Sumerian (Sumerian: 𒅴𒂠, romanized: Emeg̃ir, lit. ''native language'') was the language of ancient Sumer. It is one of the oldest attested languages, dating back to at least 2900 BC. It is accepted to be a local language isolate and to have been spoken in ancient Mesopotamia, in the area that is modern-day Iraq.
Sumerian | |
---|---|
𒅴𒂠 Emeg̃ir | |
![]() | |
Native to | Sumer and Akkad |
Region | Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) |
Era | Attested from c. 2900 BC. Went out of vernacular use around 1700 BC; used as a classical language until about 100 AD.[1] |
Dialects | |
Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform | |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-2 | sux |
ISO 639-3 | sux |
uga | |
Glottolog | sume1241 |
Akkadian, a Semitic language, gradually replaced Sumerian as the primary spoken language in the area c. 2000 BC (the exact date is debated),[4] but Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Akkadian-speaking Mesopotamian states such as Assyria and Babylonia until the 1st century AD.[5][6] Thereafter, it seems to have fallen into obscurity until the 19th century, when Assyriologists began deciphering the cuneiform inscriptions and excavated tablets that had been left by its speakers.
Stages edit
The history of written Sumerian can be divided into several periods:[8][9][10][11]
- Proto-literate period – c. 3200 BC to c. 3000 BC
- Archaic Sumerian – c. 3000 BC to c. 2600 BC
- Old or Classical Sumerian – c. 2500 BC to c. 2200 BC
- Neo-Sumerian – c. 2200 BC to c. 2000 BC, further divided into:
- Early Old Babylonian Sumerian – c. 2000 BC to c. 1700 BC
- Post-Old Babylonian Sumerian – after c. 1700 BC.
The pictographic writing system used during the Proto-literate period (3200 BC – 3000 BC), corresponding to the Uruk III and Uruk IV periods in archeology, was still so rudimentary that there remains some scholarly disagreement about whether the language written with it is Sumerian at all, although it has been argued that there are some, albeit still very rare, cases of phonetic indicators and spelling that show this to be the case.[12] The texts from this period are mostly administrative.[8]
The next period, Archaic Sumerian (3000 BC – 2500 BC), is the first stage of inscriptions that indicate grammatical elements, so the identification of the language is certain. It includes some administrative texts and sign lists from Ur (c. 2800 BC). Texts from Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh from 2600 to 2500 BC (the so-called Fara period or Early Dynastic Period IIIa) are the first to span a greater variety of genres, including not only administrative texts and sign lists, but also legal and literary texts (including proverbs) and incantations; however, the spelling of grammatical elements remains optional.[8]
The Old Sumerian period (2500-2350 BC) is the first one from which well-understood texts survive. It corresponds mostly to the last part of the Early Dynastic period (ED IIIb) and specifically to the First Dynasty of Lagash, from where the overwhelming majority of surviving texts come. The sources include important royal inscriptions with historical content as well as extensive administrative records.[8] Sometimes included in the Old Sumerian stage is also the Old Akkadian period (c. 2350 BC – c. 2200 BC)[13], during which Mesopotamia, including Sumer, was united under the rule of the Akkadian Empire. At this time Akkadian functioned as the primary official language, but texts in Sumerian (primarily administrative) did continue to be produced as well.[8]
The first phase of the Neo-Sumerian period corresponds to the time of Gutian rule in Mesopotamia; the most important sources come from the autonomous Second Dynasty of Lagash, especially from the rule of Gudea, which has produced extensive royal inscriptions. The second phase corresponds to the unification of Mesopotamia under the Third Dynasty of Ur, which oversaw a "renaissance" in the use of Sumerian throughout Mesopotamia, using it as its sole official written language. There is a wealth of texts greater than from any preceding time – besides the extremely detailed and meticulous administrative records, there are numerous royal inscriptions, legal documents, letters and incantations.[13] In spite of the dominant position of written Sumerian during the Ur III dynasty, it is controversial to what extent it was actually spoken or had already gone extinct in most parts of its empire[4][14], as there are indications that many scribes[4][15] and even the royal court actually used Akkadian as their main spoken and native language.[15] Evidence has been adduced to the effect that native Sumerian speakers persisted, but only as a minority of the population.[15]
By the early Old Babylonian period (c. 2000 – c. 1700 BC), Akkadian had clearly supplanted Sumerian as a spoken language in nearly all of its original territory, whereas Sumerian continued its existence as a liturgical and classical language for religious, artistic and scholarly purposes. In addition, it has been argued that Sumerian persisted as a spoken language at least in a small part of Southern Mesopotamia (Nippur and its surroundings) until as late as 1700 BC.[4] The written language of administration, law and royal inscriptions continued to be Sumerian in the undoubtedly Semitic-speaking successor states of Ur III during the so-called Isin-Larsa period (c. 2000 BC – c. 1750 BC). The Old Babylonian Empire, however, mostly used Akkadian in inscriptions, sometimes adding Sumerian versions.[15][16][15] The early Old Babylonian period has produced extremely numerous and varied Sumerian literary texts: myths, epics, hymns, prayers, wisdom literature and letters. In fact, nearly all Sumerian religious and wisdom literature can be dated to that time[17], and it is often seen as the "classical age" of Sumerian literature.[18]. Conversely, far more literary texts on tablets surviving from the Old Babylonian period are in Sumerian than in Akkadian, even though that time is viewed as the classical period of Babylonian culture and language.[19][20] However, it has sometimes been suggested that many or most of these "Old Babylonian Sumerian" texts may have been composed in the preceding Ur III period or earlier, and some copies or fragments of known compositions or literary genres have indeed been found in tablets of Neo-Sumerian and Old Sumerian provenance.[21] In addition, some of the first bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical lists are preserved from that time (although the lists were still usually monolingual and Akkadian translations did not become common until the late Middle Babylonian period).[22]
After 1700 BC scribes did continue to produce texts in Sumerian at a more modest scale, but generally with interlinear Akkadian translations[23] and only a small part of the literature known in the Old Babylonian period continued to be copied after its end around 1600 BC.[24] During the Middle Babylonian period, approximately from 1600 to 1000 BC, the Kassite rulers continued to use Sumerian in some of their inscriptions[25], but Akkadian seems to have taken the place of Sumerian as the primary language of texts used for the training of scribes.[26] Nonetheless, the study of Sumerian and copying of Sumerian texts remained an integral part of scribal education[25][27][a] and, in general, the language retained a role in Mesopotamian literary culture that it was to hold until the eclipse of the cuneiform tradition itself in the beginning of the Common Era. The most popular genres for Sumerian texts after the Old Babylonian period were incantations, liturgical texts and proverbs; most commonly, the classics Lugal-e and An-gim were copied.[24]
Classification edit
Sumerian is widely accepted to be a local language isolate.[29][30][31][32] Sumerian was at one time widely held to be an Indo-European language, but that view has been almost universally rejected.[33] Since its decipherment in the early 20th century, scholars have tried to relate Sumerian to a wide variety of languages. Because Sumerian has prestige as the first attested written language, proposals for linguistic affinity sometimes have a nationalistic flavour, leading to attempts to link Sumerian with a range of widely disparate groups such as the Austroasiatic languages,[34] Dravidian languages,[35] Uralic languages such as Hungarian and Finnish,[36][37][38][39] and Sino-Tibetan languages.[40] Turkish nationalists have claimed that Sumerian was a Turkic language as part of the Sun language theory.[41][42] Additionally, long-range proposals have attempted to include Sumerian in broad macrofamilies.[43][44] Such proposals enjoy virtually no support among modern linguists, Sumerologists and Assyriologists and are typically seen as fringe theories.[45]
It has also been suggested that the Sumerian language descended from a late prehistoric creole language (Høyrup 1992).[46] However, no conclusive evidence, only some typological features, can be found to support Høyrup's view. A more widespread hypothesis posits a Proto-Euphratean language that preceded Sumerian in Mesopotamia and exerted an areal influence on it, especially in the form of polysyllabic words that appear "un-Sumerian"—making them suspect of being loanwords—and are not traceable to any other known language. There is little speculation as to the affinities of this substratum language, or these languages, and it is thus best treated as unclassified.[47] Other researchers disagree with the assumption of a single substratum language and argue that several languages are involved.[48] A related proposal by Gordon Whittaker[49] is that the language of the proto-literary texts from the Late Uruk period (c. 3350–3100 BC) is really an early Indo-European language which he terms "Euphratic".
Writing system edit
Development edit
Pictographic proto-writing was used starting in c. 3300 BC. It is unclear what underlying language it encoded, if any. By c. 2800 BC, some tablets began using syllabic elements that clearly indicated a relation to the Sumerian language. Around 2600 BC[50][51], cuneiform symbols were developed using a wedge-shaped stylus to impress the shapes into wet clay. This cuneiform ("wedge-shaped") mode of writing co-existed with the proto-cuneiform archaic mode. Deimel (1922) lists 870 signs used in the Early Dynastic IIIa period (26th century). In the same period the large set of logographic signs had been simplified into a logosyllabic script comprising several hundred signs. Rosengarten (1967) lists 468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian) Lagash.
The cuneiform script was adapted to Akkadian writing beginning in the mid-third millennium. Over the long period of bi-lingual overlap of active Sumerian and Akkadian usage the two languages influenced each other, as reflected in numerous loanwords and even word order changes.[52]
Transcription edit
Depending on the context, a cuneiform sign can be read either as one of several possible logograms, each of which corresponds to a word in the Sumerian spoken language, as a phonetic syllable (V, VC, CV, or CVC), or as a determinative (a marker of semantic category, such as occupation or place). (See the article Cuneiform.) Some Sumerian logograms were written with multiple cuneiform signs. These logograms are called diri-spellings, after the logogram 𒋛𒀀 'diri' which is written with the signs 𒋛 SI and 𒀀 A. The text transliteration of a tablet will show just the logogram, such as the word 'diri', not the separate component signs.
Not all epigraphists are equally reliable, and before publication of an important treatment of a text, scholars will often arrange to collate the published transcription against the actual tablet, to see if any signs, especially broken or damaged signs, should be represented differently.
Historiography edit
This section needs additional citations for verification. (December 2023) |
The key to reading logosyllabic cuneiform came from the Behistun inscription, a trilingual cuneiform inscription written in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian. (In a similar manner, the key to understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs was the bilingual [Greek and Egyptian with the Egyptian text in two scripts] Rosetta stone and Jean-François Champollion's transcription in 1822.)
In 1838 Henry Rawlinson, building on the 1802 work of Georg Friedrich Grotefend, was able to decipher the Old Persian section of the Behistun inscriptions, using his knowledge of modern Persian. When he recovered the rest of the text in 1843, he and others were gradually able to translate the Elamite and Akkadian sections of it, starting with the 37 signs he had deciphered for the Old Persian. Meanwhile, many more cuneiform texts were coming to light from archaeological excavations, mostly in the Semitic Akkadian language, which were duly deciphered.
By 1850, however, Edward Hincks came to suspect a non-Semitic origin for cuneiform. Semitic languages are structured according to consonantal forms, whereas cuneiform, when functioning phonetically, was a syllabary, binding consonants to particular vowels. Furthermore, no Semitic words could be found to explain the syllabic values given to particular signs.[55] Julius Oppert suggested that a non-Semitic language had preceded Akkadian in Mesopotamia, and that speakers of this language had developed the cuneiform script.
