SumerianGrammar

142 CHAPTER TWELVE
The second problem is the suffix -ne (var. -ni) added after possessive
particles -∞gu 10 , -zu. The former reading -dè instead of -ne has
been disproved by the variant spelling -ni, attested both synchronically
with -ne and diachronically as a later variant.
Note: C. J. Gadd, Iraq 22 (1960) 161 f., note to line 7, (“-ni must arise from
reading NE (regular here) as ne instead of dè”). The variant was also noted by
Aro 1961, 327 fn. 1 (“Auffälligerweise ni statt NE (dè) geschrieben”). It was discussed
by Attinger 1993, 107 and 311, but without definite conclusion.
To sum up, the function of this [ne, ni] is still unknown, and we
cannot explain why it occurs only in forms of the 1 st and 2 nd person.
A completely analogous distribution of presence or absence of
[ne/ni] is found in deli-∞gu 10 /zu-ne “on my/your own”, but deli-ni
“on his/her own” (see 12.14.4.12).
12.15. COMPOUND VERBS
By “compound verbs” Sumerian grammars traditionally understand
frozen combinations of a noun (mostly a substantive, rarely an adjective)
and a verbal base. The meaning of the compound is not a simple
addition of the meanings of the individual elements, but a new
one: A+B = C or A+B ≠ A+B. This very often becomes clear from
the Akkadian translation, e.g., ki á∞g, equated with râmu “to love”,
cannot be explained by combining the meanings “earth, ground” (ki)
and “to measure out” (á∞g).
Note: A. Falkenstein, orally, suggested a gesture of reverence, making a generous
move of the hand/arm towards the ground, as the origin of ki á∞g.
Postgate 1974, 35, proposed as “the most specific criterion for distinguishing
a compound verb from a ‘simple’ one” the position of
the nominal element immediately before the verbal complex. The
nominal element may be extended by an adjective—or, occasionally,
by a dependent genitive—but no independent word may enter between
the nominal element and the verbal complex. Thus, ki mu-ra-á∞g-en
“I love you” would not allow insertion of za-ra as in *ki za-ra mura-á∞g-en
“It is you I love”.
Civil 1976, 148 f., and Attinger 1993, 179, have been sceptical
about the criterion A+B ≠ A+B, “difficilement utilisable dans le cas
d’une langue morte aux catégories de pensée étrangère aux nôtres”.
In fact, ∞gé“tu(-ga-ni) gub may be taken either literally as “to set
(one’s) (ear =) mind” or, on a more developed meaning, “to intend/plan
to do”.