Editing Sumerian language (section)

===Verbal morphology===

==== General ====
The Sumerian [[finite verb]] distinguishes a number of [[grammatical mood|moods]] and [[agreement (grammar)|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 𒂍𒂠𒌈𒌈𒅆𒁺𒌦 '''''e<sub>2</sub>-še<sub>3</sub>''' i'''b<sub>2</sub>-ši'''-du-un'' "I'm going to the house", but also 𒂍𒂠𒉌𒁺𒌦 '''''e<sub>2</sub>-še'''<sub>3</sub> i<sub>3</sub>-du-un'' "I'm going to the house" and simply 𒌈𒅆𒁺𒌦 ''i'''b<sub>2</sub>-ši'''-du-un'' "I'm going to it" are possible.<ref name="johnson"/><ref>Foxvog (2016: 69-70)</ref><ref>Jagersma (2010: 395)</ref> Hence, the term "cross-reference" instead of "agreement" has been proposed. This article will predominantly use the term "agreement".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 297-299)</ref><ref>Zólyomi (2017: 86-87)</ref>

The Sumerian verb also makes a binary distinction according to a category that some regard as tense (past vs present-future), others as [[grammatical aspect|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 [[Akkadians|Akkadian]] grammatical terms for the two respective forms – ''ḫamṭu'' "quick" and ''marû'' "slow, fat".{{efn|The earliest attestation of these terms is from the Middle Babylonian period. The original Sumerian terms may have been 𒆸 ''lugud<sub>2</sub>'' "short" and 𒁍 ''gid<sub>2</sub>'' "long".<ref>Civil, Miguel. The Forerunners of ''Marû'' and ''Ḫamṭu'' in Old Babylonian. In: ''Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen'', T. Abusch (ed.). Eisenbrauns, 2002, pp. 63-71.</ref>}} Finally, opinions differ on whether the verb has a [[passive voice|passive]] or a [[middle voice]] and how it is expressed.

It is often pointed out that a Sumerian verb does not seem to be strictly limited to only [[Transitive verb|transitive]] or only [[Intransitive verb|intransitive]] usage: e.g. the verb 𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>'' can mean both "enter" and "insert / bring in", and the verb 𒌣 ''de<sub>2</sub>'' can mean both "flow out" and "pour out". This depends simply on whether an ergative participant causing the event is explicitly mentioned (in the clause and in the agreement markers on the verb). Some have even concluded that instead of speaking about intransitive and transitive ''verbs'', it may be better to speak only of intransitive and transitive ''constructions'' in Sumerian.<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 54), Foxvog (2016: 60), cf. Edzard (2003: 36). Attinger (1993: 148) describes the logic of this reasoning, although he does not entirely agree with it.</ref>

The verbal root is almost always a monosyllable and, together with various [[affix]]es, forms a so-called verbal chain which is described as a sequence of about 15 slots, though the precise models differ.<ref>See e.g. Rubio 2007, Attinger 1993, Zólyomi 2005 ("Sumerisch". In: ''Sprachen des Alten Orients'', ed. M. Streck), [http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ppcs/MorphologyTable.html PPCS Morphological model] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025205450/http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ppcs/MorphologyTable.html |date=October 25, 2012 }}</ref> The [[finite verb]] has both [[prefix]]es and [[suffix]]es, 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.<ref>E.g. Attinger 1993, Rubio 2007</ref> 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:
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan="2" |slot
! rowspan="2" |[[Modality (linguistics)|modal]] prefix
! colspan="4" |"conjugation prefixes"
! rowspan="2" |pronominal prefix 1
! rowspan="2" |dimensional prefix
! rowspan="2" |pronominal prefix 2
! rowspan="2" |stem
! rowspan="2" |future/imperfective
! rowspan="2" |pronominal suffix
! rowspan="2" |nominalizer
|-
![[Finite verb|finite]] prefix
!coordinator prefix
![[Andative and venitive|ventive]] prefix
![[Voice (grammar)|middle]] prefix
|-
!common
morphemes
|/Ø/-,<br />/ḫa/-,<br />/u/-,<br />/ga/-,
/nu/-~/la/-
|''<br />''/i/~/e/-,
/a/-
| -/nga/-
|/mu/-,
-/m/-
| -/ba/-
| -/Ø/-,<br />-/e/~/r/-,<br />-/n(n)/-,<br />-/b/-
| -/a/-,
-/da/-,
-/ta/-,
-/ši/-,
-/i/-,
-/ni/-
| -/Ø/-,<br />-/e/~/r/-,<br />-/n(n)/-,<br />-/b/-
|
| -/e(d)/-
| -/en/<br />-/en/<br />-/Ø/, -/e/<br />
-/enden/<br />
-/enzen/<br />-/ene/, -/eš/<br />
| -/a/
|}
Examples using most of the above slots may be:

{{interlinear|ḫa- -mu- -nn- -a- -b- -šum- -ene|PREC -VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O- -give- -3.PL.AN.A/S.IPFV|'Let them give it to him here!'
| top = 𒄩𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀊𒋧𒈬𒉈 <br />
<small>ḫa-mu-un-na-ab-šum<sub>2</sub>-mu-ne</small>
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
}}{{interlinear|nu- -i- -b- -ši- -e- -gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>- -e- -a|NEG- -FIN- -INAN- -TERM- -2.O- -return.IPFV- -3.A.IPFV- -NMLZ|'(one) who does not bring you back to it'
| top = 𒉡𒌒𒅆𒂊𒄄𒄄𒀀<br />
<small>nu-ub-ši-e-gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>-a</small>
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
}}

More than one dimensional prefix may occur within the verb chain. If so, the prefixes are placed in a specific order, which is shown the section [[#Dimensional prefixes|''Dimensional prefixes'']] below. The "conjugation prefixes" appear to be mutually exclusive to a great extent, since the "finite" prefixes /i/~/e/- and /a/- do not appear before [mu]-, /ba/- and the sequence -/b/-+-/i/-, nor does the realization [mu] appear before /ba-/ or /b-i/. However, it is commonly assumed that the 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/- and /a/- have been elided prehistorically in open syllables, in front of prefixes of the shape CV (consonant-vowel). The exception is the position in front of the locative prefix -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/, where the dominant dialect of the Old Babylonian period retains them.<ref name="jagersma_i3"/>

==== Modal prefixes ====
The modal prefixes express [[Modality (linguistics)|modality]]. Some of them are generally combined with certain TAs; in other cases, the meaning of a modal prefix can depend on the TA.
* /Ø-/ is the prefix of the simple [[indicative mood|indicative]] mood; in other words, the indicative is unmarked. 
E.g.: 𒅔𒅥 ''in-gu<sub>7</sub>'' {'''Ø'''-i-n-gu} "He ate it."
* 𒉡 ''nu-'' and 𒆷 ''la-'', 𒇷 ''li-'' (𒉌 ''li<sub>2</sub>-'' in Ur III spelling) have [[negative mood|negative]] meaning and can be translated as "not". The allomorphs /la-/ and /li-/ are used before the "conjugation prefixes" 𒁀 ''ba-'' and 𒉈 ''bi<sub>2</sub>-'', respectively. A following vowel /i/ or /e/ is contracted with the preceding /u/ of ''nu-'' with compensatory lengthening (which is often graphically unexpressed): compare 𒉌𒁺 ''i<sub>3</sub>-du'' "he is walking", but /nu-i-du/ > /nuː-du/ 𒉡𒅇𒁺 ''nu''(-''u<sub>3</sub>'')''-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 𒈾 /na-/ in front of a syllable containing /a/.<ref>Jagersma 2010 (552-555)</ref> 
E.g.: 𒉡𒌦𒅥 '''''nu'''''(-''u<sub>3</sub>'')''-un-gu<sub>7</sub>'' {'''nu'''-i-n-gu} "He didn't eat it."
* 𒄩 ''ḫa- / 𒃶 ḫe<sub>2</sub>-'' has either [[Precative mood|precative]]/[[Optative mood|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 ''marû'' form, and affirmative with the ''ḫamṭu'' form. In contrast, if the verbal form is intransitive or stative, the TA used is always ''ḫamṭu''.<ref name=":45">Jagersma (2010: 561-564)</ref> Occasionally the precative/optative form is also  used in a conditional sense of "if" or "when".<ref name=":45" /> According to Jagersma, the base form is 𒄩 ''ḫa-'', but in open syllables the prefix merges with a following conjugation prefix ''i<sub>3</sub>-'' into 𒃶 ''ḫe<sub>2</sub>-''. Beginning in the later Old Akkadian period, the spelling also shows assimilation of the vowel of the prefix to 𒃶 ''ḫe<sub>2</sub>-'' in front of a syllable containing /e/; in the Ur III period, there is a tendency to generalize the variant 𒃶 ''ḫe<sub>2</sub>-'', but in addition further assimilation to 𒄷 ''ḫu-'' in front of /u/ is attested and graphic expressions of the latter become common in the Old Babylonian period.<ref name=":44">Jagersma (2010: 558-561)</ref> Other scholars have contended that ''𒃶 ḫe<sub>2</sub>-'' was the only allomorph in the Archaic Sumerian period<ref>Rubio (2007: 1341)</ref> and many have viewed it as the main form of the morpheme.<ref>Edzard (2003: 117), Rubio (2007: 1341), Foxvog (2016: 104). Thomsen (2001: 202, 206) tentatively treats /ḫa-/ as the main form, but is hesitant.</ref>
E.g.: 𒃶𒅁𒅥𒂊 '''''ḫe<sub>2</sub>'''-eb-gu<sub>7</sub>-e'' {'''ḫa'''-ib-gu<sub>7</sub>-e} "let him eat it!"; 𒄩𒀭𒅥 '''''ḫa'''-an-gu<sub>7</sub>'' "He ate it indeed."
* 𒂵 ''ga-'' has [[cohortative mood|cohortative]] meaning and can be translated as "let me/us do X" or "I will do X". Occasional phonetic spellings show that its vowel is assimilated to following vowels, producing the allomorphs written 𒄄 ''gi<sub>4</sub>''- and 𒄘 ''gu<sub>2</sub>''-. It is only used with ''ḫamṭu'' stems,<ref name=":5">Jagersma (2010: 518)</ref> but nevertheless uses personal prefixes to express objects, which is otherwise characteristic of the ''marû'' conjugation: 𒂵𒉌𒌈𒃻 ''ga-ni-i'''b'''<sub>2</sub>''-''g̃ar'' "let me put '''it''' there!".<ref name="jagersma_ga">Jagersma 2010: 569-570</ref> The plural number of the subject was not specially marked until the Old Babylonian period,<ref name="jagersma_ga" /> during which the 1st person plural suffix began to be added: 𒂵𒉌𒌈𒃻𒊑𒂗𒉈𒂗 ''ga-ni-ib<sub>2</sub>-g̃ar-'''re-en-de<sub>3</sub>-en''''' "let us put it there!".<ref>Edzard (2003: 115)</ref>
E.g.: 𒂵𒀊𒅥 '''''ga'''-ab-gu<sub>7</sub>'' "Let me eat it!"
* 𒅇 ''u<sub>3</sub>-'' has [[prospective aspect|prospective]] meaning ("after/when/if") and is also used as a mild imperative "Please do X". It is only used with ''ḫamṭu'' forms.<ref name=":5" /> In open syllables, the vowel of the prefix is assimilated to ''i<sub>3</sub>''- 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 𒅇𒌌 ''u<sub>3</sub>''-''ul-''.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 518-521)</ref>
E.g.: 𒌦𒅥 '''''u'''n-gu''<sub>''7''</sub> "If/when he eats it..."
* 𒈾 ''na-'' has [[Imperative mood|prohibitive]] / negative optative<ref>Foxvog (2016: 107)</ref> meaning ("Do not do it!"/"He must not do it!"/"May he not do it!") or affirmative meaning ("he did it indeed"), depending on the TA of verb: it almost always expresses negative meaning with the ''marû'' TA and affirmative meaning with the ''ḫamṭu'' TA.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 565-569, 579-581)</ref><ref>Edzard (2003: 118-119)</ref> In its negative usage, it can be said to function as the negation of the precative/optative ''ḫa-''.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 564)</ref> In affirmative usage, it has been said to signal an emphatic assertion,<ref>The view of Falkenstein cited in Jagersma (2010: 579). Cf. Edzard (2003: 119) for a slightly different description. Civil (2020: 139), too, admits that it sometimes simply gives "an emphatic sense".</ref> but some have also claimed that it expresses reported speech (either "traditional orally transmitted knowledge" or someone else's words)<ref>Foxvog (2016: 108), Rubio (2007: 1342-1343). Originally posited by Miguel Civil (also in Civil 2020: 139).</ref> or that it introduces following events/states to which it is logically connected ("as X happened (''na-''), so/then/therefore Y happened").<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 128), somewhat similarly in Edzard (2003: 119).</ref> According to Jagersma and others, "negative ''na-''" and "affirmative ''na-''" are actually two different prefixes, since "negative ''na-''" has the allomorph /nan-/ before a single consonant (written 𒈾𒀭 ''na-an-'' or, in front of the labial consonants /b/ and /m/, ''𒉆 nam-''), whereas "affirmative ''na-''" does not.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 579), Zamudio (2017: 183-184, 188-189), Attinger (1993: 289), Sallaberger (2023: 128, 132). In contrast, Zólyomi (2017: 240) assumes the form ''na(n)-'' with an underlying final nasal for both meanings.</ref>
E.g.: 𒈾𒀊𒅥𒂊 '''''na'''-ab-gu<sub>7</sub>-e'' "He must not eat it!"; 𒈾𒀭𒅥 '''''na'''-an-gu<sub>7</sub>'' "He ate it indeed."
* 𒁀𒊏 ''ba-ra-'' has emphatic negative meaning ("He certainly does/will not do it")<ref name=":20" /> or [[Imperative mood|vetitive]] meaning ("He should not do it!"),<ref name="Edzard 2003: 117">Edzard (2003: 117)</ref> although some consider the latter usage rare or non-existent.<ref>Rubio (2007: 1341-1342) considers the vetitive meaning rare and cites other authors who reject it. Jagersma (2010) does not mention such a meaning.</ref> It can often function as the negation of cohortative ''ga-''<ref>Edzard (2003: 116)</ref> and of affirmative ''ḫa-''.<ref>Rubio (2007: 1341-1342)</ref> It is combined with the ''marû'' TA if the verb denies an action (always present or future), and with the ''ḫamṭu'' TA if it denies a state (past, present or future) or an action (always in the past).<ref name=":20">Jagersma (2010: 574-575)</ref> The vetitive meaning requires it to be combined with the ''marû'' TA,<ref>Thomsen (2001: 193)</ref> at least if the action is transitive.<ref name="Edzard 2003: 117"/>
E.g.: 𒁀𒊏𒀊𒅥𒂗 '''''ba-ra'''-ab-gu<sub>7</sub>-en'' "I certainly will not eat it!"; 𒁀𒊏𒀭𒅥 '''''ba-ra'''-an-gu<sub>7</sub>'' "He certainly didn't eat it."
* 𒉡𒍑 ''nu-uš-'' is a rare prefix that has been interpreted as having "frustrative" meaning, i.e. as expressing an unrealizable wish ("If only he would do it!"). It occurs both with ''ḫamṭu'' and with ''marû.''<ref>Thomsen (2001: 212-213)</ref>
E.g.: 𒉡𒍑𒌈𒅥𒂊 '''''nu''-''uš'''''-''ib<sub>2</sub>-gu<sub>7</sub>-e "''If only he would eat it!"
* ''𒅆 ši-'', earlier 𒂠 ''še<sub>3</sub>-'', is a rare prefix, with unclear and disputed meaning, which has been variously described as affirmative ("he does it indeed"),<ref name="jagersma_sha">Jagersma (2010: 578-579), citing Falkenstein.</ref> contrapunctive ("correspondingly", "on his part"<ref>Thomsen (2001: 207-208), citing Th. Jacobsen.</ref>), as "reconfirming something that already ha(s) been stated or ha(s) occurred",<ref name="Edzard_sha" /> or as "so", "therefore".<ref>Foxvog (2016: 109)</ref> It occurs both with ''ḫamṭu'' and with ''marû.''<ref>Thomsen (2001: 207)</ref> 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,<ref name="jagersma_sha" /> depending on the vowel of the following syllable, to /ša-/ (𒊭 ''ša-'' / 𒁺 ''ša<sub>4</sub>-'') and (first attested in Old Babylonian) to 𒋗 ''šu-''.<ref name="Edzard_sha">Edzard (2003: 120)</ref>
E.g.: 𒅆𒅔𒅥 '''''ši'''-in-gu<sub>7</sub>'' "So/correspondingly/accordingly(?), he ate it."

