Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

3.3 Topicalized and identificational *bi-√ prefix verbs in *mini-√
Before turning to the various issues surrounding definiteness effect environments and
their relation to head-internal relatives clauses, this section represents a brief tangent so
as to clarify both the difference between presupposition and focus (including the
association between presupposition and topicalization) and an important point of
Sumerian morphology: the derivation of verbs bearing the *mini-√ prefix from
underlying *bi-√ verbs through the addition of a third person animate possessive
pronoun, *-ni (the derivation of *mini-√ from *bi-ni-√ was first proposed by Postgate
[1974, 21-22], see Attinger 1993, 273-275 and Rubio forthcoming, §3.9.6 for recent
bibliography, but the interpretation of *-ni- as the possessive pronoun has not been
suggested previously). On the basis of superficial formal as well as more substantial
semantic similarities, I will assume for the time being that verbs of the form *mini-√ are
definite versions of the indefinite relative construction dealt with in the previous chapter.
Note, however, that the examples of the indefinite relative construction cited earlier
regularly lacked pre-root pronominal agreement, *bi-Ø-√, whereas the topicalized form
regularly includes it, *mini-n-√.
Several authors have argued against Postgate’s derivation of *mini-√ from *bi-ni-√
on both formal/evidential grounds as well as semantic ones. Rubio has noted (personal
communication, August 2004) that if *mini-√ were derived from *bi-ni-√, we might
reasonably expect that in one or two cases the underlying form (sometimes known as a
“morphographemic” orthography) might be attested in the text-artifactual record. All
things being equal, such an evidential requirement would be entirely valid, but in the case
213