SumerianGrammar

76 CHAPTER TWELVE
In this class, “vertically”, the opposition is between a simple ¢am†u
and a reduplicated marû base. If the simple form ends in a consonant,
this final consonant is omitted in reduplication; note, however,
class 4. If the simple form ends in a vowel, it is reduplicated without
alteration.
Unfortunately, different cuneograms are only used with gar/∞ ∞ gá-∞ gá.
In the other cases the morphological evidence has to be inferred from
the behaviour of the suffixed particles or from non-orthodox spellings.
sg.
pl.
12.4.4.
¢. a a
sùh sùh tuku 4 tuku 4
m. a'+a" a'+a" [sish] [sish] [tutk] [tutk]
“confuse, trouble” “tremble”
For si-is-he [si(h)s(i)h-e] or tu-ut-ke [tu(k)t(u)k-e] see Falkenstein 1959
b, 99 f. This type of reduplication where C 1 VC 2 (V)-C 1 VC 2 (V) turns
into C 1 VC 1 C 2 , recalls the nominal reduplication *deli-deli > dedli
(see 5.3.4).
Type 4 is, strictly speaking, a variant of type 3. But we are unable
to state why *zig-zig became zi-zi instead of *zizg.
Krecher 1995, 173–77.
sg. pl. non-fin.
¢. a b
m. b b c
12.4.5.
dug 4 e
e e di
“speak, do”
This verb most probably forms a unique class and we have termed
it “irregular”. There is a heteronymic differentiation between ¢am†u
and marû in sg., but marû [e] also intruded in to ¢am†u pl. Moreover,
there is a third heteronymic base for non-finite marû.
Although dug 4 /e is a transitive verb, the pl. base is used for plural
‘subjects’, not ‘objects’ (see below 12.4.7), this being another irregularity.