Although the modal prefixes are traditionally grouped together in one slot in the verbal chain, their behaviour suggests a certain difference in status: only ''nu-'' and ''ḫa-'' 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 "[[Clitic|proclitics]]" and groups the others together with the finite prefix as (non-proclitic) "preformatives".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 287, 743)</ref>

==== "Conjugation prefixes" ====
The meaning, structure, identity and even the number of the various "conjugation prefixes" have always been a subject of disagreements. The term "conjugation prefix" simply alludes to the fact that a Sumerian [[finite verb]] in the indicative mood must (nearly) always contain one of them. ''Which'' of these prefixes is used seems to have, more often than not, no effect on its translation into European languages.<ref>Hayes (2000: 43-44, 50)</ref> Proposed explanations of the choice of conjugation prefix usually revolve around the subtleties of spatial grammar, information structure ([[Focus (linguistics)|focus]]<ref>Rubio 2007 and references therein</ref>), [[verb valency]], and, most recently, [[grammatical voice|voice]].''<ref>Woods 2008, Zólyomi 1993.</ref>'' The following description primarily follows the analysis of Jagersma (2010), largely seconded by Zólyomi (2017) and Sallaberger (2023), in its specifics; nonetheless, most of the interpretations in it are held widely, if not universally.<ref>For a recent detail overview of previous theories see Woods (2008: 22-44)</ref>

* ''𒉌 i<sub>3</sub>-'' (Southern Old Sumerian ''variant: 𒂊 e-'' in front of open vowels), sometimes described as a '''finite prefix''',<ref>Cf. Edzard (2003: 109).</ref> appears to have a neutral [[Finite verb|finite]] meaning.<ref name=":02">Jagersma (2010: 535-542)</ref><ref>Cf. Thomsen (2001: 163), Rubio (2007: 1347) and Foxvog (2016: 65), who even regards /i-/ as a mere "prosthetic vowel".</ref> As mentioned above, it generally does not occur in front of a prefix or prefix sequence of the shape CV<ref name=jagersma_i3/> except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix 𒉌 -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 -/r-a/- and the second person directive 𒊑 -/r-i/-.<ref name=":02" />''
E.g.: 𒅔𒁺 '''''i'''n-ře<sub>6</sub>'' {Ø-'''i'''-n-ře} "He brought (it)."
* ''𒀀 a-'', with the variant ''𒀠 al-'' used in front of the stem,<ref name=":02" /><ref>Cf. also Edzard (2003: 111-112), Foxvog (2016: 66).</ref> the other finite prefix, is rare in most Sumerian texts outside of the imperative form,<ref name=":02" /> but when it occurs, it usually has [[Stative verb|stative]] meaning.<ref name=":222">Cf. Thomsen (2001: 187), Edzard (2003: 111-112), Foxvog (2016: 66), Rubio (2007: 1351).</ref> It is common in the Northern Old Sumerian dialect, where it can also have a [[Passive voice|passive]] meaning.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 543-548)</ref><ref name=":222" /> According to Jagersma, it was used in the South as well during the Old Sumerian period, but only in subordinate clauses, where it regularly characterized not only stative verbs in ''ḫamṭu'', but also verbs in ''marû''; in the Neo-Sumerian period, only the pre-stem form ''al-'' was still used and it no longer occurred with ''marû'' forms.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 548-549)</ref>{{Efn|As a first stage in this development, Jagersma reconstructs a prehistoric Sumerian system where /a/- signalled imperfectivity and /i/- perfectivity, before the ''marû-ḫamṭu'' tense-aspect distinction took over that role. ''ḫamṭu'' forms with /a/- were interpreted as statives, increasingly marginalised in the South, but given a new additional function in the North as early as the Fara period texts (Jagersma 2010: 548-549).}} Like ''i<sub>3</sub>-'', the prefix ''a-'' does not occur in front of a CV sequence except, in Old Babylonian Sumerian, in front of the locative prefix ''𒉌'' -/ni/-, the second person dative 𒊏 -/r-a/- and the second person directive 𒊑 -/r-i/-''.<ref name=":02" />''
E.g.: 𒀠𒁺 '''''al'''-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "It is/was brought."
* 𒈬 ''mu-'' is most commonly considered to be a '''[[Andative and venitive|ventive]] prefix''',<ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 92).</ref> expressing movement towards the speaker or proximity to the speaker; in particular, it is an obligatory part of the 1st person dative form 𒈠 ''ma-'' (''mu- + -a-'').<ref>Jagersma (2010: 504-509)</ref> However, many of its occurrences appear to express more subtle and abstract nuances or general senses, which different scholars have sought to pinpoint. They have often been derived from "abstract nearness to the speaker" or "involvement of the speaker".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 507-508), Zólyomi (2017: 152-156). Cf. Rubio (2007: 1347-1348), Thomsen (2001: 182-183).</ref> It has been suggested, variously, that ''mu-'' may be adding nuances of emotional closeness or alignment of the speaker with the agent or other participants of the event,<ref>Jagersma (2010: 507-508), Zólyomi (2017: 152-156), cf. Thomsen (2001: 182-183)</ref> [[Topic (linguistics)|topicality]], [[foregrounding]] of the event as something essential to the message with a [[Focus (linguistics)|focus]] on a person,<ref>Rubio (2007: 1347-1348), Thomsen (2001: 182-183)</ref> movement or action directed towards an entity with higher social status,<ref>See references cited in Woods (2008: 27), Thomsen (2001: 183)</ref> prototypical [[Transitivity (grammar)|transitivity]] with its close association with "control, agency, and [[animacy]]" as well as focus or emphasis on the role of the agent,<ref>Woods (2008: 14, 112; 303-307), Civil (2020: 172, 176)</ref> [[telicity]] as such<ref name=":110">Foxvog (2016: 94-95)</ref> or that it is attracted by personal dative prefixes in general, as is the Akkadian ventive.<ref name=":110" />
E.g. 𒈬𒌦𒁺 '''''mu'''-un-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He brought it here." 
* 𒅎 ''im-'' and ''𒀀𒀭am<sub>3</sub>-'' are widely seen as being formally related to ''mu-''<ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 103-109), partially accepted by Thomsen (2001: 173) and Woods (2008: 153-160).</ref> and as also having ventive meaning;<ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Edzard (2003: 103-109), Thomsen (2001: 173) and, with some reservations, Woods (2008: 143-153).</ref> according to Jagersma, they consist of an [[allomorph]] of ''mu-'', namely -/m/-, and the preceding prefixes ''𒉌 i<sub>3</sub>-'' and ''𒀀 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-ši-g̃en/ > 𒅎𒅆𒁺 ''im-ši-g̃en'' "he came for it".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 499-500, 509-511)</ref> In Zólyomi's slightly different analysis, which is supported by Sallaberger, there may also be a -/b/- in the underlying form, which also elicits the allomorph -/m/-: *{i-mu-b-ši-g̃en} > /i-m-b-ši-g̃en/ > /i-m-ši-g̃en/.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 151-155), Sallaberger (2023: 99).</ref> The vowel of the finite prefix undergoes compensatory lengthening immediately before the stem */i-mu-g̃en/ > 𒉌𒅎𒁺 ''i<sub>3</sub>-im-g̃en'' "he came".<ref name=":122">Jagersma (2010: 530, 499)</ref>
E.g. 𒅎𒁺𒈬 '''''im'''-tum<sub>3</sub>-mu'' {i-mu-b-tum-e} "He will bring it here."
* The vowel of ''mu-'' is ''not'' elided in front of the locative prefix ''𒉌 -ni-'', the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/. It may, however, be assimilated to the vowel of the following syllable.{{Efn|The common denominator is that these sequences begin in a single consonant, which makes the syllable containing /u/ an [[open syllable]]. As already seen with a number of other prefixes above, assimilation generally happens in open syllables and not in closed ones. For example, no assimilation happens in the sequence /mu-n-ši-/.}} This produces two allomorphs:<ref>Jagersma (2010: 501)</ref>
** 𒈪 ''mi-'' in the sequences 𒈪''𒉌 mi-ni-'' and 𒈪𒊑 ''mi-ri-''.<ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91), Rubio (2007: 1355), and Falkenstein cited in Thomsen (2001: 177). Some authors, including Thomsen (2001) herself, instead believe /mi-ni-/ to be derived from /bi-ni-/.</ref>
E.g. 𒈪𒉌𒅔𒁺 '''''mi'''-ni-in-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He brought it in here."
** 𒈠 ''ma-'' in the sequence 𒈠𒊏 ''ma-ra-''.
E.g. 𒈠𒊏𒀭𒁺 '''''ma'''-ra-an-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He brought (it) here to you."
* 𒉈 ''bi<sub>2</sub>-'' (Old Sumerian Lagaš spelling: 𒁉 ''bi-'' or ''be<sub>2</sub>-'' in front of open vowels; Old Sumerian Ur spelling: 𒉿 ''be<sub>6</sub>-'') is usually seen as a sequence of the personal prefix -/b/-<ref name=":32">Jagersma (2010: 417)</ref><ref>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.</ref> and the directive prefix -/i/- or -/e/-.<ref name=":32" /><ref>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.</ref>
E.g. 𒉈𒅔𒁺 '''''bi<sub>2</sub>'''-in-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He made it (the ox, the group of workers) bring (it)."
* 𒁀 ''ba-'' can be analysed as a sequence of the personal prefix /b/- and the dative prefix -/a/-.<ref name=":42">Jagersma (2010: 400-401)</ref><ref>Cf. Thomsen (2001: 183), Edzard (2003: 94), Foxvog (2016: 73). In contrast, Rubio (2007: 1349), Woods (2008: 305) and Civil (2020: 170) are sceptical.</ref> However, it has been argued that, in spite of this origin, /ba-/ now occupies a slot of its own before the first pronominal prefix and the dimensional prefixes.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 400, 742)</ref><ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 75) and the slightly different description in Zólyomi (2017: 78, 80-81).</ref>{{Efn|In particular, this is shown by the fact that sequences like {ba-n-ši-} and {ba-n-da-} are possible in attested Sumerian (even though {ba-b-ši-} and {ba-b-da-} remain impossible because of the origin of ''ba-''<ref>Jagersma (2010: 383-384, 447-448)</ref>).}} In accordance with its assumed origin as ''b-a-'', it has often been observed that ''ba-'' appears to have the meaning of a "3rd person inanimate dative": "for it", "to it".<ref name=":42" /><ref>Cf. Edzard (2003: 94), Foxvog (2016: 73), Thomsen (2001: 179).</ref> However, this explains only some of its occurrences. A number of other apparent meanings and uses of ''ba-'' have been noted, and most of these are subsumed by Jagersma under the overarching function of a '''[[Voice (grammar)|middle voice]] marker'''.<ref name=":46">Jagersma (2010: 487-496)</ref><ref name=":52">Cf. Edzard (2003: 95), Woods (2008: 303), Civil (2020: 172, 176). Foxvog (2016: 75), Thomsen (2001: 183) and Rubio (2007: 1349) dispute the accuracy of the term, but nonetheless acknowledge the tendency of ''ba-'' to occur in the absence of an (explicit) agent. Both Rubio and Thomsen view it as being in some sense the opposite of ''mu-'' (as does Woods): according to Rubio (2007: 347-1348), ''ba-'' expresses "focus on locus" as opposed to person; according to Thomsen (2001: 179), it is "preferred with inanimate and non-agentive subjects" and, at least in early Neo-Sumerian texts, before case prefixes referring to inanimate beings.</ref> They include:
*# a [[Reflexive pronoun|reflexive]] [[Object (grammar)|indirect object]] (to do something "for oneself");<ref name=":46" /><ref>Woods (2008: 304)</ref>{{efn|It has been claimed that the reflexive object may also be direct in some cases<ref>Keetman (2017: 108-109, 120)</ref>}}
*# separation and movement "away" from the centre of attention towards a distant goal, especially with motion verbs;<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 159), Jagersma (2010: 491-492)</ref><ref>Cf. Woods (2008: 306-307), Edzard (2003: 95), Foxvog (2016: 74-75).</ref>
*# a change of state;<ref name=":62">Jagersma (2010: 487-494)</ref><ref>Woods (2008: 303-304) and Civil (2020: 172, 176) make the related claim that it is associated with the completion of an event and perfectivity.</ref>
*# the [[passive voice]],<ref name=":52" /> i.e. occurrence with normally transitive verbs when their agent is not mentioned (the latter not in Northern Sumerian according to Jagersma).<ref name=":62" /><ref name=":52"/> Some researchers also view it more generally as expressing focus or emphasis on the patient/goal and relatively low transitivity (and thereby as the polar opposite of ''mu-'' as they understand it).<ref>Woods (2008: 303-304), Civil (2020: 172, 176)</ref>
E.g. 𒁀𒀭𒁺 '''''ba'''-an-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He brought it to it" / "He took it for himself" / "He took it away"; 𒁀𒁺 '''''ba'''-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "It was brought." 
* 𒅎𒈪 ''im-mi-'' (Southern Old Sumerian ''𒉌𒈪 i<sub>3</sub>-mi'' or, in front of open vowels, 𒂊𒈨 ''e-me-'') and 𒅎𒈠 ''im-ma-'' (Southern Old Sumerian 𒂊𒈠 ''e-ma-'') are generally seen as closely related to one another and ''im-mi-'' is widely considered to contain the directive prefix ''-i~e-''.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 400), Edzard (2003: 92-93), Rubio (2007: 1348, 1350-1351), Civil (2020: 141-145, 167-179)</ref> One  common analysis is that ''im-mi-'' and ''im-ma-'' represent sequences of ''im-'' and ''bi<sub>2</sub>-'' and ''ba-'', respectively, where the consonant /b/ has undergone assimilation to the preceding /m/. Accordingly, their meaning is considered to be simply a combination of the ventive meaning of ''im-'' and the meanings of ''bi<sub>2</sub>-'' and ''ba-'', on which see above.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 383-384, 400), Zólyomi (2017)</ref><ref>Cf. Foxvog (2016: 91-92), Edzard (2003: 92-93). Woods (2008: 306), too, believes that "the most viable candidate, on the basis of function and meaning, remains the one implied by the analysis of the ancients, namely, ''imma-'' < ''i+m+ba-''". Thomsen (2003: 162-163), following Falkenstein, recognises the connection with /ba-/ and /bi-/, but not the connection with /im-/.</ref> This is the analysis espoused by Jagersma and Zólyomi and it is reflected in the schemes and examples in this article. Alternatively, some authors regard ''im-ma-'' as a prefix in its own right,<ref>Rubio (2007: 1348, 1350-1351), Civil (2020: 141-145, 167-179), Michalowski (2007). Woods (2008: 304), in spite of his statement on the origin and composition of ''im-ma-'', nevertheless calls it "a primary voice marker that is functionally independent of ''ba-''". Specifically, Rubio and Michalowski consider /imma-/ a gemination of /mu-/, which is rejected by Woods on semantic grounds (2008: 306).</ref> and it has sometimes been ascribed a [[Voice (grammar)|middle voice]] meaning distinct from the more [[Passive voice|passive]] nuance of ''ba-''.<ref>Civil (2020: 141-145, 167-179), Woods (2008: 304-305).</ref>
E.g. 𒅎𒈪𒅔𒁺 '''''im'''-'''mi'''-in-ře<sub>6</sub>'' "He made it (the ox, the group of workers) bring it here"; 𒅎𒈠𒁺 '''''im-ma'''''-''ře<sub>6</sub>'' "It was brought here." 
* ''𒀀𒀭𒈪 am<sub>3</sub>-mi-'' and ''𒀀𒀭𒈠 am<sub>3</sub>-ma-'' are typically analysed along the same lines as ''im-mi-'' and ''im-ma-'', but with a preceding ''am-'' (from ''a-'') instead of ''im-'' (from ''i-''); on the meaning of these see above.

