SumerianGrammar

∞
38 CHAPTER FIVE
(c) X (= A-B-a(k)) – Y -a(k): ab-ba-eri(-k)—Unug ki -ga-ke 4 -ne “the city
elders of Uruk”.
(d) X – Y (= A-B-ak) -a(k): sa∞gga- d
Nin-∞gír-su-ka(-k) “the temple administrator
of the Lord-of-ªGirsu”.
Probably for reasons of euphony, no more than two genitive particles
were allowed on a string, even if three or more genitival relationships
are involved.
What is more, in X – Y -a(k), both X and Y may be extended
by appositions: X 1 =X 2 – Y -a(k) or X – Y 1 = Y 2 -a(k). In such
cases the string of noun + apposition(s) functions like a simple noun
so that there will be no further consequence for the genitive “algebra”.
Cf. for X 1 = X 2 , d Nin-∞gír-su(-k) ur-sa∞g-kal-ga— d En-líl-lá(-k)-ra
“to N., mighty warrior of Enlil”. Here, Ningirsu(k) and mighty warrior
are in apposition.
For Y 1 = Y 2 : suhu“-an-ki(-k) “the foundations of Heaven (and)
Earth”, where an-ki “Heaven and Earth” represent a string (though
additive instead of appositive).
Possessive particles may equally be incorporated. In X – Y-a(k),
both X and Y may carry a possessive particle:
ká—é-gal-la(-k)-∞gu 10 “my (gate of the palace =) palace gate”.
ká—é-gal-la-ka-ni “his (gate of the palace =) palace gate”.
Here possession applies to the whole compound.
Contrast ká—é-gal-∞gá(-k) “the gate of my palace”.
ká—é-gal-la-na(-k) “the gate of his palace”.
Here only Y (the rectum) is marked by a possessive particle.
OB scribes sometimes became confused with their more elaborate
constructions: bàd-gal-[BÀ]D ki eri-nam-”AGIN(-a(k))-nam-dumu-naka-ni
“the great wall of Der, the city of governorship (nam-”AGIN)
of his (son-ship =) state of crown-prince”, i.e., “. . . of the city where
he had been governor when he was still a crown-prince”.
Here, X = bàd-gal and Y = the city-name with a complicated
string of apposition and genitives: A 1 -A 2 (-ak)—B-ak. The possessive
particle -ani “his” should also have been in the genitive, -a-na. We
may understand the scribe’s ‘mistake’ by re-translating the whole
complex into Akkadian: *dùram rabiam “a Der àl “akkanakkùtim “a màrùti-
“u the last -“u of which was mechanically rendered by the scribe by
Sumerian -a-ni.
Apart from the X-Y-a(k) syntagma with a bound genitive, there
is free, unbound, genitive with no regens expressed occurring much