Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

In terms of stereotypical usage, (21) would typically be used in reference to an adult and
would tend to be a negative statement, whereas (22) would normally be used for a chubby
baby or, perhaps, as a term of endearment for a girlfriend who has gained a little weight.
Although it is unclear whether or not “reduplication as diminutive” is productive in
the Sumerian preserved in the text-artifactual record, it does appear in two highly
lexicalized adjectival expressions.
(23) Diminutive-related CVC reduplication
di 4.di 4.la “small” /diddil-a/ cf. tur “small,” gal “big,” ma˙ “huge”
ku 7.ku 7.da “sweet” /kukkud-a/ cf. dug 3 “sweet,” sis “tart,” mun 4 “bitter”
In (23), the contrast is two-fold: on the one hand, reduplicated diminutives contrast with
ordinary adjectives that have the same basic meaning but lack the diminutive connotation
(tur and dug 3 respectively), on the other hand, diminutives contrast with adjectives
having the polar opposite meaning such as gal and ma˙, or sis and mun 4. 16 It should be
emphasized that adjectives that signify “positive” qualities such as sa 6 “fine, good,” zid
“just,” kalag “strong” would not normally be found in the diminutive since they lack the
“cuteness” factor that is central to diminutive semantics. Note as well the close formal
similarity between the adjectival roots in resultative secondary forms such as (6) and (7)
and the diminutives in (23): in all four cases, the adjectival root is reduplicated and the
16 Note that the two terms for “big” (gal and ma˙) and the two for “bitter” (sis and mun4) may well represent
corresponding augmentative contrasts coded through phonological deformation, but without a clearer understanding of
Sumerian phonology and a detailed investigation of the contexts in which the different forms occur, we cannot be sure
of such an interpretation.
117