The rare prefix -/nga/- means 'also', 'equally' (often written without the initial /n/, especially in earlier periods). It is of crucial importance for the ordering of the "conjugation prefixes", because it is usually placed between the conjugation prefix /i/- and the pronominal prefix, e.g. 𒅔𒂵𒀭𒍪 ''i'''n'''-'''ga'''-an-zu'' 'he, too, knows it', but it precedes the conjugation prefix /mu/-: 𒈾𒂵𒈬𒍪 ''na-'''ga'''-mu-zu'' 'he also understood it'.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 513-516)</ref> This suggests that these two conjugation prefixes must belong to different slots.<ref>Jagersma 2010, Foxvog 2016, Zólyomi 2017.</ref>

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 ''i<sub>3</sub>-''/''e-'' and ''a-'' are apparently elided in front of them.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 8, 470-473)</ref>

==== 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 preceding "head" – a ''pronominal prefix'', which expresses the person, gender and number of its referent.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 162-163)</ref> The first dimensional prefix may be followed by up to two other dimensional prefixes,<ref>Jagersma (210: 382)</ref> but unlike the first one, these prefixes never have an explicit "head" and cannot refer to animate nouns.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 381-382, 391-392, 447, 509-511)</ref> The other slot where a pronominal prefix can occur is immediately before the stem, where it can have a different allomorph and expresses the person, gender and absolutive or the ergative participant (the transitive subject, the intransitive subject or the direct object), depending on the TA and other factors, as explained [[#Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects|below]].

There is some variation in the extent to which the verb of a clause that contains a noun in a given case also contains the corresponding pronominal and dimensional prefixes in the verb. The ergative participant is always expressed in the verb, as is, generally, the absolutive one (with some vacillation for the third person singular inanimate in transitive forms, as explained [[#Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects|below]]); the dative, comitative, the locative and directive participant (used in a local meaning) also tend to be expressed relatively consistently; with the ablative and terminative, on the other hand, there is considerable variability.<ref name=":39">Zólyomi (2017: 86)</ref>{{Efn|It has been claimed by some that the marker on the noun can also be omitted when the corresponding verb prefix expresses the same meaning, but this has been interpreted as a purely graphical phenomenon.<ref name=":38"/>}} There are some cases, specified [[#Dimensional prefixes|below]], where the meanings of the cases in the noun phrase and in the verb diverge, so a noun case enclitic may not be reflected in the verb or, conversely, a verb may have a prefix that has no specific reference in the clause or in reality.<ref name="Jagersma392_458" /><ref name=":40" />

===== Pronominal prefixes =====
The forms of the pronominal prefixes are the following:<ref>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.</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!
!prefix
!Notes
|-
!1st person singular
| -/ʔ/-? ''>'' /'''‑'''V-/{{efn|Also ''-e-'' in some Old Babylonian texts. Note that ''-e-'', too, had a tendency to assimilate to the preceding vowel.<ref>Edzard 2003: 87</ref><ref>Michalowski 2004</ref>}}
|The vowel -/V/- is identical to that of the preceding prefix (𒈬𒅇 ''mu-'''u<sub>3</sub>'''-'', 𒁀𒀀 ''ba-'''a'''-'', 𒉈𒉌 ''bi<sub>2</sub>''-'''''i<sub>3</sub>''-''' etc.). Possibly originally a glottal stop /ʔ/,<ref name=":14">Jagersma (2009: 337-339)</ref><ref name=":15">Zólyomi (2017: 125-126, 162-163)</ref> which was later elided with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel.
|-
!2nd person singular
|''𒂊 -e-'', <br />‑/r/‑
| -/r/- before a vowel (before the dative and the directive prefixes, resulting in 𒊏 ''-ra-'' and 𒊑 '''''‑'''ri-''); 
-/e/- before a consonant. -/e/- is assimilated to the preceding vowel, lengthening it (e.g. 𒈬𒂊 ''mu-'''e'''-'' > 𒈬𒅇 ''mu-'''u<sub>3</sub>'''-'' etc.) in the dialects attested before the Old Babylonian period.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":15" /> In the Old Babylonian dialect ''-e-'' is preserved (e.g. 𒈬''𒂊 mu-'''e'''-'') and the preceding vowel may assimilate to the -/e/- instead: e.g. 𒈨 ''m'''e'''-''.<ref name=":15" />
|-
!3rd person singular animate
|‑/n(n)/-
|According to Jagersma and a number of other scholars,<ref name=":47">Jagersma (2010: 401-403, 421-423), Zólyomi (2017: 163), Sallaberger (2023: 112-113), Zamudio (2017: 144), possibly Attinger (2009: 6, 31).</ref> the allomorph that appears in front of the vowel-initial dimensional prefixes, i.e. in front of dative -/a/- and directive -/i/-, is a geminate /nn/.{{Efn|Among other things, the assumption of a geminate allomorph ''-nn-'' explains the fact that the finite prefix /i/- occurs in front of the dative prefix sequence written 𒈾 ''-na-'' and the directive prefix sequence written 𒉌 ''-ni-''.<ref>Jagersma 2010: 403</ref> This would have been unexpected if -''n''- were a single consonant, because /i/- otherwise never appears in front of a single consonant (unless it is the stem-initial one).<ref name=jagersma_i3>Jagersma (2010: 526-528)</ref> It also explains why /mu-/ is sometimes assimilated before the locative ({mu-ni-} ''mi-ni-''), but never before the personal prefix followed by the directive ({mu-nn-i}) ''mu-ni-''/''mu-un-ni-''.<ref name=jagersma_mini>Jagersma (2010: 501-504)</ref>}} The traditional view assumes simply /n/.<ref>So in Thomsen (2001), Edzard (2003), Rubio (2007), Foxvog (2016),  Michalowski (2020).</ref> The geminate analysis is assumed in the examples and glosses in this article.
|-
!3rd person inanimate
|‑/b/‑
|Seems to be absent in some cases, see the main text. Note that the inanimate agreement marker has no number distinction.
|-
!1st person plural
|''𒈨 -me-''{{Efn|The 1st person plural dative marker, like the corresponding singular, seems to include the ventive prefix (Jagersma 2010: 390, 410).}}
| rowspan="3" |When the prefix is placed immediately before the stem and expresses a transitive subject, the singular is used instead. See the table in [[#Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects|''Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects'']].
As in the singular, the 3rd person animate form begins in a geminate /nn/ according to Jagersma and others.<ref name=":47" />
|-
!2nd person plural
|𒂊𒉈<br />''‑e‑ne-'',{{efn|Only attested in late texts.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 381)</ref> For the dative and the directive, the singular form {-r-} is sometimes used with plural reference as well (resulting in {-r-a-} and {-r-i-}, respectively), and this is sometimes combined with the plural suffix {-enzen}, which otherwise normally refers only to subjects and direct objects.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 399, 407), Attinger (1993: 237)</ref> This may be an Old Babylonian innovation.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 221), Attinger (1993: 231, 237)</ref>}} <br /> ''-re-''?<ref>Rubio (2007: 1351)</ref> 
|-
!3rd person plural
(animate only)
|𒉈<br /> ''‑nne-''
|}

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 𒈬𒀝 ''mu-ak'' and 𒉌𒀝 ''i<sub>3</sub>-ak'' (𒂊𒀝 ''e-ak'' in Southern Sumerian) instead of 𒈬𒌦𒀝 ''mu-un-ak'' and 𒅔𒀝 ''in-ak'' for {mu-n-ak} and {i-n-ak} "he/she made", and also 𒈬𒀝 ''mu-ak'' instead of Neo-Sumerian 𒈬(𒅇)𒀝 ''mu(''-''u<sub>3</sub>)-ak''  or Old Babylonian 𒈬𒂊𒀝 ''mu-e-ak'' "you made". Vowel length never came to be expressed systematically, so the 1st person prefix was often graphically -∅- during the entire existence of Sumerian.

