1

The study of diachronic and synchronic variation in Sumerian

J.A.BlackandG.ZólyomiThe written sources for Sumerian extend over a period ofmore than two thousand years.During this time Sumerian changed from being themother tongue of a population into alanguageusedonlyforalimitedrangeoffunctionsbypeoplewhowerenativespeakersofotherlanguages.Atthesametime,ourwrittensourcescomefromawidevarietyofcommunicativesituations and from different locations. All these factors suggest that attempts to give asystematic description of the language should take into consideration the likelihood thatdocuments from different periods and places, or differentmanuscripts of the same literarycomposition,willreflectdifferentorchangingusages. Inevitablyalso, it remains thecase thatdiscussion of contexts, especially for literary examples, is hampered by the absence ofinformation about beyond-the-text aspects such as function, performance and audienceresponse;moreover,thereisnocontemporaryancienthistoryofinterpretation.Andnotevenalldocumentscanbedatedorsourced.

1. Sumerian as the object of traditional ‘philological’ study The importance of diachronic aswell as synchronic variation in the study of any languagecannotbeoveremphasised.ItisperhapssymptomaticthatmostoftheimportantgrammarsandgrammaticalstudiesofSumerianovertheyears(Langdon1911;Delitzsch1914;Poebel1923;Jestin1943,1946,1951,1954;Falkenstein,Das Sumerische [1964];Jacobsen1965;Thomsen1984;Attinger1993;Edzard2003),includingthethreemostrecent,donotpresenttheirmaterialinachronologicallygatheredwaysoastotakediachronicdevelopmentorsynchronicvariationintoaccountinanygeneraloverview.Pleashavebeenmadeforgrammarsofparticularphasesof Sumerian (Falkenstein 1949:2), but only occasional attempts (none of them recent) havebeenmade to provide them (Deimel 1924; Falkenstein,GSGL [1949–50]; Sollberger 1952;Kärki1967).Instead,attemptshavebeenmadetowriteall-embracinggrammaticaldescriptionsoftheentiretyofsomethingcalled‘Sumerian’. Thereareseveralexplanationsforthisstateofaffairs.First,thewritingofgrammarsanddictionaries is itselfahighly self-referent tradition. In thecaseofSumerian,grammaticalandlexicographical work has tended also to reflect a broader tradition including Akkadian, forreasonsofacademichistory.TheinchoatePennsylvania Dictionary of SumerianvolumesAandBwere influencedby theChicago Assyrian Dictionary, itselfmodelled in somewayson theOxford English Dictionary. These heroic undertakings seek to provide encyclopaedicdescriptionsof(inthecaseofCAD)twomillenniaoflinguistichistory,andtheparadigmhasbeentransferredtolinguisticdescriptionofSumerian.Thisgoessomewaytoexplainingwhyglobaldescriptions(whichstrictlyspeakingcanneverbetruegrammars)arestillbeingwrittenofalanguagetheveryexistenceofwhichwasstilldisputedjustoveracenturyago.Tosomeextent it is attributable also to the practical needs and even the pedagogical aspects of suchworks. Second,thereisafinite,exclusivelywritten,corpusofmaterial,andthedistributionofthis isnotalways sufficient toprovidea fullbasis foradetailedgrammatical studyofeveryphase.Thisleadstoanunderstandablebutmethodologicallyindefensiblehabitofsupplementingevidencefromoneperiodby‘borrowing’fromanother.Occasionallythisisevenexcused,onthegroundsthatSumerian‘changedlessfast’thanotherlanguages—aformofOrientalism—or that because to a large extentwe are dealingwith a self-conscious written tradition, thestructures and features of a later phasewillmirror those of its predecessors.Both of theseassumptionsareveryunlikelytobetrue.

