Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

less clear. Achievements are quite regularly transitive in a certain sense, but since the
direct object is not affected by the predicate, it is hard to imagine that in an ergative
language like Sumerian, the logical subject of an achievement would appear in the
ergative case or the direct object in an absolutive case.
If we turn from BNBV inal predicates to BNBV predicates in which the nominal
component is alienable, or even *bi-√ prefix verbs that are not preceded by a bare noun, a
few examples seem to provide some justification for interpreting *bi-√ prefix verbs as
achievements more generally. The primary difference between BNBV inal predicates and
other lexical classes is that—in terms of case-marking—the absolutive noun (in
conjunction with its raised possessor in the ergative case) is an experiencer rather than a
patient; where the absolutive noun is not inalienable, and, consequently, the ergative
noun cannot be a possessor, we should expect that the ergative noun is an agent of some
kind and the absolutive noun is a patient. Given such a combination of achievement
semantics and an absolutive case-marked patient, there is the possibility that the logical
object of an achievement predicate might undergo dethematization (demotion of an
absolutive case-marked nominal to an adpositional case), resulting in a semantic “patient”
appearing in an oblique case; there appear to be a couple of examples in which such a
dethematization seems to have taken place.
(59) Nippur Lament [2.2.4] (Tinney 1996, 110-111, 163)
193. si.ga.bi mu.un.du 3.un.na.gin 7
154
Just as he silenced you, when he made
˙ul 2 u 4 mi.ni.in.ku 4.ra joy enter again,