In 1855 Rawlinson announced the discovery of non-Semitic inscriptions at the southern Babylonian sites of Nippur, Larsa, and Uruk.
In 1856, Hincks argued that the untranslated language was agglutinative in character. The language was called "Scythic" by some, and, confusingly, "Akkadian" by others. In 1869, Oppert proposed the name "Sumerian", based on the known title "King of Sumer and Akkad", reasoning that if Akkad signified the Semitic portion of the kingdom, Sumer might describe the non-Semitic annex.
Credit for being first to scientifically treat a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian text belongs to Paul Haupt, who published Die sumerischen Familiengesetze (The Sumerian family laws) in 1879.[56]
Ernest de Sarzec began excavating the Sumerian site of Tello (ancient Girsu, capital of the state of Lagash) in 1877, and published the first part of Découvertes en Chaldée with transcriptions of Sumerian tablets in 1884. The University of Pennsylvania began excavating Sumerian Nippur in 1888.
A Classified List of Sumerian Ideographs by R. Brünnow appeared in 1889.
The bewildering number and variety of phonetic values that signs could have in Sumerian led to a detour in understanding the language – a Paris-based orientalist, Joseph Halévy, argued from 1874 onward that Sumerian was not a natural language, but rather a secret code (a cryptolect), and for over a decade the leading Assyriologists battled over this issue. For a dozen years, starting in 1885, Friedrich Delitzsch accepted Halévy's arguments, not renouncing Halévy until 1897.[57]
François Thureau-Dangin working at the Louvre in Paris also made significant contributions to deciphering Sumerian with publications from 1898 to 1938, such as his 1905 publication of Les inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad. Charles Fossey at the Collège de France in Paris was another prolific and reliable scholar. His pioneering Contribution au Dictionnaire sumérien–assyrien, Paris 1905–1907, turns out to provide the foundation for P. Anton Deimel's 1934 Sumerisch-Akkadisches Glossar (vol. III of Deimel's 4-volume Sumerisches Lexikon).
In 1908, Stephen Herbert Langdon summarized the rapid expansion in knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian vocabulary in the pages of Babyloniaca, a journal edited by Charles Virolleaud, in an article "Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies", which reviewed a valuable new book on rare logograms by Bruno Meissner.[58] Subsequent scholars have found Langdon's work, including his tablet transcriptions, to be not entirely reliable.
In 1944, the Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer provided a detailed and readable summary of the decipherment of Sumerian in his Sumerian Mythology.[59]
Friedrich Delitzsch published a learned Sumerian dictionary and grammar in the form of his Sumerisches Glossar and Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, both appearing in 1914. Delitzsch's student, Arno Poebel, published a grammar with the same title, Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, in 1923, and for 50 years it would be the standard for students studying Sumerian. Poebel's grammar was finally superseded in 1984 on the publication of The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure, by Marie-Louise Thomsen. While much of Thomsen's understanding of Sumerian grammar would later be rejected by most or all Sumerologists, Thomsen's grammar (often with express mention of the critiques put forward by Pascal Attinger in his 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di 'dire') is the starting point of most recent academic discussions of Sumerian grammar.
More recent monograph-length grammars of Sumerian include Dietz-Otto Edzard's 2003 Sumerian Grammar and Bram Jagersma's 2010 A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian (currently digital, but soon to be printed in revised form by Oxford University Press). Piotr Michalowski's essay (entitled, simply, "Sumerian") in the 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages has also been recognized as a good modern grammatical sketch.
There is relatively little consensus, even among reasonable Sumerologists, in comparison to the state of most modern or classical languages. Verbal morphology, in particular, is hotly disputed. In addition to the general grammars, there are many monographs and articles about particular areas of Sumerian grammar, without which a survey of the field could not be considered complete.
The primary institutional lexical effort in Sumerian is the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary project, begun in 1974. In 2004, the PSD was released on the Web as the ePSD. The project is currently supervised by Steve Tinney. It has not been updated online since 2006, but Tinney and colleagues are working on a new edition of the ePSD, a working draft of which is available online.
Phonology edit
Assumed phonological or morphological forms will be between slashes //, with plain text used for the standard Assyriological transcription of Sumerian. Most of the following examples are unattested.
Phonemic inventory edit
Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is flawed and incomplete because of the lack of speakers, the transmission through the filter of 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".[60]
Consonants edit
Early Sumerian is conjectured to have had at least the consonants listed in the table below. The consonants in brackets 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.
Bilabial | Alveolar | Postalveolar | Velar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nasal | m ⟨m⟩ | n ⟨n⟩ | ŋ ⟨g̃⟩ | |||
Plosive | plain | p ⟨b⟩ | t ⟨d⟩ | k ⟨g⟩ | (ʔ) | |
aspirated | pʰ ⟨p⟩ | tʰ ⟨t⟩ | kʰ ⟨k⟩ | |||
Fricative | s ⟨s⟩ | ʃ ⟨š⟩ | x ⟨ḫ~h⟩ | (h) | ||
Affricate | plain | t͡s ⟨z⟩ | ||||
aspirated | t͡sʰ? ⟨ř~dr⟩ | |||||
Tap | ɾ ⟨r⟩ | |||||
Liquid | l ⟨l⟩ | |||||
Semivowel | (j) |
- a simple distribution of six stop consonants in three places of articulation, originally distinguished by aspiration. In the late 3rd millennium BC, the unaspirated stops are thought to have become voiced in most positions (although not word-finally):[61]
- p (voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive),
- t (voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive),
- k (voiceless aspirated velar plosive),
- As a rule, /p/, /t/ and /k/ did not occur word-finally.[62]
- b (voiced unaspirated bilabial plosive), later voiced;
- d (voiced unaspirated alveolar plosive), later voiced;
- g (voiced unaspirated velar plosive), later voiced.
- a phoneme usually represented by <ř> (sometimes written dr), which became /d/ or /r/ in northern and southern dialects, respectively, after the Old Akkadian period. It was first reconstructed as a voiced alveolar tap /ɾ/, but Bram Jagersma argues that it was a voiceless aspirated alveolar affricate because of its reflection in loanwords in Akkadian, among other reasons,[63] and this view is accepted by Zólyomi (2017: 28).
- a simple distribution of three nasal consonants in similar distribution to the stops:
- m (bilabial nasal),
- n (alveolar nasal),
- g̃ (frequently printed ĝ due to typesetting constraints, increasingly transcribed as ŋ) /ŋ/ (likely a velar nasal, as in sing, it has also been argued to be a labiovelar nasal [ŋʷ] or a nasalized labiovelar[64]).
- a set of three sibilants:
- s, likely a voiceless alveolar fricative,
- z, likely a voiceless unaspirated alveolar affricate, /t͡s/, as shown by Akkadian loans from /s/=[t͡s] to Sumerian /z/. In early Sumerian, this would have been the unaspirated counterpart to <ř>.[65] Like the stop series /b/, /d/ and /g/, it is thought to have become voiced /dz/ in some positions in the late 3rd millennium.[66]
- š (generally described as a voiceless postalveolar fricative, /ʃ/, as in ship)
- ḫ (a velar fricative, /x/, sometimes written <h>)
- two liquid consonants:
- l (a lateral consonant)
- r (a rhotic consonant), which Jagersma argues was realised as a tap [ɾ] because of various evidence suggesting its phonetic similarity to /t/ and /d/.[67]
The existence of various other consonants has been hypothesized based on graphic alternations and loans, though none have found wide acceptance. For example, 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 > za3) and consonants that remain (such as the g in 𒆷𒀝 lag). Other "hidden" consonant phonemes that have been suggested include semivowels such as /j/ and /w/,[68] and a glottal fricative /h/ or a glottal stop that could explain the absence of vowel contraction in some words[69]—though objections have been raised against that as well.[70] A recent descriptive grammar by Bram Jagersma includes /j/, /h/, and /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.[71]
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 /k/ of the genitive case ending -ak does not appear in 𒂍𒈗𒆷 e2 lugal-la "the king's house", but it becomes obvious in 𒂍𒈗𒆷𒄰 e2 lugal-la-kam "(it) is the king's house" (compare liaison in French). Jagersma believes that the lack of expression of word-final consonants was originally mostly a graphic convention,[72] but that in the late 3rd millennium voiceless aspirated stops and affricates (/pʰ/, /tʰ/, /kʰ/ and /tsʰ/ were, indeed, gradually lost in syllable-final position, as were the unaspirated stops /d/ and /g/.[73]
Vowels edit
The vowels that are clearly distinguished by the cuneiform script are /a/, /e/, /i/, and /u/. Various researchers have posited the existence of more vowel phonemes such as /o/ and even /ɛ/ and /ɔ/, which would have been concealed by the transmission through Akkadian, as that language does not distinguish them.[74][75] 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.[76] These hypotheses are not yet generally accepted.[64] Phonemic vowel length has also been posited by some scholars.[77]
There is some evidence for vowel harmony according to vowel height or advanced tongue root in the prefix 𒉌/𒂊 i3/e- in inscriptions from pre-Sargonic Lagash,[74] and perhaps even more than one vowel harmony rule.[78][75] There also appear to be many cases of partial or complete 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.[79] These patterns, too, are interpreted as evidence for a richer vowel inventory by some researchers.[74][75] What appears to be vowel contraction in hiatus (*/aa/, */ia/, */ua/ > a, */ae/ > a, */ue/ > u, etc.) is also very common.
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.
Orthography edit
Sumerian writing expressed pronunciation only roughly. It was often morphophonemic, so much of the allomorphic variation could be ignored.[80] Especially in earlier Sumerian, coda consonants were often ignored in spelling; e.g. /mung̃areš/ 'they put it here' could be written 𒈬𒃻𒌷 mu-g̃ar-re2. The use of VC signs for that purpose, producing more elaborate spellings such as 𒈬𒌦𒃻𒌷𒌍 mu-un-g̃ar-re2-eš3, became more common only in the Neo-Sumerian and especially in the Old Babylonian period.[81] 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'. This results in orthographic gemination that is usually reflected in Sumerological transliteration, but does not actually designate any phonological phenomenon such as length.[82] In fact, as noted above, many consonants seem to have been elided unless followed by a vowel at various stages in the history of Sumerian, so when the following consonant appears in front of a vowel, it can be said to be expressed only by the next sign. For example, 𒊮 šag4 "heart" may also be transliterated as ša3, and accordingly 𒊮𒂵 šag4-ga "in the heart" can also be interpreted as ša3-ga.
