Glossary by Daniel A. Foxvog (after M. Civil 1967)
- Corpora
- The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). Includes translations.
- The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, including several Sumerian sub-corpora; notably, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions, Corpus of Kassite Sumerian Texts, Bilinguals in Late Mesopotamian Scholarship, Datenbank sumerischer Streitliteratur.
- 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.
- Mesopotamian year names. Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae (a large part of the year names are in Sumerian)
- Research
- Online publications arising from the ETCSL project (PDF)
- Structural Interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian by GĂĄbor ZĂłlyomi (PDF)
- Other online publications by GĂĄbor ZĂłlyomi (PDF)
- The Life and Death of the Sumerian Language in Comparative Perspective by Piotr Michalowski
- Online publications by Cale Johnson (PDF)
- ElĂ©ments de linguistique sumĂ©rienne (by Pascal Attinger, 1993; in French), at the digital library RERO DOC: Parts 1â4, Part 5.
- The Origin of Ergativity in Sumerian, and the Inversion in Pronominal Agreement: A Historical Explanation Based on Neo-Aramaic parallels, by E. Coghill & G. Deutscher, 2002 at the Internet Archive
- v
- t
- e
Isolates |
---|
(Europe
and Asia)
and the Pacific
Isolates |
|
---|
America
Isolates |
---|
Isolates |
---|
America
languages
Isolates |
---|
- Families with question marks (?) are disputed or controversial.
- Families in italics have no living members.
- Families with more than 30 languages are in bold.