Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

(50) [ Topic saœ.ki.ni [ Apposition œiß.gi bi 2.gu 7.a]] [ Comment lu 2 nu mu.da.te.œe 26.e.dam]
As for his brow, a devouring reed-bed, no ones dares to approach it,
But how does my suggestion that œiß.gi bi 2.gu 7.a forms an indefinite relative clause
speak to the broader question of whether or not BNBV inal predicates occur in the
progressive/imperfective aspect? First of all, although homophonous with the relative
marker, the *-a suffix that follows bi 2.gu 7 (the predicate inside the indefinite relative
construction) is probably not a relative marker, but rather the locative postposition that so
often can be found following an inanimate noun. This is demonstrated—or at least
suggested—by the fact that the same line in version B of the same composition shows the
locative-terminative postposition rather than the locative.
(51) Gilgamesh and Huwawa, version B [1.8.1.5.1], l. 93
saœ.ki.ni œiß.gi bi 2.gu 7.e lu 2 nu te.œe 26.dam
As for his brow, a devouring reed-bed, no one approaches it,
The alternation between locative and locative-terminative postposition is indicative of an
ambiguity inherent in the metaphor introduced by the indefinite relative: since the
conservatism of Old Babylonian redactors would never have allowed the removal of
mu.da if the trajectory were from mu.da.√te.œe 26.e.dam to te.œe 26.dam, what we must
take as the original form of the line in (51) preserves the locative-terminative postposition
following bi 2.gu 7. We might expect a locative-terminative in such a construction with a
146