Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

(57) Sargon Legend, 3 N-T 296, ll. 23-27 (Cooper and Heimpel 1983, 75, 77; Karahashi
2000, 181)
24. [i 7] ≠ma˙ i 7 mud±.ße 3 œa 2.ra For me, she drowned you in a great [river],
mu.un.≠gir 5±.re.de 3.en a river of blood,
25. [x] ≠x± [d] ≠ur±.[ d za].ba 4.ba 4
… Urzababa chewed his lips, became
nundum zu 2 bi 2.in.≠gu 7± seriously afraid,
26. [x x] x na ≠AN± [x] sukkal.a.ni He spoke to … his chancellor,
≠gu 3± mu.na.de 2.e
27. […] ≠nin 9.e±.œu 10 ku 3 d inanna.ke 4
“… my royal sister, Inanna,”
(58) SP, UM 55-21-278 = 3 N-T 179 (Karahashi 2000, 181)
ka 5.a zu 2 bi 2.in.sud 2.sud 2
A fox bites.
The extensive set of examples in this section show a regular case-marking pattern
(adversely affected argument in the locative, *-a, while the positively affected argument
occurs in the ergative, *-e) that differs from the case-marking pattern in the previous
section in one detail: whereas the perceived object in BNBV inal verbs of perception
regularly occurs in the locative-terminative case, *-e, the negatively affected argument in
BNBV inal verbs of adversity regularly occur in the locative, *-a. I suspect that in the older
phases of the language, the negatively affected argument in BNBV inal verbs of adversity
was also followed by the locative-terminative, but that, unlike verbs of perception, the
*bi-√ prefix in verbs of adversity caused the case-marking on the negatively affected
73