Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

In (67), I present the two-part derivation (“state > achievement” followed by
“achievement > accomplishment”) as exemplified by three English sentences alongside
what Yoshikawa’s theory of ßu as the telicizing component might predict: ßu ˙ul and ßu
˙ul bi 2.du 11 both include ßu as the telicizing component, while the derived
accomplishment in (67c) also includes a plausible light verb, namely bi 2.du 11.
The problem is that no such sequence seems to exist in the text-artifactual record.
The contrast that is represented exists between achievements such as (63) and (64) above
and nominalized structures such as the following examples (example [63] repeated below
as [68a]).
(68) a. Enki and Ninmah [1.1.2], l. 55
ki ßa 3 gi 4.a.œu 10 na.aœ 2.tar Whether I make a fate good or bad
bi 2.ib.se 3.ge bi 2.ib.˙ul.e depends on my will,
b. Nippur Lament [2.2.4], l. 263 (Attinger 1993, 707)
u 4 ki.en.gi ki.uri lu 2.erim 2.e The enemy, having done Sumer and Akkad
ßu ˙ul bi 2.in.du 11.ga a terrible deed,
An additional example of the ßu ˙ul bi 2.in.du 11.ga pattern occurs in line 299 of the
Nippur Lament [2.2.4]. Since √˙ul is not a BNBV inal predicate, it shows causative
semantics as expected: “to make (a fate) bad.” Whereas (68a) is equivalent in some
respects to a resultative like “he swept the floor clean,” the ßu ˙ul bi 2.in.du 11.ga
162