Editing Sumerian language (section)

===== 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''.