SumerianGrammar

22 CHAPTER THREE
3.2. SYLLABLE STRUCTURE
Here again we are dependent on Akkadian, because we are only
able to reach Sumerian syllabograms through their Akkadian pronunciation.
As a Semitic language has no initial consonantal clusters
(tra-, stra-), word-internal clusters of more than two consonants
(-astra-, -abstra-) or word-final clusters of two or more consonants
(-art, -arst, -arbst) and, consequently, there are no syllabograms serving
comparable purposes, we cannot identify Sumerian syllables with
a structure differing from Akkadian. Therefore, while we may ask
whether Sumerian syllables of the type bra-, pli-, sku-, -arp, -urps
actually existed, there is no way to prove them.
Note: A. Falkenstein, starting from the assumption that the verbal prefix ba- can
be segmentized as b+a-, concluded that, by analogy, ba-ra- might have been a
spelling for intended *b+ra-, i.e. [bra], see 1949, 190; 1950, 185 with fn. 2. This
assumption has been refuted by J. N. Postgate, JCS 26 (1974) 18.
Taking our transliteration at face value, Sumerian had the following
types of syllables:
V: e.g., a
CV: e.g., ba, ri, ru
VC: e.g., ab, e“, u∞g
CVC: e.g., bar, min, mun
Note: The Ur III unorthodox spelling nam-bi-ri (NRVN I 4:4; see also 2:4 f.)
stands for expected *nam-(é)ri(m) [namri] and suggests a pronunciation [nambri]
with [b] as a glide between [m] and [r]. We are reminded of comparable glides
(between a nasal and a liquid) in Greek an-d-rós (genitive of énÆr “man”), French
(and English) hum-b-le, etc.
So, even if a Sumerian internal cluster -mbr- may have occurred in
spoken language, it was—until proof of the contrary—a secondary
phonetic phenomenon.
It goes without saying that in the spoken language there must have
been free variants of pronountiation, depending on speed, with all
such universal features as slurring, elision, assimilation, dissimilation.