===== 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.  
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!dative
!comitative
!ablative
!terminative
!directive
!locative
|-
|/-a-/{{efn|group=dimensional|However, the plural pronominal markers usually don't take the dative marker and never take the directive marker; intead, they express a dative or directive participant on their own (although there are some attestations of the expected /-ne-a/ and /-me-a/ from the Ur III period and Old Babylonian periods.<ref name="ReferenceA">Jagersma (2010: 386-387, 389-392, 404, 409-410)</ref>}}
|''𒁕 -da-'' (𒋾 ''-di<sub>3</sub>-''{{efn|The allomorph ''-di<sub>3</sub>-'' is used before the locative prefix ''/-ni-/'').<ref>Jagersma 2010: 449</ref>) The variant 𒉈 ''de<sub>3</sub>'' / 𒉈 𒋼 ''de<sub>4</sub>'', found in Old Babylonian Sumerian, is the result of the contraction of ''-da-'' and a following ''-e-'', but sometimes also seems to occur because of assimilation to a '''preceding' -e-'': /ba-e-da-/ > /ba-e-de-/.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 223)</ref>}}{{Efn|Thomsen and Foxvog believe that there is also an allomorph /-ra-/ used between vowels.<ref>Thomsen 2001: 226-227, Foxvog 2016: 79</ref> Jagersma (2010) generally assumes idiosyncratic case use in such cases.}})
|''𒋫 -ta-'' (𒊏 -''/ra/-''){{efn|The allomorph ''-ra-'' is used after vowels.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 454-455)</ref>}}
|''𒅆 -ši-'' (early 𒂠 ''-še<sub>3</sub>-'')
| -/i/-~-/e/- 𒂊{{efn|group=dimensional|However, the plural pronominal markers usually don't take the dative marker and never take the directive marker; instead, they express a dative or directive participant on their own (although there are some attestations of the expected /-ne-a/ and /-me-a/ from the Ur III period and Old Babylonian periods.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>}}{{efn|According to Jagersma (2010: 476-482) and Zólyomi (2017: 206, 215), the allomorph ''-i-'' is used after consonant, while ''-e-'' is used after vowels. In the latter case, ''-e-'' may be assimilated to the preceding vowel, while the vowel undergoes [[compensatory lengthening]]: 𒈬𒂊 ''mu-e-'' > 𒈬𒅇 ''mu-u<sub>3</sub>-'' etc. In Old Babylonian Sumerian, it is the preceding vowel that assimilated to ''-e-'': 𒁕𒂊 ''-da-e-'' > 𒉈 ''de<sub>3</sub>'' The prefix does not seem to surface at all between a vowel and a subject/object prefix as in ''ma<sub>2</sub>-a mu-na-*(e)-n-g̃ar'' "he loaded it on the boat for her".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 481-482)</ref> This restricts the possibilities of the co-occurrence of directive forms and forces the grammar to choose which participant to express: e.g. the dative prefixes and ''ba-'' take precedence over the inanimate directive ''-b-i'', while there is vacillation in the choice between prioritizing it or the locative (Jagersma 2010: 442-444).}}
|𒉌 ''-ni-''{{Efn|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".}}
|}

The ablative does not co-occur with the terminative, and the directive does not co-occur with the locative, so these pairs may be argued to share the same slot.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 442, 445)</ref>{{Efn|For this reason, it appears that a directive participant is sometimes untypically cross-referenced with a ''dative'' prefix in order to allow the locative to also occur in the verb form (/b-i-/, but /'''b-a'''-ni-/).<ref name="Jagersma 2010: 444">Jagersma (2010: 444)</ref>}} Accordingly, the template can be said to include the following dimensional slots: dative - comitative - ablative/terminative - directive/locative.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 78)</ref>

A major exception from the general system of personal and dimensional prefixes is the very frequent prefix 𒉌 ''-ni-'' "(in) there", which corresponds to a noun phrase in the locative, but doesn't seem to be preceded by any pronominal prefix and has demonstrative meaning by itself. This prefix is not to be confused with the homographic sequence 𒉌 ''-ni-'' which corresponds to an animate noun phrase in the directive. In the latter case, ''ni'' is analysed as a combination of pronominal /-nn-/ and directive /-i-/ (roughly: "at him/her", "on him/her", etc.), whereas in the former, ''ni'' is unanalysable.<ref name="Zólyomi2000">{{cite journal |last=Zólyomi |year=2000 |title=Structural interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian |url=http://www.assziriologia.hu/downloads/gz_structural_interference.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Acta Sumerologica |volume=22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228041703/http://www.assziriologia.hu/downloads/gz_structural_interference.pdf |archive-date=2021-02-28 |access-date=2008-07-20}}</ref>

An example of a verb chain where several dimensional slots are occupied can be:

{{interlinear|i- -nn- -a- -ta- -ni- -n- -ed|FIN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -ABL- -LOC- -3.AN.A- -go.out|'He made it (the dike) go out of it (a canal) for him into it (a locality)'
| top = 𒅔𒈾𒋫𒉌𒅔𒌓𒁺 <br />
<small>in-na-ta-ni-in-ed<sub>2</sub></small>
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
}}

The comitative prefix ''-da-'' can, in addition, express the meaning "to be able to". In that case, there is a preceding pronominal prefix agreeing with the subject of the action: e.g. {nu-mu-'''e-da'''-n-dab-en} "you cannot catch him" ({{lit|you won't catch him with yourself}}).<ref>Jagersma (2010: 453)</ref> The directive has the meaning "on(to)" when the verb is combined with a noun in the locative case: e.g. {banšur-'''a''' ninda b-'''i'''-b-g̃a-g̃a-en} "I will put bread on the table".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 482-486)</ref>

===== Differences and combinations between dimensional prefixes and noun case markers=====

While the meanings of the prefixes are generally the same as those of the corresponding nominal case markers, there are some differences:
* The prefixes, unlike noun phrases in the corresponding cases, normally refer only to participants with a strong relationship to the action or state expressed by the verb (e.g. a temporal meaning 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).<ref name="Jagersma392_458">Jagersma (2010: 392-396, 458-459, 474)</ref>
* The use of dimensional prefixes is sometimes more closely connected to special meanings of specific verbs and to lexical idiosyncrasies. For instance, the verb 𒇯𒁺 ''ed<sub>3</sub>'' has the meaning "go up" with the directive prefix, but "go down" with the ablative one, the verb 𒉚 ''sa<sub>10</sub>'' means "sell" with the ablative prefix and "buy" with the terminative, the verb 𒌓𒁺 ''ed<sub>2</sub>'' "leave, go out" always has the ablative prefix, and the phrasal verb 𒅗 ... 𒄄 ''inim ... gi<sub>4</sub>'' "answer" ({{lit|return a word}}) always includes the locative.<ref name="Jagersma392_458" /> In general, verbs having a place-related meaning such as 𒁄 ''bala'' "cross", 𒅅 ''g̃al<sub>2</sub>'' "be (somewhere), 𒃻 ''g̃ar'' "put", 𒁺 ''gub'' "stand", 𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>'' "enter", 𒋛 ''sig<sub>9</sub>'' "put" and 𒆪 ''tuš'' "sit" generally occur with a dimensional prefix specifying a location.<ref name=":40">Jagersma (2010: 392-394)</ref> Thus, a verb may, albeit rarely, contain a dimensional prefix that simply modifies its meaning and has no reference. In such cases, it has no preceding pronominal prefix, even if it is the first dimensional prefix: e.g. 𒁀𒊏𒀭𒉚 ''ba-ra-an-sa<sub>10</sub>'' {ba-ta-n-sa} "he sold it".<ref name=":39" />
* The directive may be replaced by the dative when its slot is occupied by the locative or when it would have had animate reference, but there is a preceding prefix, which makes any further prefixes with animate reference illicit.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 230-232)</ref><ref>Jagersma (2010: 442-444)</ref>
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.<ref name="Zólyomi2000" /> The combinations may be summarized as follows:<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 201-221)</ref><ref>Jagersma (2010: 165)</ref><ref name="Jeger2" /><ref>Jagersma (2010: 400-403)</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!meaning{{Efn|Zólyomi (2017: 201-222) refers to the "in(to)", "on(to)" and "at" constructions as "locative1", "locative2" and "locative3", respectively. Jagersma (2010: 416-428) refers to the "at" construction as the "oblique object".}}
!nominal case marker
(inanimate)
!nominal case marker
(animate)
!verbal prefix
!example
(inanimate)
!example (animate)
|-
![[Inessive case|inessive]]
"in(to)"
| -/a/ (locative)
| ----
| -/ni/- (locative)
|{e-'''a''' i-'''ni'''-n-g̃ar}
"he placed it in the house"
| ----
|-
![[Superessive case|superessive]]
"on(to)"
| -/a/ (locative)
| -/ra/ (dative)
| -/i/~/e/- (directive)
|{e-'''a''' b-'''i'''-n-g̃ar}
"he placed it on the house"
|{lu-'''ra''' i-nn-'''i'''-n-g̃ar}
"he placed it on the man"
|-
![[Adessive case|adessive]]
"at" / causee
| -/e/ (directive)
| -/ra/ (dative)
| -/i/~/e/- (directive)
|{e-'''e''' b-'''i'''-n-tag}
"he touched the house"
|{lu-'''ra''' i-nn-'''i'''-n-tag}
"he touched the man"
|-
!dative
| -/e/ (directive)
| -/ra/ (dative)
| -/a/- (dative)
|{e-'''e''' b-'''a'''-n-šum}
"he gave it to the house"
|{lu-'''ra''' i-nn-'''a'''-n-šum}
"he gave it to the man"
|}
In some cases, there are also mismatches between nominal and verbal markers when exact correspondences would have been possible;<ref name=":37">Jagersma (2010: 396)</ref><ref name=":38">Foxvog (2016: 69-70). Cf. Zólyomi (2017: 86-87), who does not mention such a possibility. Jagersma (2010) interprets such apparent absences of case markers mostly as orthographic omissions of consonant-final allomorphs.</ref> these may serve to express additional shades of meaning.<ref name=":37" /> A dative noun case marker and terminative dimensional prefix may co-occur in the Ur III period.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 464)</ref> In general, from that time on, the choice of noun cases begins to be influenced by the government of corresponding Akkadian verbs, while the verbs themselves retain their older prefixes.<ref name=":39" /> According to Foxvog, /-ni-/ can resume non-locative cases such as the terminative and the dative.<ref name=":38" />

A peculiar pattern of agreement occurs in what has been referred to as an ''external possession construction'', in which a modifier of the verb refers to a certain object, almost always a body part, but it is emphasised that the action affects the ''possessor'' of that object (cf. English "he hit ''me'' on the head"). In that case, the verb may agree with the possessor with the directive prefix, while not agreeing with the object itself: thus, "he put barley in your hand" may be expressed by {šu-z(u).a še i-'''r'''-i-n-g̃ar}, lit. "he put barley '''at you''', '''in your hand'''".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 396-398)</ref> Alternatively, it may agree with both the possessor and the object: the possessor is then referred to by the dative prefix: {šu-z(u)-a še (i-)'''r'''-a-'''ni'''-n-g̃ar}, lit. "he put barley '''to you''', '''in there''', in your hand".<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 228-230)</ref>

====== Use of the ventive as a 1st person marker ======
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-/ → 𒈠 ''ma-''.<ref name=":17">Jagersma (2010: 388, 508-509)</ref><ref name=":18">Zólyomi (2017: 81)</ref><ref name="Rubio 2007">Rubio 2007</ref> 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 𒈬 ''mu-'' alone serves to express it.<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":18" />

====== Syncope of /i/ in -/ni/- and -/bi/- ======
Two special phenomena occur if there is no absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in the pre-stem position.

1. The sequences 𒉌 -/ni/- (locative {-ni-} and personal + directive {-nn-i-}) and 𒉈 /bi/- (personal + directive {b-i-}) acquire the forms -/n/- and -/b/- (coinciding with the ''absolutive–ergative'' pronominal prefixes) before the stem if there isn't already an absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in pre-stem position. This is typically the case when the verb is used intransitively.<ref>Zólyomi 1993 and 2017, Attinger 1993, Edzard (2003: 98), Jagersma 2010: 468, 477-478; originally posited by Falkenstein. Referenced and disputed by Foxvog (2016: 87-88)</ref><ref name=":122"/> For example, the normal appearance of ''-ni-'' is seen in:

* {mu-'''ni'''-n-kur} "he brought (it) '''in'''" ({{lit|caused it}}) to go in)' > /mu'''ni'''nkur/, written 𒈬𒉌𒆭 ''mu-'''ni'''-kur<sub>9</sub>'' in early texts, later 𒈬𒉌𒅔𒆭 ''mu-'''ni'''-in-kur<sub>9</sub>''.

In contrast, in an intransitive form, we find a [[Syncope (phonology)|syncopated]] realization:

* {mu-'''ni'''-kur} "he went '''in'''" > /muː'''n'''kur/, written 𒈬𒆭 ''mu-kur<sub>9</sub>'' in early texts, later 𒈬𒌦𒆭 ''mu-u'''n'''-kur<sub>9</sub>''.

