Editing Sumerian language (section)

==Phonology==

Assumed phonological and morphological forms will be between slashes // and curly brackets {}, respectively, with plain text used for the standard [[Assyriological]] transcription of Sumerian. Most of the following examples are unattested. Note also that, not unlike most other pre-modern orthographies, Sumerian cuneiform spelling is highly variable, so the transcriptions and the cuneiform examples will generally show only one or at most a few common graphic forms out of many that may occur. Spelling practices have also changed significantly in the course of the history of Sumerian: the examples in the article will use the most phonetically explicit spellings attested, which usually means [[Old Babylon]]ian or [[Ur III]] period spellings. except where an authentic example from another period is used.

{{anchor|Phonology}}
Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is flawed and incomplete because of the lack of speakers, the transmission through the filter of [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] phonology and the difficulties posed by the cuneiform script. As [[I. M. Diakonoff]] observes, "when we try to find out the [[morphophonological]] structure of the Sumerian language, we must constantly bear in mind that we are not dealing with a language directly but are reconstructing it from a very imperfect mnemonic writing system which had not been basically aimed at the rendering of morphophonemics".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as20.pdf#page=126 |title=Diakonoff 1976:112 |access-date=2018-09-23 |archive-date=2019-08-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190803063106/https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as20.pdf#page=126 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Consonants ===
Early Sumerian is conjectured to have had at least the consonants listed in the table below. The consonants in parentheses are reconstructed by some scholars based on indirect evidence; if they existed, they were lost around the Ur III period in the late 3rd millennium BC.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|+ Sumerian consonant phonemes
! colspan="2" |
! [[bilabial consonant|Bilabial]]
! [[alveolar consonant|Alveolar]]
! [[postalveolar consonant|Postalveolar]]
! [[velar consonant|Velar]]
![[Glottal consonant|Glottal]]
|-
! colspan="2" | [[Nasal stop|Nasal]]
| {{IPA|m}} {{angle bracket|m}}
| {{IPA|n}} {{angle bracket|n}}
|
| {{IPA|ŋ}} {{anglebracket|g̃}}
|
|-
! rowspan="2" | [[Plosive consonant|Plosive]]
! plain
| {{IPA|p}} {{anglebracket|b}}
| {{IPA|t}} {{anglebracket|d}}
|
| {{IPA|k}} {{anglebracket|g}}
| ({{IPA|ʔ}})
|-
! aspirated
| {{IPA|pʰ}} {{anglebracket|p}}
| {{IPA|tʰ}} {{anglebracket|t}}
|
| {{IPA|kʰ}} {{anglebracket|k}}
|
|-
! colspan="2" | [[Fricative consonant|Fricative]]
|
| {{IPA|s}} {{angle bracket|s}}
| {{IPA|ʃ}} {{anglebracket|š}}
| {{IPA|x}} {{anglebracket|ḫ~h}}
| ({{IPA|h}})
|-
! rowspan="2" | [[Affricate consonant|Affricate]]
! plain
|
| {{IPA|t͡s}} {{anglebracket|z}}
|
|
|
|-
! aspirated
|
| {{IPA|t͡sʰ}}? {{anglebracket|ř~dr}}
|
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" | [[Approximant]]
|
| {{IPA|l}} {{angle bracket|l}}
|({{IPA|j}})
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" | [[Flap consonant|Tap]]
|
| {{IPA|ɾ}} {{anglebracket|r}}
|
|
|
|}