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 (CV-V) with an additional vowel sign repeating the preceding vowel were used (e.g. 𒂼𒀀 ama-a for /amaa/ < {ama-e} 'the mother (ergative case)'), although that was done somewhat unsystematically.[83]
Grammar edit
Ever since its decipherment, research of Sumerian has been made difficult not only by the lack of any native speakers, but also by the relative sparseness of linguistic data, the apparent lack of a closely related language, and the features of the writing system. Typologically, as mentioned above, Sumerian is classified as an agglutinative, split ergative, and subject-object-verb language. It behaves as a nominative–accusative language in the 1st and 2nd persons of the incomplete tense-aspect, but as ergative–absolutive in most other forms of the indicative mood. Sumerian nouns are organized in two grammatical genders based on animacy: animate and inanimate. Animate nouns include humans, gods, and in some instances the word for "statue". Case is indicated by suffixes on the noun. Noun phrases are right branching with adjectives and modifiers following nouns.[84]
Sumerian verbs have a tense-aspect complex, contrasting complete and incomplete actions/states. The two have different conjugations and many have different roots. Verbs also mark mood, voice, polarity, iterativity, and intensity; and agree with subjects and objects in number, person, animacy, and case. Sumerian moods are: indicative, imperative, cohortative, precative/affirmative, prospective aspect/cohortative mood, affirmative/negative-volitive, unrealised-volitive?, negative?, affirmative?, polaritive[citation needed], and are marked by a verbal prefix. The prefixes appear to conflate mood, aspect, and polarity; and their meanings are also affected by the tense-aspect complex. Sumerian voices are: active, and middle or passive. Verbs are marked for three persons: 1st, 2nd, 3rd; in two numbers: singular and plural. Finite verbs have three classes of prefixes: modal prefixes, conjugational prefixes, and pronominal/dimensional prefixes. Modal prefixes confer the above moods on the verb. Conjugational prefixes are thought to confer perhaps venitive/andative, being/action, focus, valency, or voice distinctions on the verb. Pronominal/dimensional prefixes correspond to noun phrases and their cases. Non-finite verbs include participles and relative clause verbs, both formed through nominalisation. Finite verbs take prefixes and suffixes, non-finite verbs only take suffixes. Verbal roots are mostly monosyllabic, though verbal root duplication and suppletion can also occur to indicate plurality. Root duplication can also indicate iterativity or intensity of the verb.[85]
Nominal morphology edit
Noun phrases edit
The Sumerian noun is typically a one or two-syllable root (𒅆 igi "eye", 𒂍 e2 "house, household", 𒎏 nin "lady"), although there are also some roots with three syllables like 𒆠𒇴 šakanka "market". There are two grammatical genders, usually called human and non-human (the first includes gods and the word for "statue" in some instances, but not plants or animals, the latter also includes collective plural nouns), whose assignment is semantically predictable.
The adjectives and other modifiers follow the noun (𒈗𒈤 lugal maḫ "great king"). The noun itself is not inflected; rather, grammatical markers attach to the noun phrase as a whole, in a certain order. Typically, that order would be:
noun | adjective | numeral | genitive phrase | relative clause | possessive marker | plural marker | case marker |
---|
An example may be:[86]
The possessive, plural and case markers are traditionally referred to as "suffixes", but have recently also been described as enclitics[87] or postpositions.[88]
The plural markers are (𒂊)𒉈 /-(e)ne/ (optional) for nouns of the human gender. Non-human nouns are not marked by a plural suffix. However, plurality can also be expressed with the adjective 𒄭𒀀 ḫi-a "various", with the plural of the copula 𒈨𒂠 /-meš/, by reduplication of the noun (𒆳𒆳 kur-kur "all foreign lands") or of the following adjective (𒀀𒃲𒃲 a gal-gal "all the great waters") (reduplication is believed to signify totality) or by the plurality of only the verb form. Plural reference in the verb form occurs only for human nouns.
The generally recognised case markers are:
case | ending | most common spelling[89] |
---|---|---|
absolutive | /-Ø/ | |
ergative | /-e/ (only with animates) | (𒂊) |
allative | /-e/ (only with inanimates) | (𒂊) |
genitive | /-a(k)/[b] | (𒀀) |
equative | /-gin/ | 𒁶 |
dative | /-r(a)/[c] | 𒊏 |
terminative | /-(e)š(e)/[d] | 𒂠 |
comitative | /-d(a)/[e] | 𒁕 |
locative | /-a/ | (𒀀) |
ablative | /-ta/ | 𒋫 |
The final vowels of most of the above markers are subject to loss if they are attached to vowel-final words.
More endings are recognised by some researchers; e.g. Bram Jagersma notes a separate adverbiative case in 𒂠/𒌍 -/eš/ and a second locative in 𒉈/𒉌 -/ne/ used mostly with infinite verb forms.[93] In addition, there are enclitic particles 𒈾𒀭𒈾 -/nanna/ meaning "without"[94] and (𒀀)𒅗𒉆 -/akanam/ (in earlier Sumerian) or (𒀀)𒆤𒌍 -/akeš/ "because of" (in later Sumerian).[95]
Additional spatial or temporal meanings can be expressed by genitive phrases like "at the head of" = "above", "at the face of" = "in front of", "at the outer side of" = "because of" etc.:
The embedded structure of the noun phrase can be further illustrated with the following phrase:
sipad udu siki-ka-ke4-ne
sipad
shepherd
udu
sheep
"shepherds of woolly sheep"
Here, the first genitive morpheme (-a(k)) subordinates 𒋠 siki "wool" to 𒇻 udu "sheep", and the second subordinates 𒇻𒋠 udu siki-(a)k "sheep of wool" (or "woolly sheep") to 𒉺𒇻 sipad "shepherd".[96]
Pronouns edit
The attested personal pronouns are:
independent | possessive suffix/enclitic | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | 𒂷𒂊 g̃e26-e | 𒈬 -g̃u10 |
2nd person singular | 𒂊𒂊 ze2-e | 𒍪 -zu |
3rd person singular animate | 𒀀𒉈 a-ne or 𒂊𒉈 e-ne | (𒀀)𒉌 -(a)-ni |
3rd person singular inanimate | 𒁉 -bi | |
1st person plural | 𒈨 -me | |
2nd person plural | 𒍪𒉈𒉈 -zu-ne-ne | |
3rd person plural animate | 𒀀/𒂊𒉈𒉈 a/e-ne-ne | 𒁉 -bi |
3rd person plural inanimate | 𒁉 -bi |
The stem vowels of 𒂷𒂊 g̃e26-e and 𒂊 ze2-e are assimilated to a following case suffix containing /a/ and then have the forms 𒂷 g̃a- and 𒍝 za-; e.g. 𒍝𒊏 za-ra 'to you (sg.)'.
As far as demonstrative pronouns are concerned, Sumerian most commonly uses the enclitic 𒁉 -bi to express the meaning "this". There are rare instances of other demonstrative enclitics such as 𒂊 -e "this", 𒊺 -še "that" and 𒊑 -re "that", where perhaps the third denoted something further away than the second.[97] The independent demonstrative pronouns are 𒉈𒂗/𒉈𒂊 ne-e(n) "this (thing)" and 𒄯 ur5 "that (thing)"[98]; -ne(n) might also be used as another enclitic.[99] "Now" is 𒉌𒉈𒋧 i3-ne-še3. For "then" and "there", the declined noun phrases 𒌓𒁀 ud-ba "at that time" and 𒆠𒁀 ki-ba "at that place" are used; "so" is 𒄯𒁶 ur5-gin7, lit. "like that".[100]
The interrogative pronouns are 𒀀𒁀 a-ba "who" and 𒀀𒈾 a-na "what" (also used as "whoever" and "whatever" when introducing dependent clauses). Interrogative adverbs are 𒈨 me "where", and 𒇷/𒂗 en3/en "when"; "how" and "why" are expressed by 𒀀𒈾𒀸 a-na-aš (lit. "what for?") and 𒀀𒁶 a-gin7 "how" (an equative case form, perhaps "like what?").[101]
An indefinite pronoun is 𒈾𒈨 na-me "any", which is always used attributively. The nouns 𒇽 lu2 "man" and 𒃻 nig̃2 "thing" are also used for "someone" and "something".[102]
The reflexive pronoun is 𒅎(𒋼) ni2(-te) "self", which generally occurs with possessive pronouns attached: 𒅎𒈬 ni2-g̃u10 "my-self", etc. The longer form appears in the third person animate (𒅎𒋼𒉌 ni2-te-ni "him/herself", 𒅎𒋼𒉈𒉈 ni2-te-ne-ne "themselves").[103]
Numerals edit
Sumerian has a combination decimal and sexagesimal system (for example, 600 is 'ten sixties'), so that the Sumerian lexical numeral system is sexagesimal with 10 as a subbase.[104] Numerals and composite numbers are as follows:
number | name | explanation notes | cuneiform sign |
---|---|---|---|
1 | diš, deš[105] | 𒁹 | |
2 | min, mina[106] | 𒈫 | |
3 | eš[107] | 𒐈, 𒌍 | |
4 | limmu, lím[108] | 𒇹, 𒐉, 𒐼 | |
5 | ia, í[109] | 𒐊 | |
6 | aš[110] | ia2 'five' + aš 'one' | 𒐋 |
7 | imin[111] | ia2 'five' + min 'two' | 𒅓 |
8 | ussu[112] | 𒑄 | |
9 | ilimmu[111] | ia2/i2 (5) + limmu (4) | 𒑆 |
10 | u, ha3, hu3[109] | 𒌋 | |
11 | u-diš (?) | 𒌋𒁹 | |
20 | niš | 𒌋𒌋 | |
30 | ušu | 𒌋𒌋𒌋 | |
40 | nimin | 'less two [tens]' | 𒐏 |
50 | ninnu | 'less ten' | 𒐐 |
60 | g̃iš(d), g̃eš(d)[113] | 𒁹𒁕, 𒁹, 𒐑 | |
120 | g̃eš(d)-min | two g̃eš(d) | 𒁹𒈫 |
240 | g̃eš(d)-limmu | four g̃eš(d) | 𒁹𒐏 |
420 | g̃eš(d)-imin | seven g̃eš(d) | 𒁹𒅓 |
600 | g̃eš(d)u | ten g̃eš(d) | 𒐞 |
1000 | limum | borrowed from Akkadian | 𒇷𒈬𒌝 |
1200 | g̃eš(d)u-min | two g̃eš(d)u | 𒐞𒈫 |
3600 | šar | 'totality' | 𒊹 |
36000 | šar-u | 'ten totalities' | 𒐬 |
216000 | šar gal | 'a big totality' | 𒊹𒃲 |
Verbal morphology edit
General edit
The Sumerian finite verb distinguishes a number of moods and 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 e2-še3 ib2-ši-du-un "I'm going to the house", but also 𒂍𒂠𒉌𒁺𒌦 e2-še3 i3-du-un "I'm going to the house" and simply 𒌈𒅆𒁺𒌦 ib2-ši-du-un "I'm going to it" are possible.[88]
The Sumerian verb also makes a binary distinction according to a category that some regard as tense (past vs present-future), others as 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 Akkadian grammatical terms for the two respective forms – ḫamṭu (quick) and marû (slow, fat). Finally, opinions differ on whether the verb has a passive or a middle voice and how it is expressed.
