SumerianGrammar

THE VERB 109
b) [mmini]: (é . . .) DUGUD-gin 7 an-“à-ge im-mi-ni-íb-DIRI.DIRIne
“they let (the House) soar into the midst of Heaven as if it were
a cloud” Gudea Cyl. A xxi 20.
12.8.3. Dimensional indicators without reference to a person
The question must be asked whether in principle a dimensional indicator
could occur with general reference to the verb’s semantic meaning,
but with no (even suppressed) pronominal element. Were there
-da- “with”, -ta- “from”, or -“i- “toward” indicating that the verb
implied the general idea of having something with it, stemming from,
moving towards a goal The question is extremely hard to answer
because of our well-known difficulties interpreting Sumerian syllabic
spelling where, until the beginning of the 2 nd millennium B.C., syllable-closing
consonants could be neglected in writing: did, e.g., -daalways
stand for [nda], [bda], [mda] or could [da] alone be intended
So far the only possible exception seems to be ablative [ra] (see
12.8.1.13, 12.8.2.44) which is never found with a person element,
e.g., *[bra] or *[mra]. But [ra] is an extraneous element anyhow in
the system of the dimensional indicators.
12.9. PREFIXED INDICATOR [E, I]
Prefixed [e] or [i], spelled e- or ì-, is difficult to define. It has challenged
Sumerologists for more than a century. If a basic function
once existed it may well have vanished over the long period during
Sumerian was spoken and written.
Note: Our transliteration NI = i is confirmed by allograph i- from Ur III onward.
Vanstiphout 1985, 1–2, resumed the Forschungsgeschichte; see, thereafter,
Wilcke 1988, 2–4.
It is advisable to start from forms where [e]/[ì] precedes the verbal
base as the only element and where no suffixes occur, i.e., 3 rd
sg. forms of the intransitive conjugation pattern 1 (see 12.7.1): e-∞gen
“he went”, e-∞gál “it is/was present”, ì-til “he lived, stayed”.
The function of [e]/[i] may be defined here as an element moving
the verbal base out of its neutral (lexical) mode into a finite verbal
mode, i.e., indication—or implication—of a pronominal participant.
[e]/[i], seen this way, is left without an oppositional mark. It could
not be defined as, e.g., “non-ventive” in a general way because it may