* a simple distribution of six [[stop consonant]]s in three [[place of articulation|places of articulation]], originally distinguished by [[Aspirated consonant|aspiration]]. In the late 3rd millennium BC, the unaspirated stops are thought to have become [[Voiced consonant|voiced]] in most positions (although not word-finally),<ref name="Jeger">Jagersma (2010: 43-45)</ref> whereas the voiceless aspirated stops maintained their aspiration.<ref>Attinger (2009: 10-11)</ref>{{efn|Since Akkadian, too, had developed aspiration in the realization of its voiceless (non-emphatic) consonants by that time,<ref name=jagersma35_36>Jagersma (2010: 35-36), Kogan & Krebernik (2021: 418-419)</ref> that aspiration was also preserved after the extinction of Sumerian, in Akkadian native speakers' pronunciation of the language, and is hence reflected even in [[Ancient Greek language|Ancient Greek]] transcriptions of Sumerian words with the letters [[φ]], [[θ]] and [[χ]].<ref name=jagersma35_36/>}}
** ''p'' {{IPA||audio=Voiceless bilabial plosive.ogg|lang=en}}([[Voiceless bilabial stop|voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive]]),
** ''t''{{IPA||audio=Voiceless alveolar plosive.ogg}}  ([[Voiceless dental and alveolar stops|voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive]]),
** ''k'' {{IPA||audio=Voiceless velar plosive.ogg}}([[Voiceless velar stop|voiceless aspirated velar plosive]]),
*** As a rule, the voiceless aspirated consonants (''p'', ''t'' and ''k'') did not occur word-finally.<ref>[Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein ''h'' im Sumerischen?" In: ''Babel und Bibel'' 3, p.21]</ref>
** ''b''{{IPA||audio=Voiced bilabial plosive.ogg}} ([[Voiceless bilabial stop|voiceless unaspirated bilabial plosive]]), later voiced;
** ''d'' {{IPA||audio=Voiced alveolar plosive.ogg}}([[Voiceless dental and alveolar stops|voiceless unaspirated alveolar plosive]]), later voiced;
** ''g'' {{IPA||audio=Voiced velar plosive 02.ogg}}([[Voiceless velar stop|voiceless unaspirated velar plosive]]), later voiced.
* a [[phoneme]] usually represented by ''ř'' (sometimes written ''dr''), which became {{IPA|/d/}} or {{IPA|/r/}} in northern and southern dialects, respectively, after the Old Akkadian period. It was first reconstructed as a voiced alveolar tap {{IPA|/ɾ/}}, but Bram Jagersma argues that it was a [[Voiceless alveolar affricate|voiceless aspirated alveolar affricate]] because of its reflection in loanwords in Akkadian, among other reasons,<ref name="Jeger" /> and this view is accepted by Gábor Zólyomi (2017: 28). Other suggestions that have been made is that ''ř'' was a [[voiceless alveolar tap|''voiceless'' alveolar tap]]{{IPA||audio=Voiceless alveolar tap.wav}}.<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 36)</ref>
* a simple distribution of three [[nasal stop|nasal consonants]] in similar distribution to the stops:
** ''m'' {{IPA||audio=Bilabial nasal.ogg}}([[bilabial nasal]]),
** ''n'' {{IPA||audio=Alveolar nasal.ogg}}([[alveolar nasal]]),
** ''g̃'' {{IPA||audio=Velar nasal.ogg}}(frequently printed ''ĝ'' due to typesetting constraints, increasingly transcribed as ''ŋ'') {{IPA|/ŋ/}} (likely a [[velar nasal]], as in ''si'''ng''''', it has also been argued to be a [[Labialization|labiovelar]] nasal {{IPA|[ŋʷ]}} or a [[nasalization|nasalized]] [[Labial–velar consonant|labiovelar]]<ref name=michal08/>).
* a set of three [[sibilant consonant|sibilants]]:
** ''s''{{IPA||audio=Voiceless alveolar fricative.ogg}}, likely a [[voiceless alveolar fricative]],
** ''z'', likely a [[Voiceless alveolar affricate|voiceless unaspirated alveolar affricate]], {{IPA|/t͡s/}}, as shown by Akkadian loans from {{IPA|/s/}}={{IPA|[t͡s]}} to Sumerian {{IPA|/z/}}. In early Sumerian, this would have been the unaspirated counterpart to ''ř''.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Sound change in Sumerian: the so-called /dr/-phoneme|url = https://www.academia.edu/7754980|journal = Acta Sumerologica 22: 81–87|access-date = 2015-11-23|last1 = Jagersma|first1 = Bram|date = January 2000|archive-date = 2023-03-19|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230319103555/https://www.academia.edu/7754980|url-status = live}}</ref> Like the stop series ''b'', ''d'' and ''g'', it is thought to have become voiced /dz/ in some positions in the late 3rd millennium.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 42-43)</ref>
** ''š''{{IPA||audio=Voiceless postalveolar fricative.ogg}} (generally described as a [[voiceless postalveolar fricative]], {{IPA|/ʃ/}}, as in '''''sh'''ip''{{efn|Another, relatively uncommon opinion based on loanwords to and from Old Akkadian is that it was actually a [[voiceless dental fricative]] {{IPA|/θ/}} as in '''''th'''ink'' or a sound similar to it.<ref>Kogan and Krebernik (2021: 420-421)</ref><ref>Attinger (1993: 145)</ref>}}
* ''ḫ'' {{IPA||audio=Voiceless velar fricative.ogg}}(a [[voiceless velar fricative|velar fricative]], {{IPA|/x/}}, sometimes written <h>)
* two [[liquid consonant]]s:
** ''l'' (a [[lateral consonant]])
** ''r'' (a [[rhotic consonant]]), which Jagersma argues was realized as a tap {{IPA|[ɾ]}} because of various evidence suggesting its phonetic similarity to {{IPA|/t/}} and {{IPA|/d/}}.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 53)</ref>

