Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

(90) Hey, toss [ Indirect object me [ Direct object that wrench [ Particle up]]], will you?
(91) gig.e igi bi 2.in.du 8
[ Indirect object gig-e [ Direct object igi [ Particle bi [ Verb n-du]]]]
Just as in the BNBV inal construction, the transfer of possession model is paramount in the
English example, due obviously to the necessary presence of a recipient or benefactee,
which is incorporated into the verb. The particle (“up”), likewise, codes two distinct
functions: the relational or orientational value (“up, out, in, back”) that holds between the
source (the addressee in [90]) and the goal (“me” in [90]) and the telicity of the verb
through its modification of the direct object. The differences between (90) and (91) are
also interesting, however, particularly in light of the fact that Sumerian and English differ
in terms of ergative vs. accusative case-marking systems and basic word-order. Since
Sumerian uses an inalienable body-part noun to code the relational/orientational value,
the body-part noun remains in the absolutive case and uses two distinct forms of raised
possessor construction (locative-terminative and ergative as inalienable possessor, both
*-e) to indicate the nature of the relation between source and goal. At the same time, it
seems to indicate the telicity or boundedness of the predicate through the conjunction of
igi and the *bi-√ prefix. Ultimately these differences seem to result—quite directly—
from the basic word-order of the respective languages in that the SVO language is
capable of forming a particle-verb construction by stranding a bare adposition to the right
of the verb, whereas in an SOV language like Sumerian, this is not possible and the
180