The preceding vowel undergoes compensatory lengthening, which is sometimes indicated by its doubling in the spelling:

* {i-'''ni'''-kur} > '''''i<sub>3</sub>-i'''n-kur<sub>9</sub>'' 𒉌𒅔𒆭 "he went '''in'''".

Likewise, the normal realisation of ''bi-'' is seen in:

* {i-'''b-i'''-n-si} > '''''bi<sub>2</sub>'''-in-si'' 𒉈𒅔𒋛 "he loaded (it) '''on it'''".

This is to be contrasted with the syncopated version in an intransitive form:

* {i-'''b-i'''-si} > ''i<sub>3</sub>-i'''b<sub>2</sub>'''-si'' 𒉌𒌈𒋛 "(it) was loaded '''on it'''".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 478)</ref>

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'' 𒈬𒌦𒀝 "he did it '''here'''".

In an intransitive form, however, we find:

{i-mu-g̃en} > '''''i<sub>3</sub>-im'''-g̃en 𒉌𒅎𒁺'' "he came '''here'''".<ref name=":122"/>

====== Expression of the directive by a pre-stem personal prefix ======
A superficially very similar, but distinct phenomenon is that if there isn't already an absolutive–ergative pronominal prefix in pre-stem position, the personal prefix of the directive participant does not receive the dimensional prefix -/i/~/e/- at all and is moved to the pre-stem position. For example, the normal position of the directive participant is seen in:

* {'''b-i'''-n-ak} '''''bi<sub>2</sub>'''-in-ak'' 𒉈𒅔𒀝 "he applied (it) '''to it'''" (said of oil).

In contrast, in an intransitive form, we find:

* {ba-'''b'''-ak} ''ba-a'''b'''-ak'' 𒁀𒀊𒀝 "it was applied '''to it'''".

In the same way, the normal position is seen in:

* {'''b-i'''-n-us} '''''bi<sub>2</sub>'''-in-us<sub>2</sub>'' 𒉈𒅔𒍑 ≈ "he adjoined (it) '''to it'''".

This can be contrasted with an intransitive form:

* {'''i-b'''-us} ''i'''b'''<sub>2</sub>-us<sub>2</sub>'' 𒌈𒍑 ≈ "(it) was adjoined '''to it'''".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 418-419), Zolyomi (2017: 215, 219)</ref>

====== Absence of {-b-} ======
In some cases, the 3rd person inanimate prefix ''-b-'' appears to be unexpectedly absent.

* ''-b-'' as the head of a dimensional prefix isn't used after the "conjugation prefix" ''ba-'': thus *𒁀𒀊𒅆𒌈𒄄𒄄 '''''ba'''-a'''b'''-ši-ib<sub>2</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>'' "he will return '''it''' to it (for himself)" is impossible. This restriction does not, however, apply for ''-b-'' as a subject/object prefix immediately before the stem: thus, 𒁀𒀊𒄄𒄄 '''''ba'''-a'''b'''-gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>'' "he will return '''it''' (for himself)" is possible.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 391-392, 447, 509-511)</ref> In some schemes, this is formalized as the placement of the initial pronominal prefix ''b-'' in the same slot as ''ba-'' and not in the following slot, where all the other initial pronominal prefixes such as ''-n-'' are located.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 743), Zólyomi (2017: 78)</ref>
* ''-b-'' also regularly "fails" to appear after the ventive "conjugation prefix" ''mu-'': instead of expected *𒈬𒌒𒅆𒁺 ''mu-u'''b'''-ši-g̃en'', the meaning "he came for '''it'''" is expressed by 𒅎𒅆𒁺 ''im-ši-g̃en.'' Similarly, instead of *𒈬𒌒𒂷𒂷 ''mu-u'''b'''-g̃a<sub>2</sub>-g̃a<sub>2</sub>'' for "he is placing '''it''' here", we find 𒉌𒅎𒂷𒂷 ''i<sub>3</sub>-im-g̃a<sub>2</sub>-g̃a<sub>2</sub>''.{{Efn|Occasional exceptions from this restriction occur only in Old Babylonian texts (Jagersma 2010: 509).}} While some believe that /b/ in this case is truly omitted,<ref>Jagersma (2010: 509-511)</ref> others assume that such forms in fact contain an assimilated sequence -/mb/- > -/mm/- > -/m/-, just like the forms ''im-mi-'' and ''im-ma-'', so that the above realisations actually stand for {i-m-b-ši-g̃en} and {i-m-b-g̃a-g̃a}.<ref name=":35">Zólyomi (2017: 151-155)</ref><ref>The possibility is mentioned by Foxvog (2016: 93); the question is discussed in detail in Attinger (1993: §178a).</ref>
* 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:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!
!''marû''
!''ḫamṭu'' 
|-
!1st person singular
| colspan="2" |𒂗 ''-en'' 
|-
!2nd person singular
| colspan="2" |𒂗 ''-en'' 
|-
!3rd person singular
|(''𒂊'') ''-e''
|/-Ø/ 
|-
!1st person plural
| colspan="2" |𒂗𒉈𒂗 ''-en-de<sub>3</sub>-en''
|-
!2nd person plural
| colspan="2" |𒂗𒍢𒂗 ''-en-ze<sub>2</sub>-en''
|-
!3rd person plural
(animate only)
|(''𒂊'')''𒉈 -e-ne''
|𒂠/𒌍 -''eš<sub>2</sub>''/''eš''
|}
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.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 353-356)</ref> Pre-Ur III texts also spell the first- and second-person suffix -/en/ as -/e/, making it coincide with the third person in the ''marû'' form.

==== Pronominal agreement with subjects and direct objects ====
Sumerian verbal agreement follows a [[nominative–accusative language|nominative–accusative]] pattern in the 1st and 2nd persons of the ''marû'' [[Grammatical tense|tense]]-[[Grammatical aspect|aspect]], but an [[ergative–absolutive language|ergative–absolutive]] pattern in most other forms of the [[indicative mood]]. Because of this presence of both patterns, Sumerian is considered a language with [[split ergativity]].<ref name=":43">Zólyomi (2017: 125)</ref> The general principle is that in the ''ḫamṭu'' TA, the transitive subject is expressed by the prefix, and the direct object by the suffix, and in the ''marû'' TA it is the other way round. For example, {i-'''b'''-dab-'''en'''} can be a ''ḫamṭu'' form meaning "it caught me", where {-b-} expresses the subject "it" and {-en} expresses the object "I". However, it can also be a ''marû'' form meaning "I will catch it", where {-en} expresses the subject "I" and {-b-} expresses the object "it". As for the intransitive subject, it is expressed, in both TAs, by the suffixes. For example, {i-kaš-'''en'''} is "I ran", and {i-kaš-ed-'''en'''} can be "I will run". This means that the intransitive subject is treated like the object in ''ḫamṭu'' (which makes the ''ḫamṭu'' pattern ergative) and like the subject in ''marû'' (which makes the ''marû'' pattern nominative-accusative).

There are two exceptions from the above generalization:

1. A transitive subject of the ''third'' person in ''marû'' uses unique suffixes that are ''not'' the same as those of the intransitive subject and the ''ḫamṭu'' direct object. For example, while "they ran" can be {i-kaš-'''eš'''}, just as "it caught them" can be {i-b-dab-'''eš'''}, the corresponding form for "they will catch it" would be {i-b-dab-'''ene'''}. This pattern can be described as a case of [[tripartite alignment]].<ref name=":43" />

2. A plural transitive subject in the ''ḫamṭu'' TA is expressed not only by the prefix, but also by the suffix: e.g. {i-'''n'''-dab-'''eš'''} can mean "they caught (it)". Specifically, the prefix expresses only the person, while the suffix expresses both the person and the number of the subject.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 126-127)</ref>

Note that the prefixes of the plural transitive subject are identical to those of the singular – -/V/-, -/e/-, -/n/- – as opposed to the special plural forms ''-me-'', ''-e-ne-'', ''-ne-'' found in non-pre-stem position.

The use of the personal affixes for subjects and direct objects can be summarized as follows:<ref>Mostly based on Jagersma (2010: 359-363) and Zólyomi (2017: 126-127). Cf. also Foxvog (2016: 62-63), Thomsen: (2001: 142-154), Michalowski (2004), Rubio (2007: 1357-1359), Edzard (2003: 81-89), Sallaberger (2023: 103-106) for slightly different descriptions or formulations.</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!
! colspan="3" |''ḫamṭu''
! colspan="3" |''marû''
|-
!
!Direct object 
!Intransitive subject
!Transitive subject
!Direct object 
!Intransitive subject
!Transitive subject
|-
!1st sing
|...-/en/
|...-/en/
| -/V/{{Efn|In Old Babylonian texts, ''-e-'' for the 1st person singular may occur, making it identical with the 2nd person singular just as they are identical in the suffixes, but this may be the result of a late analogy (Edzard 2003: 87, cf. Michalowski 2007).}}-...  
| -/V/{{efn|A significant minority of Sumerologists believe that the prefixes of the 1st and 2nd person are /-en-/ rather than /-V-/ and /-e-/ when they stand for the object (i.e. in ''marû''). That would be indistinguishable in writing (and even possibly, according to some, also in speech<ref name="Edzard84"/>) from the 3rd person animate ''-n-''.<ref name="Edzard84">Edzard (2003: 84-85)</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">Attinger 1993, Khachikyan 2007: "Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian". In: ''Babel und Bibel'' 3.)</ref><ref name="Jager363">See references and objections by Jagersma (2010: 363).</ref>}}-...
|...-/en/
|...-/en/
|-
!2nd sing
|...-/en/
|...-/en/
| -/e/-...
| -/e/{{efn|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 ''marû''); that would often be indistinguishable from the 3rd person animate ''-n-''.<ref name="Edzard84"/><ref name="ReferenceB"/><ref name="Jager363"/>}}-...
|...-/en/
|...-/en/
|-
!3rd sing
animate
|...-/Ø/
|...-/Ø/
| -/n/-...
| -/n/-...
|...-/Ø/
|...-/e/
|-
!3rd inanimate{{efn|The inanimate agreement marker has no number distinction.}}
|...-/Ø/
|...-/Ø/
| -/b/-...
| -/b/-{{efn|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 𒌣 ''de<sub>2</sub>'' "pour", 𒆕 ''řu<sub>2</sub>'' "build", 𒃻 ''g̃ar'' "put" and 𒂊 ''e'' "say" very often (but not always) lack it.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 364-366, Zólyomi 2017: 128)</ref>}}
|...-/Ø/
|...-/e/
|-
!1st pl
|...-/enden/
|...-/enden/
| -/V/-...-/enden/
| -/me/-?<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 106), Foxvog (2016: 123)</ref>
|...-/enden/
|...-/enden/
|-
!2nd pl
|...-/enzen/
|...-/enzen/
| -/e/-...-/enzen/
| -/e-ne/-?
|...-/enzen/
|...-/enzen/
|-
!3rd pl (animate only)
|...-/eš/
|...-/eš/
| -/n/-...-/eš/
| -/ne/-,{{efn|-/nne/- with geminate /n/ according to Jagersma (2010:339-340)}} -/b/-{{efn|The morpheme -/ne/- for the 3rd person animate plural subject was used in Old Sumerian and was replaced by -/b/- in Neo-Sumerian.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 339-340)</ref>}}
|...-/eš/
|...-/ene/
|}

Examples for TA and pronominal agreement: (''ḫamṭu'' is rendered with past tense, ''marû'' with present):

* {i-gub-en} (𒉌𒁺𒁉𒂗): "I stood" or "I stand"
* {i-n-gub-en} (𒅔𒁺𒁉𒂗): "he placed me" or "I place him"
* {i-sug-enden} (𒉌𒁻𒂗𒉈𒂗): "we stood/stand"
* {i-n-dim-enden} (𒅔𒁶𒂗𒉈𒂗): "he created us" or "we create him"
* {mu-V-dim-enden} (𒈬𒁶𒂗𒉈𒂗): "we created [someone or something]"
* {i-b-gub-e} (𒌈𒁺𒁉) "he places it"
* {i-b-dim-ene} (𒌈𒁶𒈨''𒉈''): "they create it"
* {i-n-dim-eš} (𒅔𒁶𒈨𒌍): "they created [someone or something]" or "he created them"
* {i-sug-eš} (𒉌𒁻𒄀𒌍): "they stood" or "they stand".

==== Stem ====
The verbal stem itself can also express grammatical distinctions within the categories '''number''' and '''tense-aspect'''. In a number of verbs, this involves [[suppletion]] or [[morphonological]] alternations that are not fully predictable.