The existence of various other consonants has been hypothesized based on graphic alternations and loans, though none have found wide acceptance. For example, [[Igor Diakonoff|Diakonoff]] lists evidence for two lateral phonemes, two rhotics, two back fricatives, and two g-sounds (excluding the velar nasal), and assumes a phonemic difference between consonants that are dropped word-finally (such as the ''g'' in 𒍠 ''zag'' > ''za<sub>3</sub>'') and consonants that remain (such as the ''g'' in 𒆷𒀝 ''lag''). Other "hidden" consonant phonemes that have been suggested include semivowels such as {{IPA|/j/}} and {{IPA|/w/}},<ref name=etcsl2005/> and a [[voiceless glottal fricative|glottal fricative]] {{IPA|/h/}} or a [[glottal stop]] that could explain the absence of [[Contraction (phonology)|vowel contraction]] in some words<ref>Attinger, Pascal, 1993. ''Eléments de linguistique sumérienne''. p. 212 [http://web.archive.org/web/20110103084319/http://doc.rero.ch/lm.php?url=1000%2C40%2C4%2C20080304131832-QE%2Fth_AttingerP.pdf]()</ref>—though objections have been raised against that as well.<ref>[Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein ''h'' im Sumerischen?" In: ''Babel und Bibel'' 3, ''passim'']</ref> A recent descriptive grammar by Bram Jagersma includes {{IPA|/j/}}, {{IPA|/h/}}, and {{IPA|/ʔ/}} as unwritten consonants, with the glottal stop even serving as the first-person pronominal prefix. However, these unwritten consonants had been lost by the Ur III period according to Jagersma.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 38-41, 48-49, 53-54)</ref>

Very often, a word-final consonant was not expressed in writing—and was possibly omitted in pronunciation—so it surfaced only when followed by a vowel: for example the {{IPAslink|k}} of the [[genitive case]] ending ''-ak'' does not appear in 𒂍𒈗𒆷 ''e<sub>2</sub> lugal-la'' "the king's house", but it becomes obvious in 𒂍𒈗𒆷𒄰 ''e<sub>2</sub> lugal-la-kam'' "(it) is the king's house" (compare [[Liaison (French)|liaison]] in French). Jagersma believes that the lack of expression of word-final consonants was originally mostly a graphic convention,<ref>Jagersma (2010: 62-63).</ref> but that in the late 3rd millennium voiceless aspirated stops and affricates ({{IPAslink|pʰ}}, {{IPAslink|tʰ}}, {{IPAslink|kʰ}} and {{IPAslink|tsʰ}}) were, indeed, gradually lost in syllable-final position, as were the unaspirated stops {{IPAslink|d}} and {{IPAslink|ɡ}}.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 35-36, 38)</ref>