2

Any considerationof the (written)materialavailable for the study ofSumerianmusttakeintoaccounttwofurtherfeatures:thecuneiformwritingsystem,inwhichallthesourcesarepreserved,andthestatusofthetext.Asregardsthefirst,whileithaslongbeenknownthatthewritingsystemreflectedthemorphophonologicalstructureofthelanguagetovaryingdegreesindifferent phases of its history, it is increasingly being realised that actually itwas never acompletelyadequaterepresentationofthephoneticsystemofSumerian(whosephonologycanbedemonstrated tohavechangedduring itshistory,aswouldbeexpectedofany language).Thismeans thatwithoutanadditional levelof interpretation it isunacceptable simply to takeconventionalised transliterations of written sources as authoritativematerial for grammaticalstudy.Aparticulardanger is theassumption thatmorphswhichare transliterated in the samewaymusthavebeenphonetically identical. It isequallydangerous toassume thatgraphicallyidenticalmorphs,andevenmorphswhosephonology is reconstructedas identical,musthavethesamehistoricalorigin.Thiswouldbeequivalenttoascribinganidenticalorigintothe‘suffix/s/’inEnglish‘houses’(pluralnoun)and‘buys’(3rdps.sg.verb),whereinfacttherearetwodistinctbutphoneticallyandgraphicallyidenticalmorphs. TheliterarymaterialinSumerianisboundtoattractspecialattention,asthemostdiversecategory.Thecomplexproblemssurroundingthestatusofthewrittenliterarytextarediscussedin generalbyCooper (in press).1 For a varietyof purposes, editors have sought to present‘literary’ compositions in the format of a single-line composite text. (For present purposes,‘literary’canbedefinedasreferringtoanycompositionwhichsurvivesinmultipleexemplars.)Grammariansneed tobeaware that suchcomposite textsconcealahostofad hocdecisionsmadebyeditors,althoughtheymaybesupplementedbyapparatus criticiornotesof‘variants’.Evenwhenthecompletetextofallavailableindividualexemplarsisdiagrammaticallypresentedin aPartitur (‘musical score’) or ‘textualmatrix’ format, variation in line order among themanuscriptscanbedifficulttodetect.ManuscriptsofSumerianliterarycompositionsmadebyMesopotamian scribes exhibitagreatdealof variation, especiallyat themorphological level,whichweareoftenata loss toexplain,and someworkshavemoreheterogeneous traditionsthanothers(seeGragg1972;Attinger1993:95–127).Thisislargelyaresultofthesocialandculturalcontextofthe‘manuscripts’usedbyeditors(seemostrecentlyCivil1999–2000).Themajority of such clay tablets are thematerial débris of the educational process, as youngBabylonian scribes learnt to speak and write Sumerian in scribal academies and trainingworkshops. Most of the literary sources we have are their discarded exercises. Thus thevariationmay be synchronic geographical variation (but often irrecoverable, since somanyexemplars cannot be sourced), itmay be diachronic (butmost exemplars cannot be datedprecisely), or it might be on the level of personal scribal idiolect. Furthermore, literarycompositionsweretransmittedinmultipleversionswithvaryingdegreesofcloseness,soitisusuallyimpossibletoknowwhethertoascribetextualvariationtoindividualscribesor totheparticular textual traditionwithinwhich theywereworking.Andamoderncomposite textoflines 1–10 of a composition is likely to be assembled from a completely different group offragmentaryexemplars from lines100–110of the samecomposition— jigsawpieceswhichmaynotoverlapatall.Allthiscallsintoquestionthelegitimacyoflinguisticargumentsbasedevenonsingleliteraryworks. Itmight appear that the onlymethodologically correct procedurewould be to use aslinguisticevidenceonlythetextofindividualscribalexemplars.Butwhilethesewouldatleasthavethestatusofbeingtheproductofasinglewriter,alargenumberaretoofragmentarytobeusedforanystatisticallyvalidevidentiarypurposes.Acrucialproblemconcernsthedistinctionbetween textual variation and scribal error: onemust bear inmind that sometimes awrittensource(andthisappliesequallytoadministrativeandotherdocumentswhichwerewrittenas

1Seealso,atgreaterlength,Black1998:28–38.

