Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

(80) Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta [1.8.2.3], ll. 501-504
(Vanstiphout 2003, 84-85; Karahashi 2000, 165)
501. kiœ 2.gi 4.a ka.ni dugud As for the messenger’s mouth, it was heavy,
ßu nu mu.un.da.an.gi 4.gi 4
173
so he could not repeat it (the message),
502. bar kiœ 2.gi 4.a ka.ni dugud Since the messenger’s mouth was heavy and
ßu nu mu.un.da.an.gi 4.gi 4.da.ka he couldn’t repeat it (the message),
ki
503. en kul.aba4 .a.ke4 im.e The lord of Kulab patted some clay and put
ßu bi 2.in.ra inim dub.gin 7
the words on the tablet instead (-gin 7),
≠bi 2.in±.gub (of saying them to the messenger)
504. u 4.bi.ta inim im.ma gub.bu Before that time, no one had ever put words
nu.ub.ta.œal 2.la on clay,
Lines 501 and 502 actually illustrate quite nicely the contrast between two forms of cause
or result clause: in line 501, the heaviness of the messenger’s mouth results in his
inability to repeat the message (“his mouth was heavy, so . . .”) where the reduplication
of √gi 4 presumably indicates that it is an adverbial/subordinate clause, but in line 502, the
entire content of line 501 is taken as a cause (rather than a result) of the creation of
writing (“Since . . ., the lord of Kulab . . . .”). The causal subordination is marked with the
familiar bar . . . /ak/ construction.