The verbal root is almost always a monosyllable and, together with various affixes, forms a so-called verbal chain which is described as a sequence of about 15 slots, though the precise models differ.[114] The finite verb has both prefixes and suffixes, 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.[115] 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:
slot | modal prefix | "conjugation prefixes" | pronominal prefix | dimensional prefix | pronominal prefix | stem | future/imperfective | pronominal suffix | nominalizer | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
finite prefix | coordinator prefix | ventive prefix | middle prefix | |||||||||
common
morphemes |
/Ø/-, /ḫa/-, /u/-, /ga/-, /nu/-,/la/- |
/i/- (/e/-,/a/-) |
-/nga/- | /mu/-,
-/m/- |
-/ba/- | -/Ø/-, -/e/~/r/-, -/n/-, -/b/- |
-/a/-,
-/da/-, -/ta/-, -/ši/-, -/i/-, -/ni/- |
-/Ø/-, -/e/-/r/-, -/n/-, -/b/- |
-/e(d)/- | -/en/ -/en/ -/Ø/, -/e/ -/enden/ |
-/a/ |
Examples using most of the above slots may be:
nu-ub-ši-e-tum2-ma
nu-
NEG-
-i-
-FIN-
-b-
-INAN-
-ši-
-TERM-
-tum-
-bring-
-a
-NMLZ
'(one) who does not bring you to it'
More than one pairing of a pronominal prefix and a dimensional prefix may occur within the verb chain. If so, the pairings are placed in a specific order, which is shown the section Pronominal and Dimensional Prefixes below. The "conjugation prefixes" appear to be mutually exclusive to a great extent, since the "finite" prefixes /i/~/e/ or /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/- or /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.[116]
Modal prefixes edit
The modal prefixes express 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; in other words, the indicative is unmarked.
- 𒉡 nu- and 𒆷 la-, 𒇷 li- have negative meaning and can be translated as "not". The allomorphs /la/ and /li/ are used before the conjugation prefixes 𒁀 ba- and 𒉈 bi2-, respectively.
- 𒂵 ga- has cohortative meaning and can be translated as "let me/us". Occasional phonetic spellings shows that its vowel assimilated to following vowels, producing the allomorphs 𒄄 gi4- and 𒄘 gu2-. It is only used with ḫamṭu forms[117], but nevertheless uses the personal affix set of the marû conjugation.[118]
- 𒄩 ḫa- has either precative/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 verb denotes a transitive action, precative meaning is expressed with the marû form, and affirmative with the ḫamṭu form. However, if the verb is intransitive or stative, the form used is always ḫamṭu.[119] In open syllables, the prefix merges with a following conjugation prefix i3- into 𒃶 ḫe2-[120], and further assimilation of the vowel to 𒄷 ḫu- occurs in front of prefixes containing /u/ in later periods.
- 𒅇 u3- is a prospective "after/when/if" and is also used as a mild imperative "Please do X". It is only used with ḫamṭu forms.[117] In open syllables, the vowel of the prefix is assimilated to i3- 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 u3-ul-.[121]
- 𒈾 na- expresses a negative wish ("May he not do it!") or affirmative meaning ("he does it indeed"), depending on the TA of verb: it expresses negative meaning with the marû TA and affirmative /na-/ with the ḫamṭu TA.[122]
- 𒁀𒊏 ba-ra- has negative meaning ("He doesn't/won't do it") or prohibitative meaning ("Don't do it!"). It is combined with the with the marû TA if the verb expresses an action (always present or future), and with the ḫamṭu TA if it expresses a state (past, present or future).[123]
- 𒉡𒍑 nu-uš- is a rare prefix that has been interpreted as expressing an unrealizable wish ("If only he would do it!").
- 𒅆 ši-, earlier 𒂠 še3-, is a rare prefix, possibly with affirmative meaning ("he does it indeed"). It undergoes further assimilation of the vowel to 𒊭 ša- in later periods.
"Conjugation prefixes" edit
The meaning, structure, identity and even the number of "conjugation prefixes" have always been a subject of disagreements. The term "conjugation prefix" simply alludes to the fact that a finite verb must (nearly) always contain one of them. Proposed explanations of their use usually revolve around the subtleties of spatial grammar, information structure (focus[124]), verb valency, and, most recently, voice.[125] In the following, some common, but by no means universally held interpretations are presented.
- 𒉌 i3- (ED Lagaš variant: 𒂊 e- in front of open vowels), sometimes described as a finite prefix, appears to have a neutral finite or indicative meaning.[126] As mentioned above, it generally does not occur in front of a CV sequence except in front of the locative prefix 𒉌 /ni/, the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/ in Old Babylonian Sumerian.
- 𒀀 a-, with the variant 𒀠 al-[127], the other finite prefix, is rare in most Sumerian texts outside of the imperative form[126], but when it occurs, it usually has stative meaning. It remains common in the Northern Sumerian dialect, where it can also have a passive meaning.[128] Like i3-, it does not occur in front of a CV sequence except in front of the locative prefix 𒉌 /ni/, the second person dative 𒊏 /-r-a/ and the second person directive 𒊑 /-r-i/ in Old Babylonian Sumerian.
- 𒈬 mu- is usually considered to be a ventive prefix, 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-).[129]
- 𒅎 im- and 𒀀𒀭am3- are usually considered to be allomorphs of mu-. According to Jagersma, they are used 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". The vowel of the finite prefix is lengthened immediately before the stem */i-mu-g̃en/ > 𒉌𒅎𒁺 i3-im-g̃en "he came".[130] 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, producing:[131]
- 𒈪 mi- in the sequences 𒈪𒉌 mi-ni- and 𒈪𒊑 mi-ri-.
- 𒈠 ma- in the sequence 𒈠𒊏 ma-ra-.
- 𒉈 bi2- (ED Lagaš: 𒁉 bi- or be2-; ED Ur: 𒉿 be6-) is usually analysed as a sequence of the personal prefix /b/- and the directive prefix -/i/- or -/e/-.[132]
- 𒁀 ba- can be a sequence of the personal prefix /b/- and the dative prefix /a/[133], but it also functions as a middle voice marker and then occupies a slot of its own. The middle voice marker can express a reflexive indirect object (do something 'for oneself'), a change of state or the passive voice (the latter not in Northern Sumerian).[134]
- 𒅎𒈪 im-mi- (ED Lagaš 𒉌𒈪 i3-mi or 𒂊𒈨 e-me-) and 𒅎𒈠 im-ma- (ED Lagaš 𒂊𒈠 e-ma-) are most often analysed as sequences of the ventive prefix 𒅎 im- and the following prefixes 𒉈 bi2- (ED Lagaš: 𒁉 bi- or be2) and 𒁀 ba-, respectively, where the consonant /b/ has undergone assimilation to the preceding /m/.[135]
- 𒀀𒀭𒈪 am3-mi- and 𒀀𒀭𒈠 am3-ma- are the result of the same assimilation, but with the preceding prefix 𒀀𒀭am3-.
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 i3- and the pronominal prefix, e.g. 𒅔𒂵𒀭𒍪 in-ga-an-zu 'he, too, knows it', but it precedes the conjugation prefix mu-: 𒈾𒂵𒈬𒍪 na-ga-mu-zu 'he also understood it'.[136] This suggests that these two conjugation prefixes must belong to different slots.[137]
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 i3-/e- and a- are apparently elided in front of them.[138]
Pronominal and dimensional prefixes edit
The dimensional prefixes of the verb chain basically correspond to, and often repeat, the case markers of the noun phrase. Like the latter, they are attached to a "head" – a pronominal prefix. The other place where a pronominal prefix can be placed is immediately before the stem, where it can have a different allomorph and expresses the absolutive or the ergative participant (the transitive subject, the intransitive subject or the direct object), depending on the TA and other factors, as explained below. However, this neat system is obscured by the tendency to drop or merge many of the prefixes in writing and possibly in pronunciation as well.
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.
dative | comitative | ablative | terminative | directive |
---|---|---|---|---|
/-a-/[f] | 𒁕 -da- (𒋾 -di3-[g]) | 𒋫 -ta- (𒊏 /-ra-/)[h] | 𒅆 -ši- (early 𒂠 -še3-) | /-i-/ |
The infix -da- can express the meaning 'to be able to'.[140]
The pronominal prefixes are:
prefix | Notes | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | -Ø-?,
𒂊 -e-? |
Sometimes thought to represent a glottal stop /ʔ/ (so Zólyomi, e.g. 2017, and Jagersma, e.g. 2009), which was later elided with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. |
2nd person singular | 𒂊 -e-, ‑/r/‑ |
In some periods and varieties, the /e/ may be assimilated to the preceding vowel, lengthening it. |
3rd person singular animate | ‑/n/- | According to Jagersma[141], the pronominal form that appears in front of the vowel-initial dimensional prefixes, i.e. in front of dative -/a/- and directive -/i/-, is actually geminate /nn/, hence the preservation of the finite prefix i- in front of them. |
3rd person singular inanimate | ‑/b/‑ | |
1st person plural | 𒈨 -me- | For a subject or object (immediately before the stem), the singular is used instead. |
2nd person plural | 𒂊𒉈 ‑e‑ne-[i], -re-? | |
3rd person plural | 𒉈 ‑ne- |
The morphemes /-n-/ and /-b-/ are clearly the prefixes for the 3rd person singular animate and inanimate respectively; the 2nd person singular appears as 𒂊 -e- in most contexts, but as /-r-/ before the dative prefix /-a/ (resulting in the sound sequence 𒊏 -ra-), leading some[142] to assume a phonetic /-ir-/ or /-jr-/. The 1st person may appear as 𒂊 -e-, too, but is more commonly not expressed at all (the same may frequently apply to 3rd and 2nd persons); it is, however, cued by the choice of /mu-/ as conjugation prefix[143] (/mu-/ + /-a-/ → 𒈠 ma-). The 1st, 2nd and 3rd plural prefixes are 𒈨 -me-, -re?- and 𒉈 -ne- in the dative[143] and perhaps in other contexts as well,[142] though not in the pre-stem position (see below).
Confusingly, the subject and object prefixes (/-n-/, /-b-/, /-e-/) are not commonly spelled out in early texts, although 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 i3-ak (𒂊𒀝 e-ak in early dynastic Lagash) 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 𒈬𒂊𒀝 mu-e-ak "you made".
An exception from the system is the prefix 𒉌 -ni- which corresponds to a noun phrase in the locative – in which case it doesn't seem to be preceded by a pronominal prefix – and, according to Gábor Zólyomi and others, to an animate one in the directive – in the latter case it is analyzed as pronominal /-n-/ + directive /-i-/.[144] Zólyomi and others also believe that special meanings can be expressed by combinations of non-identical noun case and verb prefix.[144]
Also according to some researchers[145] 𒉌 /-ni-/ and 𒉈 /bi-/ 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: {mu-ni-kur} > mu-un-kur9 𒈬𒌦𒆭 "he went in there" (as opposed to 𒈬𒉌𒆭 mu-ni-kur9 = 𒈬𒉌𒅔𒆭 mu-ni-in-kur9 = {mu-ni-n-kur} "he brought in – caused [something or someone] to go in – there"). The preceding vowel then undergoes compensatory lengthening, which is sometimes indicated by its doubling in the spelling: {i-ni-kur} > i3-in-kur9 𒉌𒅔𒆭 "he went in". The same pattern is claimed to account for the alternation between the forms of the ventive prefix: {i-mu-n-ak} > mu-un-ak 𒈬𒌦𒀝 "he did it", but {i-mu-g̃en} > i3-im-g̃en 𒉌𒅎𒁺 'he came'.[130]
Pronominal suffixes edit
The pronominal suffixes are as follows:
marû | ḫamṭu | |
---|---|---|
1st person singular | 𒂗 /-en/ | |
2nd person singular | 𒂗 /-en/ | |
3rd person singular | (𒂊) /-e/ | /-Ø/ |
1st person plural | 𒂗𒉈𒂗 /-enden/ | |
2nd person plural | 𒂗𒍢𒂗 /-enzen/ | |
3rd person plural | (𒂊)𒉈 /-ene/ | 𒂠/𒌍 /-eš/ |
The initial vowel in all of the above suffixes can be assimilated to the vowel of the verb root and it can undergo contraction with an immediately preceding vowel.[146] 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 in conjugation edit
The general principle for pronominal agreement in conjugation is that in 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; as for the intransitive subject, it is expressed, in both TAs, by the suffixes and is thus treated like the object in ḫamṭu and like the subject in marû (except that its third person is expressed, not only in ḫamṭu but also in marû, by the suffixes used for the object in the ḫamṭu TA). A major exception from this generalization are the plural forms – in them, not only the prefix (as in the singular), but also the suffix expresses the transitive subject.
