Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

1.7 Possible motivations for the BNBV inal distributional class
Given the correlation between a formal test (bare nominal immediately before a *bi-√
prefix verb), a typological parallel (low source applicative constructions) and a relatively
coherent semantics (verbs of perception and privation, which form a single coherent
semantic class under the constraints of a low source applicative hypothesis), one might
reasonably ask why these formal properties in particular are used to code this semantic
category in Sumerian. I argue in the balance of this study that the two crucial factors
determining the formal properties of the BNBV inal construction in Sumerian are
indefiniteness (or its referential equivalent coded through other means) and transfer of
possession from a source to a goal as indicated by the absence of resumptive
pronominalization on the nominal component of a BNBV inal construction: any kind of
possessive pronoun functioning resumptively would have to choose between resuming
either the source argument or the goal argument, when the crucial factor in the BNBV inal
construction is the transfer rather than the possession itself.
Indefiniteness has not been investigated in Sumerian in any detail and Sumerian
nouns are not explicitly identified as either definite or indefinite by distinctive
morphology. Certain kinds of nouns and nominal constructions such as possessive
constructions are often translated into European languages using definite nouns, but this
may be misleading in that there is no necessary correlation between occurrence in a
possessive construction and definiteness (Lyons 1999, 22-26). Nonetheless, if one
assumes for the sake of argument that possessive pronouns in Sumerian are indicators of
definiteness, certain phenomena fall into place: the use of nouns bearing possessive
80