=== Vowels ===
The vowels that are clearly distinguished by the cuneiform script are {{IPAslink|a}}, {{IPAslink|e}}, {{IPAslink|i}}, and {{IPAslink|u}}. Various researchers have posited the existence of more vowel phonemes such as {{IPAslink|o}} and even {{IPAslink|ɛ}} and {{IPAslink|ɔ}}, which would have been concealed by the transmission through Akkadian, as that language does not distinguish them.<ref name="smith" /><ref name="keetman2013" /> That would explain the seeming existence of numerous homophones in transliterated Sumerian, as well as some details of the phenomena mentioned in the next paragraph.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51326989.pdf |title=Zólyomi, Gábor. 2017. An introduction to the grammar of Sumerian. P. 12-13 |access-date=2018-09-16 |archive-date=2018-09-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916130913/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51326989.pdf }}</ref> These hypotheses are not yet generally accepted.<ref name="michal08" /> Phonemic vowel length has also been posited by many scholars based on vowel length in Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian,<ref name="Edzard 2003: 13-14">Edzard (2003: 13-14)</ref><ref name=jagersma_length>Jagersma (2010: 56-57)</ref> occasional so-called ''plene'' spellings with extra vowel signs, and some internal evidence from alternations.{{efn|Above all, two different signs for the syllable /ne/, which are systematically used in different morphemes, sometimes alternate so that a contraction with a following vowel /e/ causes the replacement of 𒉌 ''ne<sub>2</sub>'' by 𒉈 ''ne'':  ''ne<sub>2</sub>'' */ne/ + */e/ > ''ne'' */neː/. The suspected long /eː/ also seems to be resistant to apocope and assimilation which are undergone by the suspected short /e/.<ref>Attinger (2009: 9-10)</ref>}}<ref name=jagersma_length/><ref>Besides Edzard, Attinger and Jagersma, also accepted by Zólyomi (2017: 29 and passim), Sallaberger (2023: 35), Zamudio (2017: 45) and by Kogan and Krebernik (2021). Rejected by Michalowski (2020: 93) and Foxvog (2016: 18).</ref> However, scholars who believe in the existence of phonemic vowel length do not consider it possible to reconstruct the length of the vowels in most Sumerian words.<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 35), Jagersma (2010: 56-57)</ref>{{efn|Some frequent words considered to contain long vowels based on borrowings into or from Akkadian are {{lang|sux|𒆹|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|ambār}} "marsh", {{lang|sux|𒀭|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|ān}} "sky", {{lang|sux|𒄑𒍎|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|<sup>g̃eš</sup>banšūr}}, {{lang|sux|𒁓|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|būr}} "vessel", {{lang|sux|𒁮𒃼|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|dam-gār<sub>3</sub>}} "merchant", {{lang|sux|𒂍|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|ē<sub>2</sub>}} (from earlier /haj/) "house", {{lang|sux|𒂊|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|ēg<sub>2</sub>}} "levee", {{lang|sux|𒂗|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|ēn}} "highpriest", {{lang|sux|𒄀|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|gīn<sub>6</sub>}} "firm, true", {{lang|sux|𒋼𒀀|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|kār}} "harbour", {{lang|sux|𒆤|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|kīd}} "reed mat", {{lang|sux|𒈜|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|nār}} "musician", {{lang|sux|𒉣|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|nūn}} "prince", {{lang|sux|𒊕|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|sāg̃}} "head", {{lang|sux|𒉪𒁕|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|šēr<sub>7</sub>-da}} "crime" and {{lang|sux|𒍣|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|zīd}} "right".<ref name="Edzard 2003: 13-14"/><ref name=jagersma_length/> Among grammatical morphemes, length has been posited with greater or lesser confidence for the nominal plural marker {{lang|sux|𒂊𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-enē}}, the 3rd person singular animate pronoun {{lang|sux|𒀀𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|a-nē}} or {{lang|sux|𒂊𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|e-nē}}, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person plural possessive enclitics {{lang|sux|𒈨|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-mē}}, {{lang|sux|𒍪𒉈𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-zu-nē-nē}} and {{lang|sux|𒀀𒉈𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-a-nē-nē}}, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person plural verbal prefixes {{lang|sux|𒈨|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-mē-}}, {{lang|sux|𒂊𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-e-nē-}} and {{lang|sux|𒉈|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-nnē-}}, the ablative {{lang|sux|𒋫|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-tā}}, the prospective prefix {{lang|sux|𒅇|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-ū<sub>3</sub>}} (but shortened and [[#Modal prefixes|qualitatively assimilated]] in an open syllable), the affirmative prefix {{lang|sux|𒈾|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|nā-}} and the 1st and 2nd person pronouns {{lang|sux|𒂷|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|g̃ē<sub>26</sub>}} and {{lang|sux|𒍢|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|zē<sub>2</sub>}} in position before the enclitic copula {{lang|sux|𒈨|italic=no}} {{lang|sux-latn|-me-}}.<ref>Jagersma (2010: passim)</ref>}}

