Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

forms in Sumerian (the forms in parentheses are the corresponding reduplicated Sumerian
forms cited in either the standard dictionaries or Streck 2003; the number in brackets that
follows each lexeme refers to the number assigned to the lexeme in Streck 2003): itkupu
(a.gi 6 mu.un.du 7.du 7) [5], mit˙us¬u [8], mitguru (ße.ße.ga) [20], atkulu (cf. participle su.bi
in.gu 7.gu 7!) [26], ritkubu (ßed 3.ßed 3) [37], ßitrus¬u (ßu sa 2.sa 2) [40 (mistakenly listed as
itru≈u on page 98)], ti≈butu (sa ˙ir.˙ir ir ) [41], atwû (du.ud.du // du 12.du 12, di.di,
bala.bala) [43], mitluku (ad ba.ni.ib.gi 4.gi 4, cf. Gtn-stem mu.un.da.ab.sig 3.sig 3) [44],
rit˙u≈u (giri 3 te.te) [62], ˙itbus¬u (si.su˙.bi ma.az.ma.az) [114], ˙itmut¬u (ul 4 sa 2.sa 2)
[116], ßitpû (perhaps ßu du 7.du 7 although not attested, cf. Gtn-stem e.da.an.gub.gub.ba)
[129], it˙usu (ir 2.ra im.mi.in.ße 8.ße 8 // ibakki it-˙u-sa) [134], etpußu (perhaps ka du 3.du 3,
but again not attested) [142], and k/˙itru≈u (kid x.kid x [NUN.NUN], kid 6.kid 6
[KAD 5.KAD 5]) [175].
Streck characterizes the Gt-stem verbs that parallel Sumerian reduplications, in
particular, as “intensive” without much further in the way of interpretation (Streck 2003,
98-99, cf. 110), but many of semantic fields identified by Streck in relation to Gt-stems in
Akkadian correspond in a very general way to the semantic field of the BNBV inal class.
But it should be noted that (a) no members of the BNBV inal class appear in parallel with
Gt-stem verbs in Akkadian, (b) the Gt-stem reduplications identified by Streck never
occur with the *bi-√ prefix, and (c) the semantics of the examples cited by Streck is by
and large depictive or resultative. It is possible, of course, that adverbial clauses of cause
or purpose are hiding in Streck’s “intensive” category, but if so I have not been able to
identify sufficient context for the Gt-stem reduplications to characterize them as such.
My suspicion is that reduplicated BNBV inal predicates (and perhaps reduplicated verbs
129