Editing Sumerian language (section)

==== 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''.