During the Old Sumerian period, the southern dialects (those used in the cities of [[Lagash]], [[Umma]], [[Ur]] and [[Uruk]]),<ref name=Jagersma_vh/> which also provide the overwhelming majority of material from that stage, exhibited a [[vowel harmony]] rule based on [[vowel height]] or [[advanced tongue root]].<ref name=smith>Smith, Eric J M. 2007. [-ATR] "Harmony and the Vowel Inventory of Sumerian". ''Journal of Cuneiform Studies'', volume 57</ref> Essentially, prefixes containing /e/ or /i/ appear to alternate between /e/ in front of syllables containing open vowels and /i/ in front of syllables containing close vowels; e.g. 𒂊𒁽 ''e-kaš<sub>4</sub>'' "he runs", but 𒉌𒁺 ''i<sub>3</sub>-gub'' "he stands". Certain verbs with stem vowels spelt with /u/ and /e/, however, seem to take prefixes with a vowel quality opposite to the one that would have been expected according to this rule,{{efn|In particular, the verbs 𒊒 ''ru'' "lay down", 𒋩 ''sur'' "produce fluid", 𒃡 ''ur<sub>3</sub>'' "drag", and 𒌴 ''ur<sub>4</sub>'' "pluck" take open-vowel prefixes; and the verbs 𒌣 ''de<sub>2</sub>'' "pour", 𒂊 ''e'' "do, say", 𒇯𒁺 ''ed<sub>3</sub>'' "go out", 𒆟 ''keš<sub>2</sub>(d)'' "bind", and 𒅊 ''se<sub>12</sub>'' "live/dwell (plural)" take close-vowel prefixes.<ref name="smith" /><ref name=Jagersma_vh/>}} which has been variously interpreted as an indication either of the existence of  additional vowel phonemes in Sumerian<ref name="smith" /> or simply of incorrectly reconstructed readings of individual lexemes.<ref name=Jagersma_vh/> The 3rd person plural dimensional prefix 𒉈 ''-ne-'' is also unaffected, which Jagersma believes to be caused by the length of its vowel.<ref name=Jagersma_vh>Jagersma (2010: 58-59)</ref> In addition, some have argued for a second vowel harmony rule.<ref name=keetman2009>Keetman, J. 2009. "[http://sepoa.fr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2009-4.pdf The limits of <nowiki>[ATR]</nowiki> vowel harmony in Sumerian and some remarks about the need of transparent data] ". Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2009, No. 65</ref><ref name=keetman2013>Keetman, J. 2013. "Die sumerische Wurzelharmonie". Babel und Bibel 7 p.109-154</ref>