3

uniqueexemplars,sincetheyarealsoofthegreatestvalueforlinguisticstudy)maycontainavarietyoftypesoferror.Theremaybesimplecopyingerrors,anderrorscausedbyinattention,and genuine learners’ errors. Some of the scribes whose work we use were schoolboyapprentices whose teacher would have agreed with us that their written work was simplywrong:itisnotalwayseasy todistinguish this fromauthentictextualvariation. Itis, inequalmeasure, risky to seek to ‘correct’ incomprehensibleoriginals, andnaive to insist that sensemust always somehow be made of the sources as they stand because the scribes ‘knewSumerianbetterthanwedo’. Textual variation, i.e. substantive, lexical variation,must also be distinguished fromvariationinorthography.This termisusedinconfusingways intheliterature(seeCooperinpress). Itmaybesimplyadescriptive term for ‘spelling’,or itmaypresuppose somesortofstandardisation (‘correct’orthography;Greekorthos ‘standard’).Most scholarswouldagreethatthemorecommonaSumerianwordormorphis,themorelikelyitistohaveastandardisedspelling.Sometimesthereisanalarmingvariationinthewritingofrarewords,aphenomenonparallelledinthehistoryofotherlanguagesandeasilyexplicable.Atdifferentphasesduringitshistory,Sumerianspellinghabitsunderwentvariousdiachronicchanges,anditisapparentthatacertaindegreeofvariationinspellingwastoleratedsynchronicallywithinthesametradition.An‘un-orthographic’spellingisthenonewhichdepartsfromthemajorityspellingofaparticularword in that particular sociolinguistic context. In addition, there may be several differentorthographies(setsofspellinghabits)inparalleluseinsynchronictraditions(e.g.literaryvs.administrative).Acomplication is theuseofarchaic(orare theyarchaising?)orthographies,suchasthoseidentifiedbyKleininthelesswidelycopiedpraisepoemsofÅulgi(seealsoKleininpress).Apparently theorthographyof themore frequentlycopiedpoemswasmodernised,leading (apparently) to theconclusion that the textual traditionsofotherspreserved, throughthreecenturiesormore,anorthographycharacteristicof theperiod (Ur III)when theywerecomposed. Notablydivergentorthographiesarethoseclassedas‘phonetic’(or,lesssatisfactorily,‘syllabic’).Neitherdesignationiswhollyideal:thefirsttermattemptstoexplainthepurposeofsuchwritingsonthelevelofspokenlanguage,implyingthattheyreproducedsomethingclosertotheactualpronunciationinthatregionorperiodorgenerally;andthesecondisdescriptiveofthegraphic tendency to replace logographicwritingswith shortor common syllabic (CV orVC) signs. It is fair to say thatEmesalexhibitsa tendency to spellphoneticallyasoneof itsdistinguishingfeatures(e.g.dufi-muvs.dumu).Typically,divergentorthographiesofthissortoccurinareasoutsidetheSumerianheartland(northernBabylonia,Eånunna,Syria,Elam);ortheymayoriginateincontextswherea‘pronunciation’spellingwasrequiredforlearners(e.g.in Hellenistic Ur), sometimes alongside a text in a standard orthography (e.g. at Emar orUgarit).Sometimetheymaybethe resultofignoranceorincompetence. Itcanbeparticularlyproblematicwhen text is preserved only in such a ‘phonetic’ orthography, since it is oftenincomprehensiblewithoutastandardoriginalforcomparison.

2. Sumerian as a spoken and obsolescent language Sumerianwasalivinglanguagewhichbecameobsolescentandfinallyextinctduringtheperiodforwhichwehaveevidence.2Descriptionsofobsolescent languages occur frequently in thelinguisticliterature,mostlyreferringtoactuallinguisticsituationsamongilliteratepeoplesinthelasthundredyears.However, real-life linguistic situations, suchasmightbeobserved today,cannotnecessarilybetransplantedtothe(exclusivelywritten)evidencepreservedfromancientsouthernMesopotamiaoveraperiodofseveralcenturiesintheearlysecondmillenniumBC.

2SomeofthepointsmadeinthissectionarediscussedfurtherinBlack(inpress).

4

Probably 95% of Sumerian language history is anyway inaccessible to us and lostforever, precisely becausewe have only writtenmaterials, and the vastmajority of ancientMesopotamianswereilliterate(ForestimatesofliteracyseenowWilcke2000).Itislikelythatthelinguisticdataatourdisposalisnotadequatetoprovidetheanswertothequestion‘whenSumerian died out’ (see Edzard in press). An answer would only be a guess based oninformationfromother,historical,sources.WhatwedoknowisthatSumerianwaswrittenasaliteraryandadministrativelanguageuntilroughlytheendoftheOldBabylonianDynasty.Wecanobserve,simplyasaphenomenonofhistoricaldata,thatSumerianwasnot(much)usedinadministration after that period, and never again functioned as an official governmentallanguage. We should expect such a situation of obsolescence to be dynamic, having bothsynchronic and diachronic aspects.Languages do not die out overnight: it is a very gradualprocess. Itdoesnothappen inallgeographicalareasofa languageat the same time,or inallsectionsofthepopulation,orinalllinguisticcontextsorenvironments.Languagedeath,whichisafterallaformoflanguagechange,spreadsfromtowntotownandpersontoperson. Leavingasidethetotalandsuddenexterminationofapeople,languagedeathisalwaysaphenomenonof languagecontact,andin thecaseofSumerian,itis fairlyclearthatthemajorlanguageincontactwasAkkadian;wecouldexpectthecontacttohavebegunatleastasearlyasthemiddle of the thirdmillenniumBC.We can guess that theremight be others (includingAmorite,HurrianandElamite).However,notall thechanges inwrittenSumerianseemtobeduetotheinfluenceofotherlanguages. Contractionoftherangeofwrittenregistersforwhichalanguageisusedisalsolikelytobeanindicatorofsuchchange.Wemaybroadlydistinguishvernacularand formalusesofwrittenSumerian.Vernacular or informal usage is reflected occasionally in some letters andsomelegaldocuments(Krecher1993).Aformalregisterisusedforadministrativedocuments,which can be viewed as having their own grammar (see Sallaberger in press).Most otherfunctions use other formal ‘literary’ i.e. aesthetically stylised registers: some (so-called‘literary’)letters,andthebroadmassofliterature,andreligiousritualandmagicalprocedures.Itislikelythatthe‘literary’registersometimesevokestheregisteroforalpoetry.Aformalregisterwhichsometimesevokesthe‘literary’registerisusedinroyalinscriptions. Thevernacularorinformalusagereflectedinsomelettersandlegalrecordshadalreadydisappearedcompletelybyabout the timeofLipit-Eåtar(1934–1924BC).3WrittenSumerianwasnolongerusedforordinaryadministrativedocumentsafteraboutthe1950sBCincentralBabylonia(althoughitpersistedperhapsuntilafter1800BCatUruk).4Fromroughly1800BConwards, the registers of written Sumerian were further restricted to occasional royalinscriptions (which were by then almost invariably published bilingually in Sumerian andAkkadian)5and,inlocalusage,legaldocuments:Sumerianwasstilluseduntilatleastthe1730sasthelanguageoflegalrecordsatNippur,evenifithadbeenabandonedatLagaåsixtyyears

