Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

context available in these three passages) is not available. 23 Since the standard models of
agreement do not work particularly well when it comes to *bi-√ prefix predicates, I will
not hazard a guess (at least at this point) as to what phenomenon underlies the pervasive
use of *-n- in these constructions. Nonetheless, the invariance of *-n- in the achievements
does conforms quite well to Rothstein’s characterization of achievements as non-agentive
(Rothstein 2004, 138, ex. 38), since one might expect an agentive verbal form to vary in
pronominal agreement according to grammatical aspect, as is regularly postulated for
Sumerian agreement patterns in general.
(57) a. Mary reached the summit of the mountain unconscious and on a stretcher.
b. The supplies reached the summit of the mountain by helicopter.
As these two examples makes clear, the theme of an achievement need not show any
agentivity whatsoever. This fits well with the fact that BNBV inal predicates are
achievements in that the theme of BNBV inal predicates is the nominal component of the
compound verb, while the ergative case-marked nominal is its inalienable possessor,
rather than its ergative agent. As I argued at the end of chapter 1, the ergative case-
marking in BNBV inal constructions indicates that the ergative case-marked nominal is the
inalienable possessor of the body-part noun that forms the nominal component of the
23 There is also a slim possibility that the constructions in question are intransitive and do not take inim gal d inanna as
an argument, even though the typically causative semantics of *bi-√ prefix verbs would generally suggest the transitive
interpretation. If, for whatever reason, the construction is intransitive, the opposition between “an ergative, animate
*-n- in the perfective and accusative, inanimate *-b- in the imperfective” would no longer be valid as stated, but the
contrast between invariant *-n- in the achievements as opposed to the variation in the corresponding activity predicates
supports a transitive, indeed causative, interpretation of the constructions in question.
152