There also appear to be many cases of partial or complete [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilation]] of the vowel of certain prefixes and suffixes to one in the adjacent syllable reflected in writing in some of the later periods, and there is a noticeable, albeit not absolute, tendency for disyllabic stems to have the same vowel in both syllables.<ref name=michal08p17/> These patterns, too, are interpreted as evidence for a richer vowel inventory by some researchers.<ref name=smith/><ref name=keetman2013/> For example, we find forms like 𒂵𒁽 ''g'''a'''-kaš<sub>4</sub>'' "let me run", but, from the Neo-Sumerian period onwards, occasional spellings like 𒄘𒈬𒊏𒀊𒋧 ''g'''u'''<sub>2</sub>-mu-ra-ab-šum<sub>2</sub>'' "let me give it to you". According to Jagersma, these assimilations are limited to open syllables<ref name=Jagersma_assim/> and, as with vowel harmony, Jagersma interprets their absence as the result of vowel length or of stress in at least some cases.<ref name=Jagersma_assim>Jagersma (2010: 60-62)</ref> There is evidence of various cases of elision of vowels, apparently in unstressed syllables; in particular [[Apheresis (linguistics)|an initial vowel in a word of more than two syllables seems to have been elided]] in many cases.<ref name=Jagersma_assim/> What appears to be [[Contraction (phonology)|vowel contraction]] in [[Hiatus (linguistics)|hiatus]] (*/aa/, */ia/, */ua/ > ''a'', */ae/ > ''a'', */ie/ > ''i'' or ''e'', */ue/ > ''u'' or ''e'', etc.) is also very common.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 40)</ref> There is some uncertainty and variance of opinion as to whether the result in each specific case is a long vowel or whether a vowel is simply replaced/deleted.<ref>Foxvog (2016: 41)</ref>

Syllables could have any of the following structures: V, CV, VC, CVC. More complex syllables, if Sumerian had them, are not expressed as such by the cuneiform script.

=== Stress ===
Sumerian [[stress (linguistics)|stress]] is usually presumed to have been dynamic, since it seems to have caused vowel elisions on many occasions. Opinions vary on its placement. As argued by Bram Jagersma<ref name=":21" /> and confirmed by other scholars,<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 33).</ref><ref>Sallaberger (2023: 36-37)</ref> the adaptation of Akkadian words of Sumerian origin seems to suggest that Sumerian stress tended to be on the last syllable of the word, at least in its citation form. The treatment of forms with grammatical morphemes is less clear. Many cases of [[Apheresis (linguistics)|apheresis]] in forms with enclitics have been interpreted as entailing that the same rule was true of the phonological word on many occasions, i.e. that the stress could be shifted onto the enclitics; however, the fact that many of these same enclitics have allomorphs with apocopated final vowels (e.g. /'''‑'''še/ ~ /-š/) suggests that they were, on the contrary, unstressed when these allomorphs arose.<ref name=":21">Jagersma (2010: 63-67)</ref> It has also been conjectured that the frequent assimilation of the vowels of non-final syllables to the vowel of the final syllable of the word may be due to stress on it.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 33)</ref> However, a number of ''suffixes'' and ''enclitics'' consisting of /e/ or beginning in /e/ are also assimilated and reduced.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 60, 356)</ref>

In earlier scholarship, somewhat different views were expressed and attempts were made to formulate detailed rules for the effect of  grammatical morphemes and compounding on stress, but with inconclusive results. Based predominantly on patterns of vowel elision, Adam Falkenstein<ref>Falkenstein, A. 1959. Untersuchungen zur sumerischen Grammatik. Zum Akzent des Sumerischen. ''Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie'' 53 (1959) 104.</ref> argued that stress in monomorphemic words tended to be on the first syllable, and that the same applied without exception to reduplicated stems, but that the stress shifted onto the last syllable in a first member of a compound or idiomatic phrase, onto the syllable preceding a (final) suffix/enclitic, and onto the first syllable of the possessive enclitic /-ani/. In his view, single verbal prefixes were unstressed, but longer sequences of verbal prefixes attracted the stress to their first syllable. Jagersma<ref name=":21" /> has objected that many of Falkenstein's examples of elision are medial and so, while the stress was obviously not on the medial syllable in question, the examples do not show where it ''was''.

