SumerianGrammar

pl. 1 st
pl. 2 nd
pl. 3 rd person
-ne-B
THE VERB 85
d
En-líl-le im-ma-“i-in-gi 4 -gi 4 [imma-“i-(e)n-gigi] “Enlil sends me back
(against the rebel lands)” Römer 1969, 298:109 (see Attinger 1985,
166); more references for 1 st sg. “me” in Attinger 1993, 163–67.
Ha-ba(-n)-zi-zi [ha-ba-(e)n-zizi] “May (the personal god) raise you
here” (= PN) Limet 1968, 311 f.; more references for 2 nd sg. “you”
see Attinger 1985, 167–75.
Note: Until—and partly including—Ur III the consonants representing the absolutive
elements are disregarded in spelling (because of their position at the end
of a closed syllable), and their restitution depends entirely on our (subjective)
understanding of the context.
ha-ra-ab-“úm-mu [ha-(e)ra-b-“um-e] “let him give it to you”.
ha-mu-ra-ne-“úm-mu [ha-mu-(e)ra-ne-“um-e] “let him give them
(pers.) to you”. ITT 1,1100:16.
[For Table of absolutive-ergative combinations in conjugation pattern
2a see p. 86.]
In literary texts of OB date, -(e)n- before the base often alternates
with -e- (Attinger 1985, 163 ff. passim).
The fact that the absolutive markers for the 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd sg.
person class, i.e., -(e)n-, -(e)n-, -n-, may have been homophonous
(they are so at least in our Latin transliteration), can hardly have
contributed much to clarity. The coexistence of homophonous morphemes
has, however, never been an obstacle to practical understanding,
as is shown by English multifunctional [s] in (1) wings,
(2) sings, (3) king’s, (4) kings’, (5) it’s, (6) he’s (has).
The 1 st and 2 nd pl. forms of the absolutive marker are still unknown.
If they existed they may have been replaced over time by periphrastic
expressions by means of the free forms of the personal pronoun
(see 9.1).
It is still open to research whether Sumerian, in the transitive
verb, distinguished between determinate action implying an object
(e.g. “he fights an enemy”) and indeterminate action not implying
an object (e.g., “he fights”).
Final note to 12.7.2.: We have described conjugation pattern 2a
in terms of ergativity although, since Michalowski 1980, the opinion
has been voiced that Sumerian was a language with “split ergativity”
(accepted by Attinger 1993, 150–52) where only conjugation