SumerianGrammar

THE VERB 87
pattern 2b (¢am†u) would be termed ergative, while pattern 2a as
well as the imperative and cohortative would have to be considered
as functioning on a nominative-accusative level. The question will
be discussed in more detail in 12.7.4.
sg. 1 st
sg. 2 nd
sg. 3 rd p.
sg. 3 rd non-p.
pl. 1 st
pl. 2 nd
pl. 3 rd p.
12.7.3. Conjugation pattern 2b: Transitive
-(V-)lá
-e-lá
-n-lá
-b-lá
-lá-enden (see note)
-e-lá-enzen (see note)
-n-lá-e“
In pattern 2b the ergative markers for sg. and 3 rd pl. immediately
precede the verbal base (in its ¢am†u variant if such exists). 3 rd p.
-n- and -b- appear identical with the absolutive markers of pattern 2a.
Note to 1 st sg.: The ergative marker can hardly have been zero,
but its original vocalic quality can no longer be ascertained. Some
rare OB verbal forms have [e] before the base, thus suggesting identity
with the 2 nd sg. [e], but this may be a late analogy formed on
the identity of the absolutive/ergative markers [en] of 1 st and 2 nd sg.
Note Falkenstein 1949, 159 fn. 2: “Vielleicht ist das Personenzeichen
der 1. ps. sg. mit dem der 2. ps. sg. -e- identisch”.
Jacobsen 1988, 198, preferred “Poebel’s first suggestion [1923, 175]
of a mark zero”.
Extensive discussion by Attinger 1993, 217 § 139a, without a definite
result.
Note to 2 nd sg.: Krecher 1985, 144, proposed identifying the ergative
marker as [e(r)] because he analysed the dative and directive
elements -e-ra- and -e-re- “to you” as [er-a/e] instead of [e-r-a/e].
He is followed by Attinger 1993, 217–20 and passim.
Before Krecher, -r- had been explained as a Hiatustilger (the [r]
being borrowed from the dative case particle [ra]). Now since *[er]
only occurs between vowels and would otherwise have to be reconstructed
as *[e(r)], Krecher’s argument clearly is circular. Moreover,
in such cases as á mu-e-da-a-á∞ g [mu-e+da-e-a∞g] “you (moved the
arm with me =) ordered me” one would have expected [*r] to be
indicated before the vowel of á∞g.