1 Low applicatives and the mapping hypothesis in Sumerian J. Cale ...

dative case as the raised possessor of an absolutive direct object that appears immediately before
the verb and forms part of a verbal complex. Both constructions make use of the NI paradigm in
the verb rather than the ordinary dative series.
In (8), the verbal complex is made up of igi ‘eye’ and du—meaning uncertain but perhaps ‘to
spread’ or ‘to hold’—while gig.e ‘wheat’ acts as the raised possessor of igi and codes the
perceived entity. The animacy, or better, the inanimacy of the wheat is indicated by the use of the
inanimate dative postposition *-e and the *bi- prefix on the verb. In (9), we have the same
construction except that the raised possessor—that is to say the perceived entity—is a deity and
hence animate. The possessor is coded therefore by the animate dative postposition *-ra, while
the verbal prefix is *-ni-, the third person animate member of the NI paradigm. At least in terms
of morphology and apparent surface distribution, the causative exemplars in (10) and (11) are
the same as the applicative ones. In (10), a group of goats is the causee and is followed by the
inanimate dative case, *-e, with the inanimate *bi- prefix, while the animate causee in (11) takes
the animate dative postposition, *-ra, and occurs with the *-ni- verbal prefix. In 2004, in my
dissertation, I argued that the alienability of the nominal component of the verbal complex
determined whether or not it was causative: inalienable nouns form verbs of perception, whereas
alienable nouns form causatives. The problem with this view is that there are simply too many
exceptions, hence my appeal to specificity.
[[Low source applicative in Sumerian]]
The breakthrough, if you will . . . the big new idea that allows possessor raising to figure
centrally in a typology of applicatives is Pylkkänen’s description of the low applicative (2002).
6