3The latestadministrative letter inSumerian isdated in thereignofLipit-Eåtar,seeSallaberger1996:391fn.8,Michalowski1993no.244=YOS14317.Forconvenience,datesthroughoutthisintroductionaregivenaccordingtothemiddlechronology.4TheEarlyIsincraftarchiveextends toÅu-iliåuyear3.TheNippur textsfrom theearlyIsinPeriodofVanDeMieroop1986areapparentlyinSumerian(datesofÅu-iliåu(1984–1975)andIddin-Dagan(1974–54)).DocumentsfromtheSîn-kΩåidpalaceatUrukseemtobemixedSumerianandAkkadian,somedatedaslatease.g.Irdanene,acontemporaryofRÏm-Sîn(1822–1763),seeBaM24(1993),p.142no.200.5RoyalinscriptionsoftheUrukdynasty(Sîn-kΩåidtoAnam)areallinSumerian;thoseofAmmÏ-œaduqa(1646–1626)includemonolingualSumerianaswellasbilingual.Theremaybeageographicalaspecttothistoo:Sumerianprobablycontinuedtobemoreviableinthesouth.

5

earlier.6However,manyof the survivingcopiesof theextensivewritten traditionof ‘copied’Sumerianliterature,includingreligiousmaterial,probablydatefromthepost-Hammurabiphase.Thelanguagecontinuedtobeusedforofficialdateformulae(inAkkadiandocuments)untiltheveryendoftheOldBabylonianPeriod,c.1600BC.Andofcourseitcontinuedtobetaughtandlearntforthepurposesoftheliteraryandscholarlytraditionforanotheroneandahalfmillennia,untiltheextinctionofcuneiformwriting. Allthesechangestellusabouttheshiftingprestigeofalanguagewrittenbyperhaps5%ofthepopulation;justtorecapitulate,wecaninfernothingfromthisaboutthevernacularuseoftheSumerianspokenbythemassivemajorityofilliteratesotherthanitsgradualdecline.

3. Sumerian as the object of linguistic studySumerianisnotrelatedgeneticallytoanyknownlanguage.Itisanextinctlanguage,whichnoone acquires as theirmother tongue anymore; its transmission amongst contemporaries andfromonegeneration to thenext stopped thousandsofyearsago.Today the languagecanbestudied solely from written sources which were recorded using a mixed logographic-phonographicwritingsystem,andwhichcomefromawidevarietyofcommunicativesituationsandfrommanydifferentperiodsandlocations.Sumerianwasonlyoneofthemainlanguagesusedbyamultilingualsociety,aboutwhosesociolinguisticconditions,however,weknowverylittle.Asavernacular,Sumerianwaseventuallyreplacedbyanotherimportantlanguageoftheregion,Akkadian,whichitselflatergavewaytoAramaic,followedinduecoursebyArabic. Any linguistic study of Sumerianmust be aware of the limitations imposed by thecharacterizationofthepreviousparagraph.Atthemostobviouslevel,itmustbeclearthatonecannotevenhope to recover the fullcomplexityof the language. Itsphonology,morphology,syntax, and usage can be reconstructed only incompletely and to varying extents from theevidenceatourdisposal,howeverextensivethatevidencemaybe.Thecharacterofthelinguisticevidence also determines the type of linguisticmethods that can bemeaningfully applied toSumerian. Accordinglyinthissectiontheeditorsofferanoverviewanddiscussionofthemodernliteratureondiachronicand synchronicvariation inSumerian.This is intended toprovideanintroductorysurvey.First,wereviewsomeproposalswhichconcernthegrammarofSumerianin theperiodbeforeanywrittenevidence is available.The second subsectionaims to giveaselective(andadmittedlyincomplete)surveyofgrammaticalchangeswhichhavebeenidentifiedinthemodernliteratureonthebasisofattestedforms,andattemptsafirstclassificationofthem.Thesectionconcludeswithasurveyofsynchronicvariation.