Additionally, the prefixes of the plural are identical to those of the singular – /-?-/ or /-e-/, /-e-/, /-n-/, /-b-/ – as opposed to the -me-, -re-?, -ne- that are presumed for non-pre-stem position – and some scholars believe that the prefixes of the 1st and 2nd person are /-en-/ rather than /-e-/ when they stand for the object.[147]
The use of the personal affixes in conjugation can be summarised as follows:
ḫamṭu | marû | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct object | Intransitive subject | Transitive subject | Direct object | Intransitive subject | Transitive subject | |
1st sing | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ | -/Ø/~-/e/-... | -/Ø/~-/e/-... | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ |
2nd sing | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ | -/e/-... | -/e/-... | ...-/en/ | ...-/en/ |
3rd sing
animate |
...-/Ø/ | ...-/Ø/ | -/n/-... | -/n/-... | ...-/Ø/ | ...-/e/ |
3rd sing inanimate | ...-/Ø/ | ...-/Ø/ | -/b/-... | -/b/-... | ...-/Ø/ | ...-/e/ |
1st pl | ...-/enden/ | ...-/enden/ | -/Ø/~/e/-...-/enden/ | -/Ø/~-/e/-...? | ...-/enden/ | ...-/enden/ |
2nd pl | ...-/enzen/ | ...-/enzen/ | -/e/-...-/enzen/ | -/e/-...? | ...-/enzen/ | ...-/enzen/ |
3rd pl (animates only) | ...-/eš/ | ...-/eš/ | -/n/-...-/eš/ | -/ne/-[j], -/b/-[k] | ...-/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-e?-dim-enden} (𒈬𒁶𒂗𒉈𒂗): "we created [someone or something]"
- {i-b-gub-e} (𒌈𒁺𒁉) "he places it"
- {i-b-dim-ene} (𒌈𒁶𒈨𒉈): "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 edit
The verbal stem itself can also express grammatical distinctions. The plurality of the absolutive participant[143] can be expressed by complete reduplication of the stem or by a suppletive stem. Reduplication can also express "plurality of the action itself",[143] intensity or iterativity.[68]
With respect to TA marking, verbs are divided in four types; ḫamṭu is always the unmarked TA.
- The stems of the 1st type, regular verbs, do not express TA at all according to most scholars, or, according to M. Yoshikawa and others, express marû TA by adding an (assimilating) /-e-/ as in 𒁺𒁉 gub-be2 or 𒁺𒁍 gub-bu vs 𒁺 gub (which is, however, nowhere distinguishable from the first vowel of the pronominal suffixes except for intransitive marû 3rd person singular).
- The 2nd type express marû by partial reduplication of the stem, e.g. kur9 vs ku4-ku4. (both written 𒆭)
- The 3rd type express marû by adding a consonant, e.g. te vs teg̃3. (both written 𒋼)
- The 4th type use a suppletive stem, e.g. 𒅗 dug4 vs 𒂊 e. 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-)re7 (ḫamṭu plur.), 𒁻 sub2 (marû plur.)
The modal or imperfective suffix -/ed/ edit
Before the pronominal suffixes, a suffix -/ed/ or -/d/ can be inserted (the /d/ is only realised if other vowels follow, in which case the /e/ in turn may be elided): e.g. 𒉌𒀄(𒂊)𒉈𒂗 i3-zaḫ3(-e)-de3-en {i-zaḫ-ed-en} "I will/must escape", 𒉌𒀄𒂊 i3-zaḫ3-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 Yoshikawa's theory that -e itself is a marû stem formant.[142] The status of the suffix is somewhat controversial. Some view it as having a primarily modal meaning of "must" or "can"[149] or future meaning.[150] Others believe that it primarily signals simply the imperfective status of a verb form, i.e. a marû form, although its presence is obligatory only in marû forms of intransitive verbs and in non-finite forms. In intransitive forms, it thus distinguishes marû from ḫamṭu[151]; for instance, in the above example, 𒉌𒀄𒂗 i3-zaḫ3-en alone, without -/ed/-, could have been interpreted as a ḫamṭu form "I escaped".
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 šum2-mu(-d) (< {šum-ed}). It is also assimilated and contracted with immediately preceding vowels, e.g. 𒄄 gi4-gi4 /gi-gi-i(d)/ < {gi-gi-ed} "which will/should return". The verb 𒁺 du "go" never takes the suffix.[152]
Use of tense-aspect forms edit
The use of the tense-aspect forms has the following patterns according to Jagersma:[153]
- ḫamṭu is used to express completed (perfective) actions in the past, but also states (past or present) and timeless truths. 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-complete (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'.
The imperative mood edit
The imperative mood construction is produced with a singular ḫamṭu stem, but using the marû agreement pattern, by turning all prefixes into suffixes. Compare the following indicative-imperative pairs:
Indicative | Imperative |
---|---|
This may be compared with the French pair vous le lui donnez, but donnez-le-lui![143]
In addition, the prefix 𒉌 i3- is replaced by /-a/: 𒉌𒁺 i3-g̃en "he went", but 𒁺𒈾 g̃en-na "go!", 𒉌𒈾𒀊𒁉 i3-na-ab-be2 "he will say it to him", but dug4-ga-na(-ab) 'say it to him!'.[154] The ventive prefix mu-, if not followed by others, has the form 𒌝 -um in the imperative: 𒁺𒌝 ře6-um 'bring it here!'[155]
Participles edit
Participles may describe any participant involved in the action or state expressed by the verb: for instance, 𒋧𒈠 šum2-ma may mean either "(which was) given (to someone)", "who was given (something)" or "who gave".[156] They usually have the meaning of verbal adjectives, so 𒋧𒈠 šum2-ma may also mean '(the act of) giving' or 'the fact that X gave Y'.[156] They are formed in several ways.
- The bare ḫamṭu stem can function as a participle. It usually expresses timeless truths: 𒋧 šum2 may be a person who regularly/constantly gives or something regularly given.[157]
- Another way to form participles is by means of the nominalizing suffix -/a/, which also converts finite verbs into relative clauses: 𒋧𒈠 šum2-ma "given"[158], 𒈬𒈾𒀭𒋧𒈠 {mu-na-n-šum-a} "which he gave to him", "who gave (something) to him", etc. 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 til3-la "alive").[159] According to Jagersma, the stem used in this form is normally ḫamṭu.[160] The verbs 𒌇 tuku "have" and 𒍪 zu "know" usually omit the ending -/a/, as does the verb 𒀝 ak "do".[161]
- 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 Latin gerundive, e.g. 𒁶𒈨 dim2-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 ad + gerund (acc.) construction: 𒁶(𒈨)𒉈 dim2(-me)-de3 = "(in order) to make".[162] 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 dim2-me 'which is/was making', 𒄄𒄄 gi4-gi4 "returning".[163] 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".[164] Besides the allomorphy of the suffix -/ed/ already treated above, the verb 𒅗 dug4 "do, say" has a suppletive participial stem in this form: 𒁲 di(-d).[152]
- The marû stem can also occur with the suffix -/a/.[165] Nonetheless, according to Jagersma, this form is rare outside the combination with a following possessive pronominal marker to express temporal meaning, as explained in the Syntax section: e.g. 𒁶(𒈨)𒁕𒉌 dim2(-me)-da-ni 'when he makes'.[160]
Copula verb edit
The copula verb /me/ "to be" is mostly used as an enclitic: 𒈨𒂗 -men, 𒈨𒂗 -men, 𒀀𒀭 -am, 𒈨𒂗𒉈𒂗 -menden, 𒈨𒂗𒍢𒂗 -menzen, 𒀀𒀭𒈨𒌍 -(a)meš.
Syntax edit
The basic word order is subject–object–verb; verb finality is only violated in rare instances, in poetry. The moving of a constituent towards the beginning of the phrase may be a way to highlight it,[166] as may the addition of the copula to it. The so-called anticipatory genitive (𒂍𒀀𒈗𒉈 e2-a lugal-bi "the owner of the house/temple", lit. "of the house, its owner") is common and may signal the possessor's topicality.[166] There are no adpositions, but noun phrases in a certain case may resemble prepositions and have a similar function:
- 𒊮...𒀀𒅗 šag4 X-a-ka, lit. "in the heart of X" = "inside/among X".
- 𒅆 ... 𒀀𒂠 igi X-a-še3, lit. "for the eyes of X" = "in front of X".
- 𒂕...𒀀𒅗 eg̃er X-a-ka, lit. "at the back of X" = "behind/after X".
- 𒀀𒅗...𒀀𒅗 X ugu2 X-a-ka, lit. "on the skull of X" = "on top of X"
- 𒁇...𒀀𒅗 bar X-a-ka, lit. "outside of X" = "because of X" (in earlier Sumerian).
- 𒈬 ... 𒀀𒂠 mu X-a-še3, lit. "for the name of X" = "because of X" (in later Sumerian).[167]
There are various ways to express subordination, some of which have already been hinted at; they include the nominalization of a verb with the suffix -/a/, which can then be followed by case morphemes and possessive pronouns and included in the "prepositional" constructions, for example:
Instead of the usual ablative marker -ta, the particle 𒊑 -ri may be added to a nominalized clause to express the same meaning "after".[168]
A special subordinating construction with the temporal meaning of an English when-clause is the so-called pronominal conjugation, which contains a verb nominalized with -/a/ and following possessive pronouns. In the third person, the form appears to end in the possessive pronoun: 𒆭𒊏𒉌 kur9-ra-ni "when he entered", lit. "his entering". A newer interpretation is that the last syllable in such examples is actually to be read -ne, i.e. 3rd person possessive -ni plus directive -e "at his entering". In contrast, in the 1st and 2nd persons, we find this apparent -ni attached to 1st and 2nd person pronouns: 𒍣𒂵𒈬𒉌 zig3-ga-g̃u-ni 'as I rose'). This leads Jagersma to interpret the -ni as an otherwise obsolete locative ending: lit. 'at my rising').[169]
Subordinating conjunctions such as 𒌓𒁕 ud-da "when, if", 𒋗𒃻𒌉𒇲𒁉 tukum-bi "if" also exist. The coordinating conjunction 𒅇 u3 "and", a Semitic adoption, is rarely used.