Joachim Krecher<ref>Krecher, J. 1969. Verschlußlaute und Betonung im Sumerischen, in: M. Dietrich, W. Röllig, ed., ''Lišan mitḥurti (Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden). Alter Orient und Altes Tetament 1''. Neukirchen-Vluyn. 1969. 157–197.</ref> attempted to find more clues in texts written phonetically by assuming that geminations, plene spellings and unexpected "stronger" consonant qualities were clues to stress placement. Using this method, he confirmed Falkenstein's views that reduplicated forms were stressed on the first syllable and that there was generally stress on the syllable preceding a (final) suffix/enclitic, on the penultimate syllable of a polysyllabic enclitic such as -/ani/, -/zunene/ etc., on the last syllable of the first member of a compound, and on the first syllable in a sequence of verbal prefixes. However, he found that single verbal prefixes received the stress just as prefix sequences did, and that in most of the above cases, another stress often seemed to be present as well: on the stem to which the suffixes/enclitics were added, on the second compound member in compounds, and possibly on the verbal stem that prefixes were added to or on following syllables. He also did not agree that the stress of monomorphemic words was typically initial and believed to have found evidence of words with initial as well as with final stress;<ref>Op.cit. 178-179.</ref> in fact, he did not even exclude the possibility that stress was normally stem-final.<ref>Op.cit.: 193.</ref>

Pascal Attinger<ref>Attinger (1993: 145-146)</ref> has partly concurred with Krecher, but doubts that the stress was ''always'' on the syllable preceding a suffix/enclitic and argues that in a prefix sequence, the stressed syllable wasn't the first one, but rather the last one if heavy and the next-to-the-last one in other cases. Attinger has also remarked that the patterns observed may be the result of [[Akkadian language#Stress|Akkadian influence]] - either due to linguistic convergence while Sumerian was still a living language or, since the data comes from the Old Babylonian period, a feature of Sumerian as pronounced by native speakers of Akkadian. The latter has also been pointed out by Jagersma, who is, in addition, sceptical about the very assumptions underlying the method used by Krecher to establish the place of stress.<ref name=":21" />

===Orthography===

Sumerian writing expressed pronunciation only roughly. It was often [[morphophoneme|morphophonemic]], so much of the [[allomorphy|allomorphic]] variation could be ignored.<ref>Zólyomi (2017: 18)</ref> Especially in earlier Sumerian, coda consonants were also often ignored in spelling; e.g. /mung̃areš/ 'they put it here' could be written 𒈬𒃻𒌷 ''mu-g̃ar-re<sub>2</sub>''. The use of VC signs for that purpose, producing more elaborate spellings such as 𒈬𒌦𒃻𒌷𒌍 ''mu-un-g̃ar-re<sub>2</sub>-eš<sub>3</sub>'', became more common only in the Neo-Sumerian and especially in the Old Babylonian period.<ref>Jagersma (2010: 19-24)</ref>