1. With respect to '''number''', plurality can be expressed by ''complete'' reduplication of the ''ḫamṭu'' stem (e.g. 𒆭𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>-kur<sub>9</sub>'' "enter (pl.)" or by a [[suppletive]] stem (e.g. 𒁺 ''gub'' "stand (sing.)" - 𒁻 ''sug<sub>2</sub>'' "stand (pl.)". The traditional view is that both of these morphological means express plurality of the absolutive participant in Sumerian.<ref name=":29">Rubio (2007: 1338)</ref><ref name=":30">Thomsen (2001: 125)</ref> However, it has often been pointed out that complete reduplication of the verb in Sumerian can also express "plurality of the action itself"<ref>Rubio (2007: 1337),</ref> intensity or [[iterative|iterativity]],<ref name="etcsl2005" /> and that it is not obligatory in the presence of plural participants, but rather seems to expressly emphasize the plurality.<ref name=":29" /><ref name=":30" /> According to some researchers,<ref>Jagersma (2010: 314-315)</ref><ref>Zólyomi (2017: 137-140)</ref><ref>Edzard (2003: 74-79)</ref> the predominant meaning of the suppletive plural stem is, indeed, plurality of the most affected participants, whereas the predominant meaning of complete reduplication is plurality of events (because they occur at multiple times or locations). However, even with suppletive plural stems, the singular may occur with a plural participant, presumably because the event is perceived as a single one.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 318-319)</ref>

2. With respect to '''tense-aspect marking''', verbs are divided in four types; ''ḫamṭu'' is always the unmarked TA.

* The stems of the '''1st type''', regular verbs, are analysed in two ways: some scholars believe that they do not express TA at all,<ref>Thomsen (1984, 2001), Attinger (1993), Edzard (2003), Jagersma (2010), Zólyomi (2017), Zamudio (2017). Originally the analysis of Arno Poebel.</ref> while others claim that they express ''marû'' TA by adding a suffix -/e/ as in 𒁶𒂊 ''dim<sub>2</sub>-e'' vs 𒁶 ''dim<sub>2</sub>'' "make".<ref>Hayes (2000), Rubio (2007), Michalowski (2020), Sallaberger (2020), Civil (2020). Originally proposed by M. Yoshikawa.</ref> This -/e/ would, however, nowhere be distinguishable from the first vowel of the pronominal suffixes except for intransitive ''marû'' 3rd person singular; in that last form, the first analysis attributes the -/e/ to the presence of the -/e(d)/ suffix described [[#The modal or imperfective suffix -/ed/|below]]. The glosses in this article assume the first analysis.
* The '''2nd type''' expresses ''marû'' by ''partial'' reduplication of the stem, e.g. 𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>'' vs 𒆭𒆭 ''ku<sub>4</sub>-ku<sub>4</sub>'' "enter". Usually, as in this example, this ''marû'' reduplication follows the pattern C<sub>1</sub>V<sub>1</sub>-C<sub>1</sub>V<sub>1</sub> (C<sub>1</sub> = 1st consonant of the root, V = 1st vowel of the root). In a few cases, the template is instead C<sub>1</sub>V<sub>1</sub>C<sub>1</sub>C<sub>2</sub>V<sub>1</sub>.<ref name="Jeger312">Jagersma (2010: 312-314)</ref> 
* The '''3rd type''' expresses ''marû'' by adding a consonant, e.g. ''te'' vs ''te'''g̃'''<sub>3</sub>'' "approach" (both written 𒋼). A number of scholars do not recognise the existence of such a class or consider it dubious.{{efn|Jagersma (2010: 311) treats this as a suppletive stem. As another instance of the same pattern, Zólyomi (2017) cites 𒌓𒁺 ''e<sub>3</sub>'' vs ''ed<sub>2</sub>''.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 129)</ref> Foxvog (2010: 120) points out that this class has at most these two members and considers its status to be suspect.}}
* The '''4th type''' uses a suppletive stem, e.g. 𒅗 ''dug<sub>4</sub>'' vs 𒂊 ''e'' "do, say". Thus, as many as four different suppletive stems can exist, as in the admittedly extreme case of the verb "to go": 𒁺 ''g̃en'' ("to go", ''ḫamṭu'' sing.), 𒁺 ''du'' (''marû'' sing.), (𒂊)𒁻 (''e-'')''re<sub>7</sub>'' (''ḫamṭu'' plur.), 𒁻 ''sub<sub>2</sub>'' (''marû'' plur.).
The following tables show some of the most frequent stem alternations.{{Efn|More unpredictable stem alternations of Sumerian verbs, specifically ''marû'' reduplicating stems, are indicated in the catalogue of verbs in Thomsen (2001: 295-323) and in [https://www.sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf Halloran (1999)].}}
{| class="wikitable"
|+Verbs with suppletive plurals<ref>Jagersma (2010:314), Zólyomi (2017: 139)</ref>
!singular
!plural
!meaning
|-
|𒁺 ''gub''
|𒁻 ''sug<sub>2</sub>''
|"stand"
|-
|𒋾 ''til<sub>2</sub>'' (𒇻 ''lug'' for animals) 
|𒅊 ''se<sub>12</sub>''/''sig<sub>7</sub>''
|"live"
|-
|𒁺 ''tum<sub>2</sub>''
|𒁺𒁺 ''laḫ<sub>5</sub>''{{Efn|In addition, Sallaberger (2020: 59) believes that there was an additional stem used in Old Sumerian specifically for leading animals, namely 𒊏 ''ra''.}}
|"lead"<ref>Foxvog (2016: 120), Sallaberger (2020: 59)</ref>/"carry countable objects"?<ref name=":41">Zólyomi (2017: 139)</ref>{{efn|Traditionally, this verb was considered a four-stem verb with the alternation ''ře<sub>6</sub>'' (sing. ''ḫamṭu''), ''tum<sub>2</sub>''/''tum<sub>3</sub>'' (sing. ''marû''), ''laḫ<sub>4</sub>'' (plur. ''ḫamṭu'' and ''marû'')<ref name="Thomsen 2001: 133-136">Thomsen (2001: 133-136</ref>); newer research has promoted a split into two verbs, although there are disagreements about the semantic/functional difference between them.<ref name="Foxvog 2016: 120">Foxvog (2016: 120)</ref><ref name=":41"/>}}
|-
|𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>''
|𒁔 ''sun<sub>5</sub>''
|"enter" (the use of the suppletive plural stem seems to be optional)<ref>Thomsen (2001: 132), EPSD entry for ''sun [ENTER]'', P. Attinger's ''Lexique sumérien-français'', (''2019'')''.''</ref>
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+Verbs with suppletive ''marû'' forms<ref>Jagersma (2010: 311), Zólyomi (2017: 139), Sallaberger (2023: 57)</ref>
! colspan="2" |''singular''
! colspan="2" |''plural''
! rowspan="2" |meaning
|-
!''ḫamṭu'' 
!''marû''
!''ḫamṭu'' 
!''marû''
|-
|𒅗 ''dug<sub>4</sub>''
| colspan="3" |𒂊 ''e'' (''marû'' participle ''𒁲 di(-d)'')
|"do", "say"
|-
|𒁺 ''g̃en''
|𒁺 ''du'' 
|(𒂊)𒁻 (''e-'')''re<sub>7</sub>''
|𒁻 ''sub<sub>2</sub>''
|"go"
|-
|𒁺 ''ře<sub>6</sub>''{{efn|Traditionally, this verb was considered a four stem verb with the alternation ''ře<sub>6</sub>'' (sing. ''ḫamṭu''), ''tum<sub>2</sub>''/''tum<sub>3</sub>'' (sing. ''marû''), ''laḫ<sub>4</sub>'' (plur. ''ḫamṭu'' and ''marû'');<ref name="Thomsen 2001: 133-136"/> newer research has prompted a split into two verbs.<ref name="Foxvog 2016: 120"/><ref name=":41"/>}}
|𒉐 ''tum<sub>3</sub>''{{Efn|The stem 𒉐 ''tum<sub>3</sub>'' has, exceptionally, a ''ḫamṭu'' agreement pattern in spite of the verb itself being used with ''marû'' meaning".:<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 139), Jagersma (2010: 311)</ref> e.g. 𒁀𒀭𒉐 ''ba-an-tum<sub>3</sub>'' "he will take it away" (Jagersma 2010: 266-367).}}
| colspan="2" | --------------
|"carry", "bring"<ref name="Foxvog 2016: 120"/>/"carry an uncountable mass"?<ref name=":41" />{{efn|Traditionally, this verb was considered a four stem verb with the alternation ''ře<sub>6</sub>'' (sing. ''ḫamṭu''), ''tum<sub>2</sub>''/''tum<sub>3</sub>'' (sing. ''marû''), ''laḫ<sub>4</sub>'' (plur. ''ḫamṭu'' and ''marû'');<ref name="Thomsen 2001: 133-136"/> newer research has prompted a split into two verbs.<ref name="Foxvog 2016: 120"/><ref name=":41"/>}}
|-
|𒆪 ''tuš''
|𒆪 ''dur<sub>2</sub>''{{Efn|𒆪 ''suš'' in intransitive usage and ''dur'' in transitive usage "to seat, set" according to Sallaberger (2023: 57). Cf. Foxvog (2016: 82) citing Attinger.}}
| colspan="2" |𒂉 ''durun''{{Efn|Often also written 𒂉𒂉 ''durun<sub>x</sub>'', 𒂉𒊒𒌦 ''dur<sub>2</sub>-ru-un''.}}
|"sit", "live somewhere"
|-
|𒁁 ''uš<sub>4</sub>'' 
| colspan="3" |𒁁 ''ug<sub>7</sub>''/𒂦 ''ug<sub>5</sub>'' 
|"die"
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+Frequent verbs with reduplicating ''marû'' forms<ref>Jagersma (2010: 312-314), Zólyomi (2017: 129), Sallaberger (2023: 55-56). The spelling of the reduplicated form is indicated in the table only where it is not simply a doubling of the main form.</ref>
!''ḫamṭu'' 
!''marû''
!meaning
|-
|''𒉋 bil<sub>2</sub>''
|''𒉋𒉋 BIL<sub>2</sub>-BIL<sub>2</sub>''{{Efn|The use of capitals indicate that the pronunciation of the reduplicated stem is unknown or uncertain.}}
|burn
|-
|''𒊑 degₓ''
|''𒊑𒊑 de<sub>5</sub>-de<sub>5</sub>''
|gather
|-
|''𒂄 dun''
|''DUN-DUN''
|string up together
|-
|''𒁔 dun<sub>5</sub>''
|''DUN<sub>5</sub>-DUN<sub>5</sub>''
|swing
|-
|𒅍𒂷/𒅍 ''gag̃'' 
|''ga<sub>6</sub>-ga<sub>6</sub>''
|carry
|-
|𒄄 ''gi<sub>4</sub>''
|''gi<sub>4</sub>''-''gi<sub>4</sub>''
|turn
|-
|''𒁽 gir<sub>5</sub>''
|''GIR<sub>5</sub>-GIR<sub>5</sub>'' 
|slip, dive
|-
|𒆥 ''gur<sub>10</sub>''
|''GUR<sub>10</sub>''-''GUR<sub>10</sub>''
|reap
|-
|𒃻 ''g̃ar''
|𒂷𒂷 ''g̃a<sub>2</sub>''-''g̃a<sub>2</sub>''
|put
|-
|𒄩𒆷 ''ḫa-la''
|''𒄬𒄩 ḫal-ḫa''
|divide
|-
|𒅆𒌨 ''ḫulu'' 
|''𒅆𒌨𒄷 ḫulu-ḫu'' /''ḫulḫu''/
|be bad, destroy
|-
|𒆥 ''kig̃<sub>2</sub>''
|''KIG̃<sub>2</sub>''-''KIG̃<sub>2</sub>''
|seek
|-
|𒆭 ''kur<sub>9</sub>''
|''ku<sub>4</sub>-ku<sub>4</sub>''
|enter
|-
|𒊬 ''mu<sub>2</sub>''
|''mu<sub>2</sub>-mu<sub>2</sub>''
|grow
|-
|𒌆 ''mur<sub>10</sub>''
|''mu<sub>4</sub>-mu<sub>4</sub>''
|dress
|-
|𒅘 ''nag̃''
|''na<sub>8</sub>-na<sub>8</sub>''
|drink
|-
|𒆸𒆸 ''nig̃in''
|''𒆸𒆸 ni<sub>10</sub>-ni<sub>10</sub>, 𒉈𒉈 ne-ne''
|go around
|-
|𒊏 ''raḫ<sub>2</sub>''
|''ra-ra''
|hit
|-
|𒉚 ''sa<sub>10</sub>''
|''sa<sub>10</sub>-sa<sub>10</sub>''
|barter
|-
|𒋛 ''si''
|''si-si''
|fill
|-
|𒋢 ''sug<sub>6</sub>''
|''su<sub>2</sub>-su<sub>2</sub>''
|repay
|-
|𒂞 ''šeš<sub>2</sub>''
|''še<sub>8</sub>-še<sub>8</sub>''
|anoint,{{Efn|Only in post-Ur III texts (Jagersma 2010: 312-314)}} cry
|-
|𒌋 ''šuš'', 𒋙 ''šuš<sub>2</sub>''
|''𒌋𒌋 šu<sub>4</sub>-šu<sub>4</sub>, 𒋙𒋙 šu<sub>2</sub>-šu<sub>2</sub>''
|cover
|-
|𒋺 ''taka<sub>4</sub>''
|''da<sub>13</sub>-da<sub>13</sub>''
|leave behind
|-
|𒋼𒂗 ''te-en''
|''te-en-te''
|cool off
|-
|''𒋗𒉀 tu<sub>5</sub>''
|''tu<sub>5</sub>-tu<sub>5</sub>''
|bathe in
|-
| ''𒌇 tuku''
|''du<sub>12</sub>-du<sub>12</sub>''
|have
|-
| ''𒋳 tuku<sub>5</sub>''
|''TUKU<sub>5</sub>-TUKU<sub>5</sub>''
|weave
|-
|𒅇 ...𒆪 ''u<sub>3</sub>'' ...''ku<sub>4</sub>''
|''u<sub>3</sub>'' ...''ku<sub>4</sub>-ku<sub>4</sub>''
|sleep
|-
| ''𒍣 zig<sub>3</sub>''
|''zi-zi''
|rise
|-
|𒍪 ''zu''
|''zu-zu''
|learn, inform
|}