A quotative particle -/(e)še/ or -/ši/ "saying", variously spelt 𒂠 eše2, 𒅆 ši or 𒀪𒊺 e-še, has been identified.[170]
Highlighting uses of the copula somewhat similar to English cleft constructions are present: 𒈗𒀀𒀭𒉌𒁺 lugal-am3 i3-g̃en3 "It is the king who came", 𒀀𒈾𒀸𒀀𒀭𒉌𒁺 a-na-aš-am3 i3-g̃en3 "Why is it that he came?", 𒉌𒁺𒀀𒀭 i3-g̃en3-am3 "It is the case that he came".[171]
Yes/no-interrogative sentences appear to have been marked only by intonation and possibly by resulting lengthening of final vowels, but where a declarative would have used a copula, a yes/no-interrogative omits it.[172] There is no wh-movement: wh-questions generally have the same word order as declaratives.[173]
A specific problem of Sumerian syntax is posed by the numerous so-called compound verbs, which usually involve a noun immediately before the verb, forming a lexical or idiomatic unit[174] (e.g. 𒋗...𒋾 šu...ti, lit. "hand-approach" = "receive"; 𒅆...𒂃 igi...du8, lit. "eye-open" = "see"). Some of them are claimed to have a special agreement pattern that they share with causative constructions: their logical object, like the causee, receives, in the verb, the directive prefix, but in the noun, the dative suffix if animate and the directive if inanimate.[144]
Dialects edit
The standard variety of Sumerian was Emegir (𒅴𒂠: eme-gir₁₅). A notable variety or sociolect was Emesal (𒅴𒊩: eme-sal), possibly to be interpreted as "fine tongue" or "high-pitched voice".[175] Other terms for dialects or registers were eme-galam "high tongue", eme-si-sa "straight tongue", eme-te-na "oblique[?] tongue", etc.[176]
Emesal is used exclusively by female characters in some literary texts (that may be compared to the female languages or language varieties that exist or have existed in some cultures, such as among the Chukchis and the Garifuna). In addition, it is dominant in certain genres of cult songs such as the hymns sung by Gala priests.[177] The special features of Emesal are mostly phonological (for example, m is often used instead of g̃ [i.e. [ŋ]], as in 𒈨 me instead of standard 𒂷 g̃e26 for "I"), but words different from the standard language are also used (𒂵𒊭𒀭 ga-ša-an rather than standard 𒎏 nin, "lady").[178]
Bram Jagersma believes that he can distinguish two regional dialects of Sumerian - the much better attested Southern Sumerian that eventually formed the basis for the common standard of the Neo-Sumerian (Ur III) period as well as the dominant variety of the Old Babylonian period, and Northern Sumerian as seen in texts from Nippur and Adab (although eventually texts in the standard variety begin to be produced in that area as well). The differences that he finds between the two varieties are:
- In Southern Sumerian, the conjugation prefix 𒉌 /i-/ alternated with 𒂊 /e-/ in accordance with vowel harmony during the Early Dynastic period, while Northern Sumerian only had /i-/. Later Southern Sumerian generalised /i-/ as well.
- In Southern Sumerian, the conjugation prefix expressing the passive was 𒁀 ba-, while in Northern Sumerian, it was 𒀀 a-.
- In Southern Sumerian after the Akkadian period, the conjugation prefix 𒀀 a-, which had originally existed in both dialects, disappears entirely apart from the variant 𒀠 al-, which only appears in subordinate clauses.
- In Southern Sumerian, the Old Sumerian phoneme ř merged with r, while in Northern Sumerian, it merged with d.
Furthermore, while both the standard Neo-Sumerian variety of Ur III period and the dominant Sumerian variety of the Babylonian period are of the Southern type, the latter appears to reflect a slightly different regional dialect than the former:
- Neo-Sumerian elides the conjugation prefixes 𒉌 /i/- and 𒀀 /a/- in front of the prefixes 𒉌-/ni/-, 𒊏 -/ra/- and 𒊑 -/ri/-, while Old Babylonian Sumerian retains them.
- The original sequence 𒈬𒂊 mu-e-, consisting of the ventive conjugation prefix 𒈬 mu- and the 2nd person prefix 𒂊 -e-, is contracted into 𒈬 /muː/ in the Ur III standard, but into 𒈨 /meː/ in the most common Old Babylonian variety.[179]
Syllabary edit
The table below shows signs used for simple syllables of the form CV or VC. As used for the Sumerian language, the cuneiform script was in principle capable of distinguishing at least 16 consonants,[180][181] transliterated as
as well as four vowel qualities, a, e, i, u.
Ca | Ce | Ci | Cu | aC | eC | iC | uC | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a 𒀀, á 𒀉 |
e 𒂊, |
i 𒄿, |
u 𒌋, |
a 𒀀, á 𒀉 |
e 𒂊, |
i 𒄿, |
u 𒌋, |
|||
b- | ba 𒁀, |
be=BAD 𒁁, |
bi 𒁉, |
bu 𒁍, |
ab 𒀊, áb 𒀖 |
eb=IB 𒅁, éb=TUM 𒌈 |
ib 𒅁, íb=TUM 𒌈 |
ub 𒌒, úb=ŠÈ 𒂠 |
-b | |
d- | da 𒁕, dá=TA 𒋫 |
de=DI 𒁲, |
di 𒁲, dí=TÍ 𒄭 |
du 𒁺, |
ad 𒀜, ád 𒄉 |
ed=Á 𒀉 | id=Á 𒀉, íd=A.ENGUR 𒀀𒇉 |
ud 𒌓, úd=ÁŠ 𒀾 |
-d | |
g- | ga 𒂵, gá 𒂷 |
ge=GI 𒄀, |
gi 𒄀, |
gu 𒄖, |
ag 𒀝, ág 𒉘 |
eg=IG 𒅅, ég=E 𒂊 |
ig 𒅅, íg=E 𒂊 |
ug 𒊌 | -g | |
ḫ- | ḫa 𒄩, |
ḫe=ḪI 𒄭, ḫé=GAN 𒃶 |
ḫi 𒄭, ḫí=GAN 𒃶 |
ḫu 𒄷 | aḫ 𒄴, áḫ=ŠEŠ 𒋀 |
eḫ=AḪ 𒄴 | iḫ=AḪ 𒄴 | uḫ=AḪ 𒄴, úḫ 𒌔 |
-ḫ | |
k- | ka 𒅗, |
ke=KI 𒆠, ké=GI 𒄀 |
ki 𒆠, kí=GI 𒄀 |
ku 𒆪/𒂠, |
ak=AG 𒀝 | ek=IG 𒅅 | ik=IG 𒅅 | uk=UG 𒊌 | -k | |
l- | la 𒆷, |
le=LI 𒇷, lé=NI 𒉌 |
li 𒇷, lí=NI 𒉌 |
lu 𒇻, lú 𒇽 |
al 𒀠, ál=ALAM 𒀩 |
el 𒂖, él=IL 𒅋 |
il 𒅋, íl 𒅍 |
ul 𒌌, úl=NU 𒉡 |
-l | |
m- | ma 𒈠, má 𒈣 |
me 𒈨, |
mi 𒈪, |
mu 𒈬, mú=SAR 𒊬 |
am 𒄠/𒂔, ám=ÁG 𒉘 |
em=IM 𒅎 | im 𒅎, ím=KAŠ4 𒁽 |
um 𒌝, úm=UD 𒌓 |
-m | |
n- | na 𒈾, |
ne 𒉈, né=NI 𒉌 |
ni 𒉌, ní=IM 𒉎 |
nu 𒉡, nú=NÁ 𒈿 |
an 𒀭 | en 𒂗, én, |
in 𒅔, |
un 𒌦, |
-n | |
p- | pa 𒉺, |
pe=PI 𒉿, pé=BI 𒁉 |
pi 𒉿, |
pu=BU 𒁍, |
ap=AB 𒀊 | ep=IB 𒅁, ép=TUM 𒌈 |
ip=IB 𒅁, íp=TUM 𒌈 |
up=UB 𒌒, úp=ŠÈ 𒂠 |
-p | |
r- | ra 𒊏, rá=DU 𒁺 |
re=RI 𒊑, |
ri 𒊑, |
ru 𒊒, |
ar 𒅈, ár=UB 𒌒 |
er=IR 𒅕 | ir 𒅕, ír=A.IGI 𒀀𒅆 |
ur 𒌨, úr 𒌫 |
-r | |
s- | sa 𒊓, |
se=SI 𒋛, sé=ZI 𒍣 |
si 𒋛, sí=ZI 𒍣 |
su 𒋢, |
as=AZ 𒊍 | es=GIŠ 𒄑, és=EŠ 𒂠 |
is=GIŠ 𒄑, ís=EŠ 𒂠 |
us=UZ, |
-s | |
š- | ša 𒊭, |
še 𒊺, šé, |
ši=IGI 𒅆, ší=SI 𒋛 |
šu 𒋗, |
aš 𒀸, áš 𒀾 |
eš 𒌍/𒐁, éš=ŠÈ 𒂠 |
iš 𒅖, íš=KASKAL 𒆜 |
uš 𒍑, úš=BAD 𒁁 |
-š | |
t- | ta 𒋫, tá=DA 𒁕 |
te 𒋼, té=TÍ 𒊹 |
ti 𒋾, |
tu 𒌅, |
at=AD 𒀜, át=GÍR gunû 𒄉 |
et=Á 𒀉 | it=Á 𒀉 | ut=UD 𒌓, út=ÁŠ 𒀾 |
-t | |
z- | za 𒍝, zá=NA4 𒉌𒌓 |
ze=ZI 𒍣, zé=ZÍ 𒍢 |
zi 𒍣, |
zu 𒍪, zú=KA 𒅗 |
az 𒊍 | ez=GIŠ 𒄑, éz=EŠ 𒂠 |
iz= GIŠ 𒄑, íz=IŠ 𒅖 |
uz=ŠE&HU 𒊻 |
-z | |
g̃- | g̃á=GÁ 𒂷 | g̃e26=GÁ 𒂷 | g̃i6=MI 𒈪 | g̃u10=MU 𒈬 | ág̃=ÁG 𒉘 | èg̃=ÁG 𒉘 | ìg̃=ÁG 𒉘 | ùg̃=UN 𒌦 | -g̃ | |
ř- | řá=DU 𒁺 | ře6=DU 𒁺 | -ř |
Sample text edit
Inscription by Entemena of Lagaš edit
This text was inscribed on a small clay cone c. 2400 BC. It recounts the beginning of a war between the city-states of Lagaš and Umma during the Early Dynastic III period, one of the earliest border conflicts recorded. (RIME 1.09.05.01)[182]
𒀭𒂗𒆤
den-lil2
𒈗
lugal
𒆳𒆳𒊏
kur-kur-ra
𒀊𒁀
ab-ba
𒀭𒀭𒌷𒉈𒆤
dig̃ir-dig̃ir-re2-ne-ke4
𒅗
inim
𒄀𒈾𒉌𒋫
gi-na-ni-ta
𒀭𒊩𒌆𒄈𒋢
dnin-g̃ir2-su
𒀭𒇋𒁉
dšara2-bi
𒆠
ki
𒂊𒉈𒋩
e-ne-sur
"Enlil, king of all the lands, father of all the gods, by his firm command, fixed the border between Ningirsu and Šara."