Conversely, an intervocalic consonant, especially at the end of a morpheme followed by a vowel-initial morpheme, was usually "repeated" by the use of a CV sign for the same consonant; e.g. 𒊬 ''sar'' "write" - 𒊬𒊏 ''sar-ra'' "written".{{efn|This is most consistent with stops. With other consonants, there is some vacillation depending on the consonant, the following vowel, the relevant morpheme, the time period and the region; overall, sonorants favour doubling more than fricatives (especially sibilants) and affricates do, /a/ favours it more than /e/, and doubling is more extensive in Old Sumerian than in subsequent periods.<ref>Sallaberger (2023: 38), Jagersma (2010: 154-158, 175-176, 356-358, 641-642, 720)</ref>}} This results in orthographic gemination that is usually reflected in Sumerological transliteration, but does not actually designate any phonological phenomenon such as length.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=sumerian:transliteration_and_the_diacritics|title=Transliteration and the diacritics [CDLI Wiki]|date=October 26, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026164324/https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=sumerian:transliteration_and_the_diacritics |archive-date=26 October 2021 }}</ref>{{efn|Nonetheless, some Sumerologists also posit genuine geminate consonants in Sumerian, as exemplified later in the article,<ref name=":47"/> but orthographic doubling as seen above usually is not sufficient to se predict its presence.}} It is also relevant in this context that, as explained [[#Consonants|above]], many morpheme-final consonants seem to have been elided unless followed by a vowel at various stages in the history of Sumerian. These are traditionally termed [[wikt:Auslaut|Auslaut]]s in Sumerology and may or may not be expressed in transliteration: e.g. the logogram 𒊮 for /šag/ > /ša(g)/ "heart" may be transliterated as ''šag<sub>4</sub>'' or as ''ša<sub>3</sub>''. Thus, when the following consonant appears in front of a vowel, it can be said to be expressed ''only'' by the next sign: for example, 𒊮𒂵 ''šag<sub>4</sub>-ga'' "in the heart" can also be interpreted as ''ša<sub>3</sub>-ga''.<ref>Foxvog (2016: 15)</ref>

Of course, when a CVC sound sequence is expressed by a sequence of signs with the sound values CV-VC, that does not necessarily indicate a long vowel or a sequence of identical vowels either. To mark such a thing, so-called "plene" writings with an ''additional'' vowel sign repeating the preceding vowel were used, although that never came to be done systematically. A typical plene writing involved a sequence such as (C)V-'''V'''(-VC/CV), e.g. 𒂼𒀀 ''ama-'''a''''' for /ama'''a'''/ < {ama-'''e'''} "the mother (ergative case)").<ref>Jagersma (2010: 25-26)</ref>

Sumerian texts vary in the degree to which they use logograms or opt for syllabic (phonetic) spellings instead: e.g. the word 𒃻 g̃ar  "put" may also be written phonetically as 𒂷𒅈 ''g̃a<sub>2</sub>-ar''. They also vary in the degree to which allomorphic variation was expressed, e.g. 𒁀𒄄𒌍 ''ba-gi<sub>4</sub>-'''eš''''' or 𒁀𒄄𒅖 ''ba-gi<sub>4</sub>-'''iš''''' for "they returned". While early Sumerian writing was highly logographic, there was a tendency towards more phonetic spelling in the Neo-Sumerian period.<ref>Rubio, G. (2000). «On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period». ASJ, 22, pp. 203-225. P. 215-217, 218-220.</ref> Consistent syllabic spelling was employed when writing down the Emesal dialect (since the usual logograms would have been read in Emegir by default), for the purpose of teaching the language and often in recording incantations.<ref>Viano (2016: 141)</ref>

As already mentioned, texts written in the Archaic Sumerian period are difficult to interpret, because they often omit grammatical elements and [[determinative]]s.<ref name=":7" /><ref name="krecherUGN" /> In addition, many literary-mythological texts from that period use a special orthographic style called UD.GAL.NUN, which seems to be based on substitution of certain signs or groups of signs for others. For example, the three signs 𒌓 UD, 𒃲 GAL and 𒉣 NUN, which the system is named for, are substituted for 𒀭 AN, 𒂗 EN, and 𒆤 LIL<sub>2</sub> respectively, producing the name of the god ''[[Enlil|<sup>d</sup>en-lil<sub>2</sub>]]''. The motivation for this practice is mysterious; it has been suggested that it was a kind of [[cryptography]]. Texts written in UD.GAL.NUN are still understood very poorly and only partially.<ref>Thomsen (2001: 22)</ref><ref name=krecherUGN>Krecher, J. 1992: UD.GAL.NUN versus ‘Normal’ Sumerian: Two Literatures or One? Fronzaroli, P. (ed.). ''Literature and Literary Language at Ebla.'' Firenze. 285-303. [https://www.academia.edu/14612978/UD_GAL_NUN_versus_Normal_Sumerian_Two_Literatures_or_One Online]</ref><ref>Michalowski (2004)</ref>