==== 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. 𒉌𒀄(𒂊)𒉈𒂗 ''i<sub>3</sub>-zaḫ<sub>3</sub>(-e)-de<sub>3</sub>-en'' {i-zaḫ-ed-en} "I will/must escape", 𒉌𒀄𒂊 ''i<sub>3</sub>-zaḫ<sub>3</sub>-e'' {i-zaḫ-ed} "he will/must escape". This suffix is considered to account for occurrences of ''-e'' in the third-person singular ''marû'' of intransitive forms by those who do not accept the theory that ''-e'' itself is a ''marû'' stem formant.<ref name="Zólyomi 2005">Zólyomi 2005</ref>

The function of the suffix is somewhat controversial. Some view it as having a primarily modal meaning of "must" or "can"<ref>(Foxvog 2016: 126-127)</ref> or future meaning.<ref>Edzard (2003: 82)</ref> Others believe that it primarily signals simply the imperfective status of a verb form, i.e. a ''marû'' form,<ref>Jagersma (2010: 368-371), Sallaberger (2023: 103)</ref> although its presence is obligatory only in intransitive ''marû'' forms and in non-finite forms. In intransitive forms, it thus helps to distinguish ''marû'' from ''ḫamṭu'';<ref>Jagersma (2010: 368-371)</ref> for instance, in the above example, 𒉌𒀄𒂗 ''i<sub>3</sub>-zaḫ<sub>3</sub>-en'' alone, without -/ed/-, could have been interpreted as a ''ḫamṭu'' form "I escaped". In contrast, in the analysis of scholars who do not believe that -/ed/- is obligatory in ''marû'', many intransitive forms like ''i<sub>3</sub>-zaḫ<sub>3</sub>-en'' can be both ''ḫamṭu'' and ''marû''.{{efn|In some analyses, this is because the forms are morphologically identical: 1st and 2nd person singular is {i-zaḫ-en} and even 3rd person singular is {i-zaḫ} in both ''ḫamṭu'' and ''marû''.<ref>Edzard (2003: 81-82)</ref> In others, it is because the /-e/ of the imperfective stem suffix is not visible in front of the person suffixes: 1st and 2nd person singular ''ḫamṭu'' {i-zaḫ-en} and ''marû'' {i-zaḫ-e-en} are written identically.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 141-142), Hayes (2000: 431), Foxvog (2016: 121-122)</ref>}}

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. 𒋧𒈬𒁕 ''šum<sub>2</sub>-mu(-d)'' (< {šum-ed}). It is also assimilated and contracted with immediately preceding vowels, e.g. 𒄄 ''gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>'' /gi-gi-i(d)/ < {gi-gi-ed} "which will/should return". The verb 𒁺 ''du'' "go" never takes the suffix.<ref name=":4" />

==== Use of the tense-aspect forms ====
Jagersma systematizes the use of the tense-aspect forms in the following patterns:<ref>Jagersma (2010: 372-380)</ref>
* ''ḫamṭu'' is used to express completed ([[perfective aspect|perfective]]) actions in the past, but also states (past ''or'' present) and timeless truths.<ref>Cf. also Thomsen (2001: 120-121), Zólyomi (2017: 123).</ref> It is also used in conditional clauses with the conjunction 𒋗𒃻𒌉𒇲𒁉 ''tukumbi'' 'if'.
* ''marû'' is used to express actions in the present and future, but also non-completed ([[imperfective aspect|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 𒌓𒁕 ''ud-da'' 'if'. [[Verbum dicendi|Verba dicendi]] introducing direct speech are also placed in ''marû''.

In addition, different moods often require either a ''ḫamṭu'' or a ''marû'' stem and either a ''ḫamṭu'' or a ''marû'' agreement pattern depending on various conditions, as specified in the relevant sections [[#Modal prefixes|above]] and [[#Imperative|below]].

In more general terms, modern scholars usually state that the difference between the two forms is primarily one of [[grammatical aspect|aspect]]: ''ḫamṭu'' expresses [[perfective aspect]], i.e. a completed action, or sometimes possibly [[Lexical aspect#Comrie's classification|punctual aspect]], whereas ''marû'' expresses [[imperfective aspect]], i.e. a non-completed action, or sometimes possibly [[durative aspect]].<ref>Thomsen (2001: 118-123), Sallaberger (2023: 88, 101), Attinger (1993: 186-187)</ref> In contrast, the ''time'' at which the action takes place or at which it is completed or non-completed is not specified and may be either past, present or future.<ref>Foxvog (2016: 61-62)</ref> This contrasts with the earlier view, prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, according to which the difference was one of [[grammatical tense|tense]]: ''ḫamṭu'' was thought to express the [[past tense|past (preterite) tense]], and ''marû'' was considered to express [[present tense|present-]][[future tense]], while the use of ''marû'' with past-tense reference was viewed as a stylistic device (cf. the so-called [[historical present]] use in other languages).<ref>Thomsen (2001: 118-120) and Jagersma (2010: 372-373), both citing Poebel and Falkenstein.</ref> Indeed, it has been pointed out that a translation of ''ḫamṭu'' with past tense and ''marû'' with present or future tense does work well most of the time;<ref>Jagersma (2010: 372), Sallaberger (2023: 88, 101), Attinger (1993: 186-187)</ref> this may correspond to the cases in which the action was viewed by Sumerian speakers as completed or non-completed ''with respect to the present moment''.<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 101)</ref>{{efn|In fact, Zólyomi (2017: 123-124) retains the terminology of tense, preterite for ''ḫamṭu'' and present-future for ''marû'', but describes them as expressing anterior actions (''ḫamṭu'') vs simultaneous or posterior actions (''marû'') ''relative to a reference point'' which is not necessarily the present and is not specified by the verb form itself.}}

==== The imperative mood ====
The [[imperative mood]] construction is produced with a ''ḫamṭu'' stem, but using the ''marû'' agreement pattern, by turning all prefixes into suffixes.<ref name=":16" /> 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.<ref>Edzard (2003: 128)</ref> Compare the following indicative-imperative pairs: 
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Indicative
!Imperative
|-
|{{interlinear|mu- -nn- -a- -b- -šum- -e|VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O- -give- -3.AN.A|"He will give it to him here."
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
| top = 𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀊𒋧𒈬<br /> 
<small>mu-un-na-ab-šum<sub>2</sub>-mu</small>
}}
|{{interlinear|šum- -mu- -nn- -a- -b|give- -VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O|"Give it to him here!"
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
| top = 𒋧𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀊 <br />
<small>šum<sub>2</sub>-mu-un-na-ab</small>
}}
|-
|{{interlinear|mu- -nn- -a- -b- -šum- -enzen|VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O- -give- -2.PL|"You (plur.) will give it to him"
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
| top = 𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀊𒋧𒈬𒌦𒍢𒂗 <br />
<small>mu-un-na-ab-šum<sub>2</sub>-mu-un-ze<sub>2</sub>-en</small>
}}
|{{interlinear|šum- -mu- -nn- -a- -b- -zen|give- -VEN- -3.SG.AN- -DAT- -3.INAN.O- -2.PL.A/S.IMP|'Give (plur.) it to him here!'
| indent = 4
| glossing = link
| top = 𒌦𒈬𒌦𒈾𒀊𒍢𒂗<br />
<small>šum<sub>2</sub>-mu-un-na-ab-ze<sub>2</sub>-en</small>
}}
|}
This may be compared with the French pair ''vous le lui donnez'', but ''donnez-le-lui!''<ref name="Rubio 2007" />

In addition, the prefix 𒉌 ''i<sub>3</sub>-'' is replaced by /-a/: 𒉌𒁺 '''''i<sub>3</sub>'''-g̃en'' "he went", but 𒁺𒈾 ''g̃en-n'''a''''' "go!", 𒅔𒈾𒀊𒁉 '''''in'''-na-ab-be2'' "he will say it to him", but 𒅗𒂵𒀭𒈾(𒀊) ''dug<sub>4</sub>-g'''a'''-an-na(-ab)'' 'say it to him!'.<ref name=":16">Jagersma (2010: 556)</ref> However, the vowel /e/<ref name=":54">Foxvog (2016: 111-112)</ref> and possibly /i/<ref>Edzard (2003: 127-129)</ref> occasionally also occur if no further prefixes follow, perhaps as a characteristic of southern dialects.<ref name=":54" /> The ventive prefix ''mu-'', if not followed by others, has the form 𒌝 ''-um'' in the imperative: 𒁺𒌝 ''ře<sub>6</sub>-um'' 'bring it here!'<ref>Jagersma (2010: 504)</ref> In Old Babylonian texts, the reduced form -/u/ and the more regular -/am/ {-a-m} are also found: 𒂷𒉡 ''g̃e<sub>26</sub>-nu'', 𒁺𒀀𒀭 ''g̃en-am<sub>3</sub>'', both "come here!"<ref>Foxvog (2016: 112-113)</ref>

==== 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, 𒋧𒈠 ''šum<sub>2</sub>-ma'' may mean either "(which was) given (to someone)", "who was given (something)" or "who gave".<ref name=":2">Jagersma (2010: 628-629)</ref> As verbal nouns, they denote the action or state itself, so 𒋧𒈠 ''šum<sub>2</sub>-ma'' may also mean  '(the act of) giving' or 'the fact that X gave Y'.<ref name=":2" /> Participles are formed in the following ways:

* The bare ''ḫamṭu'' stem can function as a participle. It usually expresses timeless truths: 𒋧 ''šum<sub>2</sub>'' may be a person who regularly/constantly gives, something regularly given, or the regular act of giving.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 630-636)</ref>
* Another way to form participles is by means of adding the nominalizing marker -/a/ to the ''ḫamṭu'' stem:<ref name=":3">Jagersma (2010: 627)</ref><ref>Sallaberger (2020: 60)</ref> 𒋧𒈠 ''šum<sub>2</sub>-ma'' "given".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/o0039914|title=Epsd2/Sux/šum&#91;give&#93;|access-date=2021-02-21|archive-date=2021-09-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210926124654/http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/o0039914|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 (𒋾𒆷 ''til<sub>3</sub>-la'' "alive").<ref>Jagersma (2010: 638-640)</ref> The verbs 𒌇 ''tuku'' "have" and 𒍪 ''zu'' "know" usually omit the ending -/a/, as does the verb 𒀝 ''ak'' "do".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 674-675)</ref> According to Jagersma, the nominalizing marker had the effect of geminating the preceding consonant (e.g. /šumːa/), which is evident from Akkadian loanwords, and this effect was due to its original form being /ʔa/ with a glottal stop that later assimilated to preceding consonants (/šumʔa/ > šumːa).<ref name="Jagersma 2010: 38"/>
* The ''marû'' stem can be combined with the suffix -/ed/ to form another participle, which often has a future and modal meaning similar to the [[gerundive#In Latin|Latin gerundive]], e.g. 𒁶𒈨 ''dim<sub>2</sub>-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 conjugation#The gerund|Latin ''ad'' + gerund (acc.) construction]]: 𒁶(𒈨)𒉈 ''dim<sub>2</sub>(-me)-de<sub>3</sub>'' = "(in order) to make".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 627-676)</ref> A similar meaning can be expressed by adding the locative marker: 𒁶(𒈨)𒁕 ''dim<sub>2</sub>(-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''.<ref>Edzard (2003: 135-136)</ref> 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 ''marû'' stem alone, e.g. 𒁶𒈨 ''dim<sub>2</sub>-me'' 'which is/was making', 𒄄𒄄 ''gi<sub>4</sub>-gi<sub>4</sub>'' "returning".<ref>Foxvog (2016: 139-144)</ref> Others believe that it this is also the normal ''marû'' participle and that it has, in addition, the imperfective meanings "which is/was cutting" and "which is/was being cut".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 655-659)</ref>  Besides the allomorphy of the suffix -/ed/ already treated above, the verb 𒅗 ''dug<sub>4</sub>'' "do, say" has a suppletive participial stem in this form: 𒁲 ''di(-d)''.<ref name=":4">Jagersma (2010: 656-660)</ref>
* The ''marû'' stem can also occur with the suffix -/a/.<ref>Foxvog (2016: 144-145)</ref> Nonetheless, according to Jagersma, this form is rare outside the combination with a following possessive pronominal marker to express temporal meaning, as explained [[#Subordinate clauses|in the ''Syntax'' section]]: e.g. 𒁶(𒈨)𒁕𒉌 ''dim<sub>2</sub>(-me)-da-ni'' "when he makes (something)".<ref name=":3" />

==== Copula verb ====
The [[copula verb]] /me/ "to be" is mostly used in an enclitic form. Its conjugation is as follows: 
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!
!singular
!plural
|-
!1st person
|𒈨𒂗 ''-me-en''
|𒈨𒂗𒉈𒂗 ''-me-en-de<sub>3</sub>-en''
|-
!2nd person
|𒈨𒂗 ''-me-en''
|𒈨𒂗𒍢𒂗 ''-me-en-ze<sub>2</sub>-en''
|-
!3rd person
|𒀀𒀭 ''-am<sub>3</sub>''
(Old Sumerian 𒀭 -''am<sub>6</sub>'')
|𒀭𒈨𒌍 ''-me-eš''
|}
In addition, the initial vowel of the form ''-am<sub>3</sub>'' is reduced to -/m/ after enclitics ending in a vowel: 𒂍𒈬𒌝 ''e<sub>2</sub>''-''g̃u<sub>10</sub>''-''u'''m''''' "it is my house". Like other final consonants, the ''-m'' may not be expressed in early spelling.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 685)</ref>