𒈨𒁲
me-silim
𒈗
lugal
𒆧𒆠𒆤
kiški-ke4
𒅗
inim
𒀭𒅗𒁲𒈾𒋫
dištaran-na-ta
𒂠
eš2
𒃷
gana2
𒁉𒊏
be2-ra
𒆠𒁀
ki-ba
𒈾
na
𒉈𒆕
bi2-ru2
"Mesilim, king of Kiš, at the command of Ištaran, measured the field and set up a stele there."
𒍑
uš
𒉺𒋼𒋛
ensi2
𒄑𒆵𒆠𒆤
ummaki-ke4
𒉆
nam
𒅗𒈠
inim-ma
𒋛𒀀𒋛𒀀𒂠
diri-diri-še3
𒂊𒀝
e-ak
"Ush, ruler of Umma, acted unspeakably."
𒈾𒆕𒀀𒁉
na-ru2-a-bi
𒉌𒉻
i3-pad
𒂔
edin
𒉢𒁓𒆷𒆠𒂠
lagaški-še3
𒉌𒁺
i3-g̃en
"He ripped out that stele and marched toward the plain of Lagaš."
𒀭𒊩𒌆𒄈𒋢
dnin-g̃ir2-su
𒌨𒊕
ur-sag
𒀭𒂗𒆤𒇲𒆤
den-lil2-la2-ke4
𒅗
inim
𒋛𒁲𒉌𒋫
si-sa2-ni-ta
𒄑𒆵𒆠𒁕
ummaki-da
𒁮𒄩𒊏
dam-ḫa-ra
𒂊𒁕𒀝
e-da-ak
"Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, at his just command, made war with Umma."
𒅗
inim
𒀭𒂗𒆤𒇲𒋫
den-lil2-la2-ta
𒊓
sa
𒌋
šu4
𒃲
gal
𒉈𒌋
bi2-šu4
𒅖𒇯𒋺𒁉
SAḪAR.DU6.TAKA4-bi
𒂔𒈾
eden-na
𒆠
ki
𒁀𒉌𒍑𒍑
ba-ni-us2-us2
"At Enlil's command, he threw his great battle net over it and heaped up burial mounds for it on the plain."
See also edit
References edit
Notes edit
- ^ Interestingly, the poorly documented Sealand Dynasty (c. 1732–1460 BC), which ruled in a region in Southern Mesopotamia corresponding to historical Sumer, appears to have particularly favoured Sumerian; Sumerian school documents from that time were found at Tell Khaiber, some of which contain year names from the reign of a king with the Sumerian throne name Aya-dara-galama.[28]
- ^ The final consonant appears only in front of a following vowel. See the section on Consonants above for this phenomenon.
- ^ The allomorph -/r/ is used after vowels. In early texts, it may not be expressed at all. Alternatively, the alternation may be ignored in the spelling, so that -ra is written even after vowels.[90]
- ^ The allomorph -/š/ is used after vowels. In early texts, it may not be expressed at all. Alternatively, the alternation may be ignored in the spelling, so that -še3 is written even after vowels.[91]
- ^ Although the marker is never written with a sign for VC, it seems likely that there was an allomorph -/d/ used after vowels, leading to the dative marker remaining unwritten in this position in early texts.[92]
- ^ But apparently /-e-/ in the plural, see below.
- ^ The allomorph -di3- is used before the locative infix /-ni-/)
- ^ The allomorph -ra- is used after vowels[139]
- ^ Only attested in late texts (Jagersma 2010: 381).
- ^ -/nne/- with geminate /n/ according to Jagersma (2010:339-340)
- ^ The morpheme -/ne/- for the 3rd person animate plural subject was used in Old Sumerian and was replaced by -/b/- in Neo-Sumerian.[148]
Citations edit
- ^ "Sumerian". Archived from the original on 27 June 2013. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
- ^ a b c d e Prince, J. Dyneley (1919). "Phonetic Relations in Sumerian". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 39: 265–279. doi:10.2307/592740. JSTOR 592740. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
- ^ Prince, J. Dyneley (1904). "The Vocabulary of Sumerian" (PDF). Journal of the American Oriental Society. 25: 49–67. doi:10.2307/592549. JSTOR 592549.
- ^ a b c d Woods C. 2006 "Bilingualism, Scribal Learning, and the Death of Sumerian". In S. L. Sanders (ed) Margins of Writing, Origins of Culture: 91–120 Chicago.
- ^ Joan Oates (1979). Babylon [Revised Edition] Thames and Hudston, Ltd. 1986 p. 30, 52–53.
- ^ The A.K. Grayson, Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, ed. Arthur Cotterell, Penguin Books Ltd. 1980. p. 92
- ^ THUREAU-DANGIN, F. (1911). "Notes Assyriologiques". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 8 (3): 138–141. ISSN 0373-6032. JSTOR 23284567.
- ^ a b c d e Jagersma (2010: 4-6)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 4)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 27-32)
- ^ Zólyomi (2018: 16)
- ^ Rubio (2009: 16).
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 16-17)
- ^ Michalowski, P., 2006: "The Lives of the Sumerian Language", in S.L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago, 159–184
- ^ a b c d e Jagersma (2010: 9-10)
- ^ Andrew (2007: 43)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 31)
- ^ Rubio (2009: 39).
- ^ George (2007: 45)
- ^ Thomsen (2001: 17)
- ^ Gonzalo Rubio (2009: 37).
- ^ Rubio (2009: 40).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 6)
- ^ a b Thomsen (2001: 31)
- ^ a b https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ckst/introduction/index.html
- ^ Andrew (2007: 49).
- ^ https://mprl-series.mpg.de/studies/10/11/index.html
- ^ [1]Eleanor Robson, Information Flows in Rural Babylonia c. 1500 BC, in C. Johnston (ed.), The Concept of the Book: the Production, Progression and Dissemination of Information, London: Institute of English Studies/School of Advanced Study, January 2019 ISBN 978-0-9927257-4-7
- ^ Piotr Michalowski, "Sumerian," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages." Ed. Roger D. Woodard (2004, Cambridge University Press). Pages 19–59
- ^ Georges Roŭ (1993). Ancient Iraq (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books. p. 80-82.
- ^ Joan Oates (1986). Babylon (Rev. ed.). London: Thames and Hudson. p. 19.
- ^ John Haywood (2005). The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations. London: Penguin Books. p. 28.
- ^ Dewart, Leslie (1989). Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. p. 260.
- ^ DIAKONOFF, Igor M. (1997). "External Connections of the Sumerian Language". Mother Tongue. 3: 54–63.
- ^ Sathasivam, A (2017). Proto-Sumero-Dravidian: The Common Origin of Sumerian and Dravidian Languages. Kingston, UK: History and Heritage Unit, Tamil Information Centre. ISBN 978-1-85201-024-9.
- ^ Parpola, S., "Sumerian: A Uralic Language (I)", Proceedings of the 53th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: Vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East (2 parts), edited by Leonid E. Kogan, Natalia Koslova, Sergey Loesov and Serguei Tishchenko, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, pp. 181-210, 2010
- ^ Gostony, C. G. 1975: Dictionnaire d'étymologie sumérienne et grammaire comparée. Paris.
- ^ Zakar, András (1971). "Sumerian – Ural-Altaic affinities". Current Anthropology. 12 (2): 215–225. doi:10.1086/201193. JSTOR 2740574. S2CID 143879460..
- ^ Bobula, Ida (1951). Sumerian affiliations. A Plea for Reconsideration. Washington D.C.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) (Mimeographed ms.) - ^ Jan Braun (2004). "SUMERIAN AND TIBETO-BURMAN, Additional Studies". Wydawnictwo Agade. Warszawa. ISBN 83-87111-32-5..
- ^ "Urges Turks to teach culture of their race, Kemal says historians have maligned people, Sun Language revived". The News Journal. 2 March 1936. p. 24.
- ^ Kurtkaya, Mehmet (2017). Sumerian Turks: Civilization's Journey from Siberia to Mesopotamia. Independently Published. ISBN 9781521532362.
- ^ Bomhard, Allan R.; Hopper, Paul J. (1984). "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory". Toward Proto-Nostratic: a new approach to the comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 9789027235190.
- ^ Ruhlen, Merritt (1994). The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 143.
- ^ Piotr Michalowski, "Sumerian," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (2004, Cambridge), pg. 22
- ^ Høyrup, Jens (1998). "Sumerian: The descendant of a proto-historical creole? An alternative approach to the Sumerian problem". Published: AIΩN. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione linguistica. 14 (1992, publ. 1994). Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli: 21–72, Figs. 1–3. Available in: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED368171.pdf
- ^ Monaco, Salvatore F., "Proto-Cuneiform And Sumerians", Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, vol. 87, no. 1/4, pp. 277–82, 2014
- ^ Rubio, Gonzalo (1999). "On the alleged 'pre-Sumerian substratum'". Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 51 (1999): 1–16. doi:10.2307/1359726. JSTOR 1359726. S2CID 163985956.
- ^ Whittaker, Gordon (2008). "The Case for Euphratic" (PDF). Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. 2 (3). Tbilisi: 156–168. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
- ^ "Problems of absolute chronology in protohistoric Mesopotamia". Retrieved 2024-05-31.
- ^ "Inscriptions From Tell Abu Salabikh" (PDF). Retrieved 2024-05-31.
- ^ Edzard, Dietz Otto, "Wann ist Sumerisch als gesprochene Sprache ausgestorben?", Acta Sumerologica 22, pp. 53–70, 2000
- ^ Krejci, Jaroslav (1990). Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East. SUNY Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7914-0168-2.
- ^ Mémoires. Mission archéologique en Iran. 1900. p. 53.
- ^ Kevin J. Cathcart, "The Earliest Contributions to the Decipherment of Sumerian and Akkadian", Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, 2011
- ^ In Keilschrift, Transcription und Übersetzung : nebst ausführlichem Commentar und zahlreichen Excursen : eine assyriologische Studie (Leipzig : J.C. Hinrichs, 1879)
- ^ Prince, J. Dyneley, "The Vocabulary of Sumerian", Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 25, pp. 49–67, 1904
- ^ "Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies".
- ^ Kramer, Samuel Noah (1961) [1944]. Sumerian Mythology. Archived from the original on 2005-05-25. Retrieved 2005-09-23.
- ^ "Diakonoff 1976:112" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 43-45)
- ^ [Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?" In: Babel und Bibel 3, p.21]
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 43-45)
- ^ a b Michalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.16
- ^ Jagersma, Bram (January 2000). "Sound change in Sumerian: the so-called /dr/-phoneme". Acta Sumerologica 22: 81–87. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2015-11-23.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 42-43)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 53)
- ^ a b "Sumerian language". The ETCSL project. Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. 2005-03-29. Archived from the original on 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
- ^ Attinger, Pascal, 1993. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. p. 212 [2]()
- ^ [Keetman, J. 2007. "Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?" In: Babel und Bibel 3, passim]
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 38-41, 48-49, 53-54)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 62-63).
