SumerianGrammar

THE VERB 111
(2) It does not occur with ventive indicators except with the 3 rd sg.
non-person class series [mma] (30), [mda] (37), [mta], [mmara] (44),
[m“i] (51), [mmi], [mmeri] (58), and [mmini] (62). There is no *[ima],
*[imuda] etc.
For peculiarities of [ba] (3) which are still in need of further elucidation
see above 12.8.1.3.
12.10. PREFIXED INDICATOR [A(L)]
a- and al- both indicate the notion of state (not necessarily passive)
or habitualness, as against the notion of action, mobility, or becoming.
enim-bi al-til “the respective matter is in the state of having being
settled” (ubiquitous in pre-Ur III and Ur III court documents).
x y-“è ab-“i-∞gar “(x is set in relation to y =) x equals y”, e.g.,
NRVN I 202:3.
al- was until recently seen as unique among Sumerian verbal
prefixes because of its alleged inability to combine with any other
morpheme—apart from prospective [u]: *ù-al- > ù-ul-.
Attinger 1993, 267–69 (a-) and 269 f. (al-), both with extensive
literature, clearly states (p. 269) that “[al] semble être le pendant de
[a] dans le cas où la base n’est pas précédé d’un préf. III (i.e., the
group next to the base: absolutive, ergative, dimensional indicator)
ou d’un préfixe II (i.e., the group next-but-one to the base, [i], ventive
indicators)”; he stresses that a- before the base must always go
back to a-x-B and that “la seule fonction de -l-” (i.e., in [al]) “est
d’indiquer que [a] est directement suivi de la base, que donc al-B
représente morphématiquement [a+B]”.
Thus Attinger implicitly stated that a- and al- are found in complementary
morphemic distribution.
Since an element [l] encountered exclusively in [al] would be hard
to explain, it seems preferable to posit with Attinger just the one
morpheme [a(l)], with the allomorphs [a] and [al] depending on
Sumerian syllable structure: *[alb] > [ab], *[alnda] > [anda], etc.
Note: As a matter of fact, a circular argument is involved: The Sumerian system
of syllable writing which we can only see through “Akkadian glasses”, had
no room for such notations as [alb], [bla], [albra]. We, therefore, discount the
possible occurrence of such consonantal clusters in Sumerian syllable structure.
Therefore this line of reasoning only really holds good for a Semitic language
such as Akkadian where such clusters do not occur.