These enclitic forms are used instead of a simple sequence of finite prefix, root and personal suffix ''*i<sub>3</sub>-me-en'', ''*i-me'' etc. For more complex forms, the independent copula form is used: 𒉌𒈨𒀀 ''i<sub>3</sub>-me-a'' "that he is", 𒉡𒅇𒈨𒂗 ''nu-u<sub>3</sub>-me-en'' "I am not". Unlike the enclitic, it typically uses the normal stem 𒈨 -''me''- in the 3rd person singular (𒁀𒊏𒈨 ''ba-ra-me'' "should not be"), except for the form prefixed with ''ḫa-'', which is 𒃶𒅎 ''ḫe<sub>2</sub>-em'' or 𒃶𒀀𒀭 ''ḫe<sub>2</sub>-am<sub>3</sub>''.<ref name=":22">Jagersma (2010: 677-678)</ref>

For a negative equivalent of the copula in the 3rd person, it seems that the word 𒉡 ''nu'' "not" alone instead of ''*nu-um'' is used predicatively (e.g. 𒍏𒉡 ''urud nu'' "it is not copper"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 717-718)</ref>) although the form 𒉡(𒌦)𒂵𒀀𒀭 ''nu-(un)-ga-am<sub>3</sub>'' "it is also not ..." is attested.<ref name=":22" /> A different word is used to express existence or being present/located somewhere: ''𒅅 g̃al<sub>2</sub>''.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 112)</ref>

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 𒉌𒈨𒀀 ''i<sub>3</sub>-me-a'', simply 𒀀𒀭 -''am<sub>3</sub>'' is used: 𒆬𒃻𒂵𒊏𒉌𒅎𒈠𒀭𒋧 ''kug nig̃<sub>2</sub>-gur<sub>11</sub>-ra-ni-i'''m''' ma-an-šum<sub>2</sub>'' "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 𒉡𒈨𒀀 ''nu-me-a'' "which is not" is used, and likewise in non-relative functions.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 706-710)</ref>

==== Passive voice ====
Some scholars believe that it is possible to speak of a [[passive voice]] in Sumerian. Jagersma (2010) distinguishes three attested passive constructions.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 303-307). Zolyomi (2017) also mentions the second and third constructions. Edzard (2003: 95) notes the second one.</ref> In each case, the ergative participant and the corresponding agreement marker on the verb are removed, so that the verb is inflected intransitively, but there may also be some additional cues to ensure a passive interpretation. The passive may be formed:

# By simply eliminating the agent of a transitive verb and the corresponding agreement marker: {'''engar-e''' e i-'''n'''-řu} "the farmer built the house" > † {e i-řu} "the house was built".<ref>The same construction is described by Hayes (2000: 235).</ref> As a dynamic passive, in reference to the event itself, this construction is obsolete in ''ḫamṭu'' by the time of the earliest records according to Jagersma''.'' However, it is still used with modal prefixes and in ''marû'': e.g. {e ḫa-i-řu} "May the house be built!" Moreover, it continues to be used as a stative passive in Southern Sumerian, so {e i-řu} can mean "the house is built (i.e. complete)".
# With the prefix 𒁀 ''ba-'', e.g. {e ba-řu}. This is only found in Southern Sumerian and expresses only a dynamic passive, i.e. it refers to the event itself: "The house was (came to be) built".{{Efn|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.}}<ref>Cf. Edzard (2003: 95), Woods (2008: 303).</ref>
# With the prefix {a-}, e.g. {e al-řu}. This is only found in Northern Sumerian and can have both a stative and a dynamic sense: "The house is built (complete)" or "The house was (came to be) built".<ref name=":222" />
The agent is never expressed in the passive clause in Sumerian.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 494)</ref>

While the existence of such intransitive constructions of normally transitive verbs is widely recognized, some other scholars have disputed the view that these constructions should be called "passives". They prefer to speak of one-participant or agentless constructions and to limit themselves to the observation that the prefixes ''ba-'' and ''a-'' tend to be preferred with such constructions, apparently as a secondary effect of another, more subtle feature of their meaning.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 179, 183), Foxvog (2016: 75), Rubio (2007: 1361-1362)</ref> Concerning the history of the constructions, it has been claimed that the passive(-like) use of ''ba-'' does not appear before the Ur III period;<ref>Thomsen (2001: 179), Edzard (2003: 95)</ref> Jagersma, on the contrary, states that it is attested already in the Old Sumerian period, although it becomes especially frequent in Ur III times.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 496)</ref>

A different construction has been posited and labelled "Sumerian passive voice" by a significant number of scholars.<ref name=":48">Sallaberger (2023: 107); originally proposed by Claus Wilcke.</ref><ref name=":49">Attinger (2009: 26-28)</ref><ref>Keetman (2017)</ref> According to them, too, a passive is formed by removing the ergative participant and the verbal marker that agrees with it, but the verb is ''not'' inflected as an intransitive one: instead, it has a personal prefix, which refers to the "logical object": {'''e''' i-'''b'''-řu} or {'''e''' ba-'''b'''-řu} "the house is being built". The stem is always ''ḫamṭu''. Some consider this construction to have only the function and meaning of a ''marû'' form''<ref name=":48" />'', while others consider the tense-aspect opposition to be neutralized in it.<ref name=":49" /> The personal prefix is nearly always -''b''- in identified cases; views differ on whether it agrees in gender with an animate logical object, appearing as ''-n-'',<ref name=":49"/> or whether it remains ''-b-''.<ref>Keetman (2017: 121)</ref> Critics have argued that most alleged examples of the construction are actually instances of [[#Expression of the directive by a pre-stem personal prefix|the pre-stem personal prefix referring to the directive participant]] in an intransitive verb, at least before the Old Babylonian period.<ref>Jagersma, Bram. 2006. The final person-prefixes and the passive, ''NABU'' 2006/93. [https://www.academia.edu/7754972/The_final_person_prefixes_and_the_passive Online]</ref><ref>Zólyomi, G., Voice and Topicalization in Sumerian. Kandidátusi értekezés, Budapest 1993. [https://www.academia.edu/618029/Voice_and_Topicalization_in_Sumerian Online]</ref> Pascal Attinger considers it plausible that the original construction was indeed a directive one, whereas its new passive function as described by him arose via a reinterpretation in the Old Babylonian period;<ref name=":49" /> Walther Sallaberger, on the contrary, believes this kind of passive to be characteristic of Neo-Sumerian and to have been lost in Old Babylonian.<ref name=":48" /> A further possibility is that at least some of these cases actually have an [[Impersonal verb|impersonal]] 3rd person inanimate subject: "'it' has / they have built the house".<ref name=":49" />

==== Causative construction ====
Sumerian doesn't have dedicated causative morphology. [[Causative|Causativity]] is expressed syntactically in two ways, depending on the transitivity of the verb.

# An intransitive verb is made transitive and thus acquires causative meaning merely by adding an ergative participant and the appropriate agreement marker: {gud i-gub} "the ox stood" - {'''engar-e''' gud i-'''n'''-gub} "the farmer made the ox stand". 
# A transitive verb is made causative by placing the ergative participant in the directive: {engar-e gud-'''e''' u b-'''i'''-n-gu} "the farmer made the ox eat grass". For animates, as usual, the directive case marker is replaced by the dative one: {engar-e dumu-'''ra''' ninda i-nn-'''i'''-n-gu} "the farmer made the child eat bread". A further example can be {dig̃ir-e engar-ra gud i-nn-i-n-gub}: "the god made the farmer make the ox stand".
# 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".<ref>Zolyomi (2017: 223-226), Jagersma (2010: 429-433)</ref>
In Old Babylonian Sumerian, new causative markers have been claimed to have arisen under the influence of Akkadian; this is explained in the section on [[#Interference from Akkadian and other late phenomena|Interference from Akkadian and other late phenomena]].

==== Phrasal verbs ====
A specific problem of Sumerian syntax is posed by the numerous [[English phrasal verbs|phrasal verbs]] (traditionally called "[[compound verb]]s" in Sumerology in spite of the fact that they are not compounds, but idiomatic combinations<ref>Jagersma (2010: 74)</ref>). They usually involve a noun immediately before the verb, forming a lexical/[[idiom]]atic unit:<ref>Johnson 2004:22</ref> e.g. 𒅆...𒂃 ''igi ...du<sub>8</sub>'', lit. "open the eye" = "see, look". Their [[case government]] and agreement patterns vary depending on the specific verb.<ref name=":0">Jagersma (2010: 300), Zólyomi (2017: 226-227)</ref><ref name="Zólyomi2000" />{{Efn|Some information regarding the case markers governed by individual Sumerian verbs is listed in the verb catalogue of Thomsen (2001: 295-323).}} The component noun is usually in the absolutive case, but may be in the directive. If the phrasal verb takes another noun as a "logical object", the verbal infix is typically the directive, while the noun case is most commonly either the directive (dative if animate), which otherwise has the meaning "at / with respect to", or the locative (dative if animate), which otherwise has the meaning "on":

* Directive: 
** 𒅆...𒂃 ''igi ...du<sub>8</sub>'' ({NOUN-e igi ...-e~i-...du}), lit. "open the eye at something" > "see"<ref name=":33">Zólyomi (2017: 218)</ref>
** 𒆥...𒀝 ''kig̃<sub>2</sub> ...ak'', lit. "do work with respect to something" > "work (on) something"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 414)</ref>
** ''𒋗𒋳...𒅗 šu-tag ...dug<sub>4</sub>'', lit. "do hand-touching with respect to something" > "decorate"<ref name="Jagersma 2010: 444"/>
** 𒊓...𒅗 ''sa<sub>2</sub> dug<sub>4</sub>'', lit.  "do equal with respect to something" > "reach"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 573)</ref>
** 𒄑...''𒋳 g̃eš ...tag'', lit. "make wood touch 'at' something" > "sacrifice something".<ref>Jagersma (2010: 438)</ref>
** 𒋛...𒁲 ''si ...sa<sub>2</sub>'' ({NOUN-e si ...-e~i-...sa}), lit. "make the horns(?) equal with respect to something" > "put something in order";<ref name=":33"/><ref name=":36" /> likewise used intransitively: {NOUN-e si b-i-sa}, lit. "the horns (?) are equal with respect to something" > "something is in order".<ref name=":36" />
* Locative "on": 
** 𒅗...𒃻 ''inim'' ...''g̃ar'' ({NOUN-a inim ...-e~i-...g̃ar}), lit. "place a word on something" > "claim, place a claim on"<ref name=":33" />
** 𒋗...𒁇 ''šu ...bar'', lit. "open / remove the hand on something" > "release"<ref name=":34">Jagersma (2010: 440-441)</ref><ref>Sallaberger (2023: 124)</ref>
** ''𒈬...𒄷𒈿 mu ...sa<sub>4</sub>'', lit. "call a name on someone" > "to name"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 485)</ref>
** ''𒉆...𒋻 nam ...tar'', lit. "cut a fate upon someone" > "determine the fate of someone"<ref name=":34" />
** ''𒀠...𒆕 al ...řu<sub>2</sub>'', lit. "raise the hoe upon something" > "dig"<ref name=":34" />
** 𒇷...''𒋻 en<sub>3</sub> ...tar'', lit. "cut a question(?) on something" > "investigate"<ref name=":34" />

Less commonly, the case of the logical object and the pronominal infix may be:

* Dative (directive if inanimate): 
** 𒆠...𒉘 ''ki'' ...''ag̃<sub>2</sub>'' ({NOUN-ra ki ...ag̃}) lit.  "to measure out a place for someone" = "to love someone"<ref name=":0" />
** ''𒅗 ...𒌣 gu<sub>3</sub> ...de<sub>2</sub>'', lit. "to pour out the voice for someone" = "to call for someone"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 410)</ref>
** ''𒀀 ...𒊒 a ...ru'', lit. "to eject water for someone" = "to dedicate something to someone"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 445)</ref>
* Terminative: 𒅆 ...𒁇 ''igi ...bar'' (NOUN-še igi  ...bar) lit. "bring out the eye towards something" = "see, look"<ref>Jagersma 2010: 292), Zólyomi (2017: 226-227), Sallaberger (2023: 124)</ref>
* Comitative: 𒀉 ...𒉘 ''a<sub>2</sub>'' ...''ag̃<sub>2</sub>'' ({NOUN-da a ...ag̃}) lit. "measure out power (?) with someone" = "to give orders to someone"<ref name=":0" />
* Locative "in":
** 𒋗... 𒁍 ''šu ...gid<sub>2</sub>'' ({NOUN-a šu ... gid}), lit. "stretch out the hand into something" = "to perform [[Haruspex|extispicy]] on"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 469)</ref>
** 𒋗... 𒁄 ''šu'' ...''bala'', lit. "let one's hand go across in something" = "alter"<ref>Jagersma (2010: 310)</ref>

Another possibility is for the component noun to be in the dative (directive if inanimate), while the object is in the absolutive:

* 𒋗...𒋾 ''šu ...ti'' ({šu-e NOUN ''...''ti}) lit. "make something come close to the hand" = "to receive something" ("''from'' someone" is expressed by the terminative: {NOUN''<sub>2</sub>''-še šu-e NOUN''<sub>1</sub> ...''ti})<ref>Jagersma (2010: 413, 464)</ref>