Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

line 207: instead of igi mi.ni.in.il 2 eren 2.e igi bi 2.in.du 8.ru, QQ has igi i 3.il 2 eren 2.na igi
bi 2.ib.du 8. This raises the possibility that in QQ the redactor interpreted the first half of
the line as a finite verb, i 3.il 2, followed by a second finite verb, but a second verb that is
no longer a BNBV inal construction due to the locative postposition that follows eren 2 in
manuscript QQ. Although I can do no more than speculate, one possibility is that a single
ergative case-marked noun cannot function as an agent with respect to one predicate,
i 3.il 2, and as an inalienable possessor with respect to another, igi bi 2.ib.du 8. This seems to
be further supported by the fact that the majority version, which is a BNBV inal
construction, agrees with the perceived object in number: bi 2.in.du 8.ru (< bi-n-dur-eß =
LoAp-3AnimArg-see-Plur). Such an agreement pattern only seems to be available in the
BNBV inal predicate, since the variant form of the line in manuscript QQ, bi 2.ib.du 8 (< bi-
b-dur = LoAp-3InanAgr-see) either agrees with some other argument or treats erin 2 as a
collective. The “collective” interpretation would seem to be favored by the presence of
the locative postposition following erin 2 in manuscript QQ. Two further examples that
are similar in a number of respects occur in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, line 172 in
(22) below, and the Exploits of Ninurta, line 349 in (23) below.
(22) Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta [1.8.2.3], ll. 170-174
170. ˙ur.saœ 5(diß) ˙ur.saœ 6(diß) He traversed five mountains, six mountains,
˙ur.saœ 7(diß).e seven mountains,
im.me.re.bala.bala
171. [igi mu.un].≠il 2± aratta ki .aß ba.te He lifted his eyes as he approached Aratta.
218