Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

the two criteria mentioned above, namely an inalienable body-part noun that immediately
precedes the *bi-√ prefix: igi bi 2.ib.sa 6 (ASJ 7,125, 27); ßu bi 2.bar.ra.ße 3 (BM 18078 =
ASJ 9, 329, rev. i 2), ßu bi 2.ba (BM 23871 = ASJ 10, 88, 2; ITT 2/1: 924 = NG 213;
MVN 2, 2), ßu bi 2.in.ba (SANTAG 6, 154); a 2 bi 2.dar (Nik 447), a 2 bi 2.in.dar (ITT
3:6572 = NG 145; BM 106157 = SNAT 535; AO 6047 = NG 214); ßu bi 2.in.us 2 (Jean SA
42). But in no case is the bare inalienable noun itself preceded by a noun followed by the
locative-terminative postposition. If one assumes that ßu-√ba and ßu-√bar represent the
same verbal root, there are 11 tokens of four types. Of these lexemes, most show the
distributional pattern DP Loc/Erg DP Bare *bi-√ just as the ED IIIb materials do, but one, a 2-
√dar, shows the same distributional pattern as the Old Babylonian examples that form
one of the primary sets of data for this chapter: *DP LocTerm DP Bare bi-√. This last
distributional pattern is the most robust and coherent subset within the class defined by
the BNBV diagnostic in Old Babylonian materials from Nippur: those BNBV
constructions in which the bare nominal is an (inalienable) part of the body and the
nominal that precedes the bare nominal bears the locative-terminative postposition. This
particular distributional category is, however, limited to a handful of questionable
examples in the third millennium corpora such as igi-√sag 5 (ED IIIb) or igi-√sa 6(g) (Ur
III): the only lexeme that fully conforms to the Old Babylonian pattern that is the
centerpiece of this chapter is a 2-√dar, which is included in the appropriate section below
in spite of its anachronism. One possible member of the BNBV class that seems to have
been lexicalized is umbisag, “scribe,” which presumably derives from um bi 2.sag x, “one
who strikes (= √sag 3) the DUB a/UM”—leaving open the question of the proper
40