Editing Sumerian language (section)

==== "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>