3.1 Diachronic variation Withindiachronicvariation, ausefuldistinction canbemade between the studyof languagehistoryontheonehand,anditsprehistoryontheother. In the formercaseweareconcernedwithchanges in languagesas theyare reflected inwritten sources; in the latterwithchangeshypothesizedashavingoccurredbeforetheappearanceofsuchevidence.

3.1.1 PrehistoryPointless though the reconstruction of the prehistory of Sumerian might seem at first,nevertheless itcanpotentiallyhaveabearingon someof themain issues in the studyof thehistorical phases of the language. One of these is the question of a Sumerian-Akkadian

6ThelandsalefromNippurdatedSamsu-il„nayear29(1721BC;BE6/264=StoneandOwen1991,no.52)couldbe the latestdocument inSumerian;cf.Schorr1913,no.265(Lagaå,disputeovergarden, inAkkadian:date=Hammurabiyear6).

6

linguisticarea,sincethefullextentoftheinfluenceofAkkadianandSumerianoneachother’sgrammar could only be assessed ifmorewas known about thegrammarof each before theperiodoftheirfirstcontact(seealsobelow). Thetwomainmethodsusedforreconstructinglinguisticprehistoryarethecomparativemethod, and internal reconstruction.The comparativemethod isbased on the comparisonofrelatedlanguages,andthereforebydefinitioncannotbeappliedtotheisolateSumerian.Internalreconstruction isbasedon theprinciple that ‘regularchangeswithina languagewill result insystematicalternationsbetweenforms,andthatexaminationofthesealternationswillallowustorecovertheoriginalstateofaffairs’(Fox1995:147;‘original’herehasthesense‘previous’).Sinceituses internalevidence for reconstructionwithout recoursetocomparativeevidenceofrelatedlanguages,itsapplicationtoSumerianispossibleinprinciple. However,itsuseforthereconstructionofproto-Sumerianisnotwithoutproblemsfortworeasons.First,thequantityandqualityofthelinguisticevidenceareofteninadequateforadescriptionwhichisdetailedandsystematicenoughtocarryoutinternalreconstruction.Second,even if the linguisticevidence exists, the evidencemustbegatheredandpresented in awaywhichallows theconvenientapplicationof themethod,whichdependson recognitionof thepatternedstructuresofalanguage;itcannotworkwithdescriptionswhichrestrictthemselvestothe mere listing of morphemes without the establishment of grammatical patterns and thedistributionsofthosemorphemes. Internalreconstruction‘attemptstoreducesynchronicvariationtoearlierinvariance’(Hock 1991:532), and the assumption that attested variation must derive from earlierinvariancehassometimesbeenreliedoninconstructinghypothesesabouttheprehistoryofSumerian.Considerthefollowingdescription:

‘Theuseof-etodenotemovementtoexternalcontact,alsowithwordsforperson,representsundoubtedlyanoriginalusage.However,sincemovementtoexternalcontactwithpersonwouldusuallytendtoaffecthimalsointernally,i.e.emotionally,-etendedtoyieldto-ra,whichhadthelatterimplication,sothatbyhistorical times -e surviveswithwords forpersonsonly in specialcases—especially aftergenitiveelement.

Interesting is thatwhen,consonantlywith theolderconstruction,adessive -ewas resumedbyanadessive-ni-inafollowingverbalform,laterusagechangedonlythe-eofthefreeformto-ra.The-ni-remainedfrozenasaboundformintheverbandwasnotchangedto-na-’(Jacobsen1983:195).

Heretheassumptionofearlierinvariance resembles themethodof internalreconstruction,butthe reconstruction appears to turn the method upside down: instead of the alternatingconstructions, it starts from the invariant construction that is taken for granted.7 In anotherpaper, Jacobsen presented a theory about the development (‘intrusion’) of the ergativeconjugationpattern(1998a:204–220).Here toohis reconstruction isbasedon theunderlyingassumptionthatinvariancerepresentstheearlierstate.(Onthedevelopmentofergativepattern,seenowalsoCoghillandDeutscher[2002].) An associated problem is represented by etymology. Etymology is ‘the historically verifiablesourcesoftheformationofawordandthedevelopmentofitsmeaning’.8Proposalsfor so-called etymologies of Sumerian words and morphemes are not uncommon in the

