Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

Römer notes the “conspicuous alternation” between igi.zu (A V 408; Da, rev. II 9) and
igi.bi (HH19),” and goes on to contrast Jacobsen’s interpretation of the line on the basis
of √du 8 as a simple verb with Falkenstein’s suggestion that it is a compound verb
igi-√du 8, but offers little insight into the matter (2004, 166). I suspect that the relatively
unusual syntactic form of the line has resulted in the two versions, which, interestingly
enough, present two different perspectives on the perception of Nanna. Since the
possessive pronoun presumably refers to the perceiver rather than the one who is
perceived, the version with igi.zu could be translated “as for your black-headed people, it
is not YOU WHO CAN SEE them, (but rather THEY WHO CAN SEE you).” The
alternative in manuscript HH has only igi.bi, but there is also an additional locative
postposition inserted into the topicalized phrase, ≠uœ 3± saœ.gi 6.ga.zu, in order to form an
anticipatory genitive within the topicalized phrase (with *-bi as the topic-marking
possessor rather than *-zu). This makes the black-headed people of Nanna the possessor
of igi and the perceiver of whatever is to be seen: “As for your black-headed people, it is
not THEY WHO SAW … (?).” This interpretation seems, however, to collapse under its
own weight.
I would submit that the original form is not preserved in any of the extant witnesses:
namely, uœ 3 saœ.gi 6.zu igi nam bi 2.ib 2.du 8, “As for your black-headed people, it is not
THE STORM that they saw, (but rather YOU, NANNA, THE MOON GOD, whom they
saw in the clear, storm-free sky).” The confusion seems to arise from the fact that the
perceived object, namely u 4 … re, was originally in the underlying form of the line: *uœ 3
saœ gi 6.zu u 4…re igi nam bi 2.ib 2.du 8. But I looks like it has been moved out of line 410
293