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 35-36, 38)
- ^ a b c Smith, Eric J M. 2007. [-ATR] "Harmony and the Vowel Inventory of Sumerian". Journal of Cuneiform Studies, volume 57
- ^ a b c Keetman, J. 2013. "Die sumerische Wurzelharmonie". Babel und Bibel 7 p.109-154
- ^ "Zólyomi, Gábor. 2016. An introduction to the grammar of Sumerian. P. 12-13" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 56-57)
- ^ Keetman, J. 2009. "The limits of [ATR] vowel harmony in Sumerian and some remarks about the need of transparent data ". Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2009, No. 65
- ^ Michalowski, Piotr (2008): "Sumerian". In: Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. P.17
- ^ Zólyomi (2018: 18)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 19-24)
- ^ #}}
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 25-26)
- ^ Gábor Zólyomi: An Introduction to the Grammar of Sumerian Open Access textbook, Budapest 2017
- ^ Introduction to Sumerian grammar by Daniel A. Foxvog at CDLI
- ^ "Kausen, Ernst. 2006. Sumerische Sprache. p.9". Archived from the original on 2009-09-27. Retrieved 2006-02-06.
- ^ Zólyomi, Gábor, 1993: Voice and Topicalization in Sumerian. PhD Dissertation [3] Archived 2008-10-01 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Johnson, Cale, 2004: In the Eye of the Beholder: Quantificational, Pragmatic and Aspectual Features of the *bí- Verbal Formation in Sumerian, Dissertation. UCLA, Los Angeles [4] Archived 2013-06-22 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Here and in the following, the cuneiform signs in parentheses are used only after vowels (and that only sometimes); after consonants, signs for consonant-vowel sequences is used.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 161-163)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 180-182)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 196-200)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 137)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 158-159)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 615-617)
- ^ Zólyomi, Gábor (2014). Grzegorek, Katarzyna; Borowska, Anna; Kirk, Allison (eds.). Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. De Gruyter. p. 8. ISBN 978-3-11-040169-1. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
- ^ Jagersma (2009: 220-225)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 225-228), Edzard (2003: 57)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 49)
- ^ Jagersma (2003: 228)
- ^ Jagersma (2003: 228-229)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 231-234)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 234-239)
- ^ Stephen Chrisomalis (2010). Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. Cambridge University Press. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-521-87818-0. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 46.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 37.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 8.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 35.
- ^ a b Halloran pdf 1999, p. 11.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999.
- ^ a b Halloran pdf 1999, p. 59.
- ^ Halloran pdf 1999, p. 20.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 244)
- ^ See e.g. Rubio 2007, Attinger 1993, Zólyomi 2005 ("Sumerisch". In: Sprachen des Alten Orients, ed. M. Streck), PPCS Morphological model Archived October 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ E.g. Attinger 1993, Rubio 2007
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 526-528)
- ^ a b Jagersma 2010: 518
- ^ Jagersma 2010: 569
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 562)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 558-560)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 518-521)
- ^ Jagersma 2010: 579
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 574)
- ^ Rubio 2007 and references therein
- ^ Zólyomi 1993; Also Woods, Cristopher, 2008: The Grammar of Perspective: The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 535-542)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 533)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 543-548)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 504-509)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 530, 499)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 501)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 417)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 400)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 487-494)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 400)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 513-516)
- ^ Jagersma 2010, Foxvog 2016, Zólyomi 2017.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 8, 470-473)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 454-455)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 449)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 401, 421-423)
- ^ a b c Zólyomi 2005
- ^ a b c d e Rubio 2007
- ^ a b c Zólyomi (2000). "Structural interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian" (PDF). Acta Sumerologica. 22. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2008-07-20.
- ^ Zólyomi 1993, Attinger 1993
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 353-356)
- ^ Attinger 1993, Khachikyan 2007: ("Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian". In: Babel und Bibel 3.)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 339-340)
- ^ (Foxvog 2016: 126-127)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 82)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 368-371)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 656-660)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 372-380)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 556)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 504)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 628-629)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 630-631)
- ^ "Epsd2/Sux/šum[give]". Archived from the original on 2021-09-26. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 638-640)
- ^ a b Jagersma (2010: 627)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 674-675)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 627-676)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 139-144)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 655-659)
- ^ Foxvog (2016: 144-145)
- ^ a b Zólyomi 1993
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 614-615)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 160)
- ^ Jagersma (2009: 672–674)
- ^ Edzard (2003: 157-158)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 712-713)
- ^ Jagersma (2010: 230-231)
- ^ (Jagersma 2010: 228)
- ^ Johnson 2004:22
- ^ Rubio 2007, p. 1369.
- ^ Sylvain Auroux (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-11-019400-5.
- ^ Hartmann, Henrike (1960). Die Musik der Sumerischen Kultur. p. 138.
- ^ Rubio (2007). Morphology of Asia and Africa. Eisenbrauns. p. 1370. ISBN 978-1-57506-109-2.
- ^ Jagersma 2010: 7
- ^ Foxvog, Daniel A. Introduction to Sumerian grammar (PDF). pp. 16–17, 20–21. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2017 (about phonemes g̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs).
- ^ Jagersma, A. H. A descriptive grammar of Sumerian (PDF) (Thesis). pp. 43–45, 50–51. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 25, 2015 (about phonemes g̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs).
- ^ a b "CDLI-Found Texts". cdli.ucla.edu. Retrieved 2018-03-12.
- ^ "Cone of Enmetena, king of Lagash". 2020. Archived from the original on 2020-02-27. Retrieved 2020-02-27.
Bibliography edit
- Attinger, Pascal (1993). Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. ISBN 3-7278-0869-1.
- Delitzsch, Friedrich (1914). Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik. J. C. Hinrichs. OCLC 923551546.
- Dewart, Leslie (1989). Evolution and Consciousness: The Role of Speech in the Origin and Development of Human Nature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-2690-7.
- Diakonoff, I. M. (1976). "Ancient Writing and Ancient Written Language: Pitfalls and Peculiarities in the Study of Sumerian" (PDF). Assyriological Studies. 20 (Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jakobsen): 99–121. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-08-03. Retrieved 2018-09-23.
- Edzard, Dietz Otto (2003). Sumerian Grammar. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-12608-2. (grammar treatment for the advanced student)
- Halloran, John (11 August 1999). "Sumerian Lexicon" (PDF). Sumerian Language Page. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
- Halloran, John Alan (2006). Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language. Logogram Pub. ISBN 978-0978-64291-4.
- Hayes, John (1990; 3rd revised ed. 2018), A Manual of Sumerian: Grammar and Texts. UNDENA, Malibu CA. ISBN 978-0-9798937-4-2. (primer for the beginning student)
- Hayes, John (1997), Sumerian. Languages of the World/Materials #68, LincomEuropa, Munich. ISBN 3-929075-39-3. (41 pp. précis of the grammar)
- Jagersma, B. (2009), A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian, Universitet Leiden, The Netherlands.
- Jestin, J. (1951), Abrégé de Grammaire Sumérienne, Geuthner, Paris. ISBN 2-7053-1743-0. (118pp overview and sketch, in French)
- Langdon, Stephen Herbert (1911). A Sumerian Grammar and Chrestomathy, with a Vocabulary of the Principal Roots in Sumerian, and List of the Most Important Syllabic and Vowel Transcriptions, by Stephen Langdon ... P. Geuthner. OCLC 251014503.
- Michalowski, Piotr (1980). "Sumerian as an Ergative Language". Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 32 (2): 86–103. doi:10.2307/1359671. JSTOR 1359671. S2CID 164022054.
- Michalowski,Piotr, (2004), "Sumerian", The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages pp 19–59, ed. Roger Woodward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-05-2156-256-0.
- Pinches, Theophilus G., "Further Light upon the Sumerian Language.", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1914, pp. 436–40
- Prince, John D. (1908). Materials for a Sumerian lexicon with a grammatical introduction. Assyriologische Bibliothek, 19. Hinrichs. OCLC 474982763.
- Prince, J. Dynely (October 1914). "Delitzsch's Sumerian Grammar". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 31 (1). U of Chicago: 67–78. doi:10.1086/369755. ISSN 1062-0516. S2CID 170226826.
- Rubio, Gonzalo (2007), "Sumerian Morphology". In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, pp. 1327–1379. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, ISBN 1-57506-109-0.
- Rubio, Gonzalo (2009), "Sumerian Literature". In Carl S. Ehrlich (ed.). From an antique land : an introduction to ancient Near Eastern literature. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Thomsen, Marie-Louise (2001) [1984]. The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. ISBN 87-500-3654-8. (Well-organized with over 800 translated text excerpts.)
- Volk, Konrad (1997). A Sumerian Reader. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ISBN 88-7653-610-8. (collection of Sumerian texts, some transcribed, none translated)
Further reading edit
- Friedrich Delitzsch (1914). Sumerisches glossar. J. C. Hinrichs. p. 295. Retrieved 2011-07-05.
- Ebeling, J., & Cunningham, G. (2007). Analysing literary Sumerian : corpus-based approaches. London: Equinox. ISBN 1-84553-229-5
- [5] Archived 2023-03-11 at the Wayback MachineGeng, Jinrui, "An Outline of the Synchronic and Diachronic Variations of Sumerian", 2nd International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.
- Halloran, J. A. (2007). Sumerian lexicon: a dictionary guide to the ancient Sumerian language. Los Angeles, Calif: Logogram. ISBN 0-9786429-1-0
External links edit
- General
- Akkadian Unicode Font (to see Cuneiform text) Archive
- Linguistic overviews
- A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian by Abraham Hendrik Jagersma (preliminary version)
- Sumerisch (An overview of Sumerian by Ernst Kausen, in German)
- Chapter VI of Magie chez les Chaldéens et les origines accadiennes (1874) by François Lenormant: the state of the art in the dawn of Sumerology, by the author of the first ever [6] grammar of "Akkadian"
- Dictionaries
- Corpora
- The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). Includes translations.
- The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, including several Sumerian sub-corpora; notably, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions, Corpus of Kassite Sumerian Texts, Bilinguals in Late Mesopotamian Scholarship, Datenbank sumerischer Streitliteratur.
- CDLI: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative a large corpus of Sumerian texts in transliteration, largely from the Early Dynastic and Ur III periods, accessible with images.
- Mesopotamian year names. Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae (a large part of the year names are in Sumerian)
- Research
- Online publications arising from the ETCSL project (PDF)
- Structural Interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian by Gábor Zólyomi (PDF)
- Other online publications by Gábor Zólyomi (PDF)
- The Life and Death of the Sumerian Language in Comparative Perspective by Piotr Michalowski
- Online publications by Cale Johnson (PDF)
- Eléments de linguistique sumérienne (by Pascal Attinger, 1993; in French), at the digital library RERO DOC: Parts 1–4, Part 5.
- The Origin of Ergativity in Sumerian, and the Inversion in Pronominal Agreement: A Historical Explanation Based on Neo-Aramaic parallels, by E. Coghill & G. Deutscher, 2002 at the Internet Archive