7Inparticular,onemaypointoutthefollowingproblemswithJacobsen’sreconstruction:First,theuseof-/e/with‘wordsforperson’,i.e.theassumed‘originalusage’,isattestedonlyfromtheUrIIIPeriodon(seefn.24below).Second, there isnoplausible linguisticexplanationforwhatmakes-/e/‘survive’ in those‘specialcases’, i.e. theenvironmentofthealternationisnotspecified.Third,themechanismofchangewhichreplaced-/e/by-/ra/seemstoinvolvereferencetopsychologicalratherthantolinguisticfactors.Theoppositeview,namelythatitis-/ra/thatisoccasionally replaced by -/e/ from the Ur III Period on, appears to meet with wider acceptance now amongSumerologists(seebelow000).8Concise Oxford Dictionary,9thedn.(1995),ouremphasis.

7

literature, often on the basis of visual similarity of the transliterations. However, withoutprehistoric linguistic evidence and in the absence of comparative evidence from relatedlanguages or detailed historical evidence from successive phases of Sumerian, these mustremain speculationswithoutcredibility.9Their inherent flaw isclearly shownby the fact thattheyarealwaysbasedonword forms andmeaningsalreadyknown tous,and thus takenoaccount of language change. In the vast majority of cases, there is little enough secureinformation about even the history of Sumerian words, let alone their prehistory. For theconnectedproblemoftheidentificationofSumerianwordsthatareallegedlynon-Sumerianintheirorigin,onecannowconsultRubio’s(1999)recentnegativere-assessmentoftheevidence. Descriptions of Sumerian that purport to be synchronic sometimes also rest onassumptionsthatinessenceare‘etymological’.Considerthefollowingstatementaboutthecase-marker-/ra/:

‘FürdieAufnahmedesDativsbeim finitenVerbum fehltdemSumerischeneinbesonderesrichtunganzeigendesElement,sodasseszumErsatzaufdasElement -a-desLokativsoderseltenerdas-e-desLokativ-Terminativszurückgreifenmuss.’10

The reference here is to verbal prefixes (of the type called ‘infix’ inmost descriptions ofSumerian)suchas/na/,/ra/and/ni/,/ri/,whichinvariousconstructionscanbeconstruedwiththecase-marker-/ra/.Falkenstein’saccountisbasedontheassumptionthat/na/and/ra/contain‘dasrichtungsanzeigendeInfixdesLokativs-a-’whichis‘mitderLokativpostposition-abeimNomen identisch’ (Falkenstein 1949:190 and 200), and that /ni/ and /ri/ contain ‘dasrichtungsanzeigende Element des Lokativ-Terminativs der unmittelbaren Nähe -e- > -i-’(Falkenstein 1949:192), which is identical with the locative-terminative suffix -/e/. Thestatementthatnospecialverbalelementcorrespondsto-/ra/isbasedonananalysisoftheverbalelementswhich in its turn restson theassumption that thereexistedamorphological identitybetweennominalcase-markersandelementsoftheverbalprefix-chain.11 Whatisthemethodologyunderlyingthisdescription?Onasynchroniclevel,thereisnoevidence toconnectaprefix like -/na/-,which isalwaysconstruedwithanounphrasecase-marked with -/ra/, with any idea of ‘locativeness’. The analysis of -/na/- as containing a‘locative’element,andtheassumptionmadeinthepassagecitedabove,involvean‘etymology’of theverbalprefixeswhichcannotbe supportedbycomparativeevidenceandconsequentlyendsupasanunverifiablestatementabouttheprehistoryofSumerian.12 Aderivationof-/na/-,forexample,from/n/+/ra/-->/nna/-->/na/wouldseemjustasplausibleandwouldbeequallyunverifiablewithoutfurtherevidence. Linguistictypologystudiesthecross-linguisticpatternsoflanguagestructure.Thestudyofthesepatternsinturnresultsingeneralisationsthatrepresentconstraintsonwhichlanguagetypes are likely to be found in natural languages. Such generalisations can be useful forassessingtheprobabilityofaproposedreconstruction.Forexample,Jagersma(inpress)usesasurveyofattestedsoundandphonemeinventoriesfortestingtheprobabilityofhisphonologicalreconstruction.

9 It isbynomeansaccidental thatalleged‘etymologies’are theprincipalhuntinggroundsof thosewho try toestablishageneticrelationshipbetweenSumerianandotherlanguages;theytrytoanswerquestionswhichcannotbeansweredonthebasisoftheevidenceavailable.10Falkenstein1950:89;italicsareours.11 ‘Die richtungsanzeigendenElemente stimmenmitderKasuspostpositionbeimNomenüberein’ (Falkenstein1949:193–194).12Theenduringideathattheprefix/ba/(or/ma/)isalocativeprefixisbasedonthesame‘etymology’;nosynchronicevidenceseemstosupportit.

8

Anotherapproachwhichuses typology restson theassumptionof twoconsistent(orcanonical) word-order types: adjunct–head (OV) and head–adjunct (VO).13 Rightly orwrongly, some have considered these two types to be themost natural language states, anddeviations from themare tracedback to the influenceof someother language.Starting fromthese premises, bothOberhuber (1983) andHayes (1991) have argued that the possessed–possessorconstructioninSumeriandevelopedundertheinfluenceofAkkadian.Itis,however,fairtosaythattheverybasisofreconstructionsofthiskindhasbeenseriouslyquestionedinthelinguisticliterature,andconcernsaboutthereliabilityofthemethodledComrietostatethat‘thenumberofreservationsthathavetobemademakesitquestionablewhether,todate,anysolidlyreliableresultshavebeenachievedinthisarea’(1989:210).14 Haayer1986discusses thequestionwhether theSOVwordorderofAkkadian is theresultoftheinterferenceofSumerian.Boisson1989studiespossibletypologicalconstraintsontheSumerianphonologicalsystem.Steiner1990providesatypologicalcomparisonofSumerianand Elamite.Woods (in press) discusses the historical development of deictic elements inSumerianfromatypologicalperspective. Sumerian was only one of the two main languages in ancient Mesopotamia, andconsequently the question of linguistic interference between Sumerian and Akkadian hasbecomeamajor issue in thediscussionof theprehistoryaswellas thehistoryofSumerian.Similarities between the two languages have been pointed out on the level of lexicon,phonology,morphologyandsyntax;15 Edzard(1977)hadalreadyintroducedtheconceptofaSumerian–Akkadianlinguisticarea.TherehasbeenapersistentdebatecenteringontheproblemofthedatewhenSumerianceasedtobethenativelanguageofapopulation.Asalreadynotedabove (§2),weconsider this tobealmostcertainlyanunanswerablequestion, if indeed it ispropertoaskitinfirstplace.ThepositiontakenbythevariousparticipantsinthedebateappearsalsotodeterminetheirviewsonthestatusofSumerianduringandafterthesecondhalfofthethirdmillenniumBC.ThosewhoputthedateofSumerian’sdemisesometimeaftertheUrIIIPeriod(Edzard,Streck;Sallabergerinpress)explainthechangesinSumerianintheUrIIIandsubsequent periods as ongoing developments in the linguistic convergence, i.e. mutualborrowing,betweenSumerianandAkkadianwithinalinguisticarea.Bycontrast,thosewhoputthedateearlier(Michalowski;Kienast1982)haveconsideredthechangesmerelyassignsofacontinuous language attrition characteristic of dying languages. Michalowski (in press)discusses theproblemwith reference to theextensive lingusitic literatureon languagecontactand death and provides thereby a perspective which is substantially different from that ofEdzard. ManyofthesimilaritiesbetweenSumerianandAkkadiandescribedintheliteraturearethoughttohaveoccurredbeforetheperiodofusablewrittenrecords.Wehavetospeculateastothemechanismsbywhichtheycameabout.Itistruethatresearchoncontact-inducedlanguagechangeshasshownthatitispossibletodistinguishbetweenthelinguisticeffectsofborrowingandinterferencethroughshift.16 However,ithasalsoshownthattheeffectsofthesetwotypesof linguistic change can be separated only if one has sufficient information about the socialsetting in which the changes took place. In the absence of historical data on social13See,forexample,Comrie1989:86–103,Croft1990:44–63,orCroft1999:96–105onwordordertypologies.14SeeComrie1989:201–226andFox1995:261–265ontheuseoftypologyforlinguisticreconstruction.15SeeFalkenstein1960,Cooper1973:fn.36and38,Edzard1977,Lieberman1977,Pedersén1989,Streck1998;andEdzard2003:173–178;Edzardinpress;Michalowskiinpress.16‘Borrowingistheincorporationofforeignfeaturesintoagroup’snativelanguagebyspeakersofthatlanguage:thenativelanguageismaintainedbutischangedbytheadditionoftheincorporatedfeatures’(ThomasonandKaufman1988:37).Interferencethroughshift‘resultsfromimperfectgrouplearningduringaprocessoflanguageshift.Thatis,inthiskindofinterferenceagroupofspeakersshiftingtoatargetlanguagefailstolearnthetargetlanguage(TL)perfectly.TheerrorsmadebymembersoftheshiftinggroupinspeakingtheTLthenspreadtotheTLasawholewhentheyareimitatedbyoriginalspeakersofthatlanguage’(ibid.:38–39).

9

circumstances,linguisticattitudes,lengthandintensityofcontact,relativenumbersofspeakers,degree of bilingualism etc., the interpretation of the strictly linguistic evidence will alwaysinvolveagreatdealofconjecture.

3.1.2 History Ithasbeennotedabovethatthereisatendencytowriteall-embracinggrammaticaldescriptionsof the whole of Sumerian without taking into account diachronic development. This wasexplainedpartlybythefactthatourevidenceisafinite,exclusivelywritten,corpusofmaterial,and that thedistributionof this isnotalways sufficient toprovidea fullbasis for adetailedgrammatical study of every phase. However, by neglecting the diachronic development ofSumerian,onenotonlyfailstorecogniseanimportantdimensionofthestudyofSumerian,butalso runs the risk of arriving at an incorrect synchronic description.Consider the followingexamples.Examples(a)and(b) show thatSumeriandistinguished twogrammaticalgenders:human vs. non-human. In example (c), however, a human participant is referred to by thepossessiveenclitic17 usedtorefertoanon-humanonein(b),andin(d),thereverseistrue:(a)gu‹-de¤-a-niÑiåba-tuku-am‹([2.1.7]Cyl.A2.20[Lagaå,22ndcent.]])18 ‘His(=Gudea’s)callwasheard’(b)me-bimegal-galme-me-adirig-ga([2.1.7]CylA9.12[Lagaå,22ndcent.]) ‘Its (= theE-ninnu’s) divine powers are the greatest, surpassing all other divine powers’(c)ki-tuånam-diÑir-bi-åe‹tum¤-ma(RÏm-SînI1331[Larsa,1822–]) ‘aresidencebefittinghis (=Ninåubur’s)divinity’(d)an-dul‹daÑal-la-nikurkalam-madul(Warad-Sîn2176[Larsa,1834–])19 ‘its(=Urim’s)broadshadowcoverstheforeigncountriesandtheLand’

Withonlythisandsimilarevidencetodescribetheuseof3rdps.sg.possessiveenclitics,andnoinformationaboutthedateoftheattestations,bydefaultonewouldconsidertheexamplesasbelongingtothe‘same’grammaticalsystem.Onemightconcludethatthechoicebetween-/ani/and -/bi/isdeterminedbyaverycomplicatedanduniquesystemofclassificationofnouns inSumerian which can no longer be recovered. But given the information that there areapproximately300yearsbetween(a)/(b)and(c)/(d),andthatthelatterexamplescomefromaperiodwhen Sumerianwas no longer a vernacular butwas used by peoplewhosemothertongue distinguishedmasculine and feminine genders, onemight conclude that in the 22ndcenturyBCSumeriandistinguishedhumanandnon-humangenders,butthatlaterthissystemdisintegrated as a result of interference fromAkkadian. Few Sumerologistswould disagreestronglywith this seconddescription;butonewouldhave to say that theprinciplesacceptedthereby are not always observed in studieswhich describe or reconstructparts of Sumeriangrammarusing linguisticevidenceasdifferentindate,context,and reliabilityasPre-SargonicroyalinscriptionsandtheMiddleBabyloniangrammaticaltexts. Theexamplewith the3rdps.possessiveencliticscanalso illustrateanother importantpoint, namely, that linguistic evidence itself is not enough to identify linguistic changes.Linguistic changes become perceptible only through the particular interpretations imposed on

17Possessiveencliticreplacesherethemorecommonterm“possessivesuffix”.Forthejustificationofitsuse,seeZólyomi1996:34–36.18LiterarysourcesarecitedherefromtheETCSL<http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/>andidentifiedbytheETCSLcataloguenumber.19ThecityUrimisreferredtobyahumanpronominalencliticalsoinll.73and77,whileitisreferredtobyanon-humanoneinll.72,75,and79.

10

the evidence (see further Lass 1997). The erosion of the gender system in the later OldBabylonian Period can be recognised because one system of gender in Sumerian had beenpreviouslyidentifiedandthecontactwithalanguagewithadifferentgendersystemrecognised.Bythesametoken,onewillbeabletoidentifylinguisticchangesinother,morecomplexandless transparent parts of Sumerian grammar, e.g. in the prefix-chain, only if there existsynchronicdescriptionsthatdojusticetotheirstructureandfunctioning. The remainderof this sectionattempts togiveasurveyof the literatureondiachronicchange attested in historical periods. These are grouped into two categories, grammaticalchanges supposedly induced by contactwithAkkadian (3.1.2.1), and changes in SumerianwherethereisnoapparentAkkadianinfluence(3.1.2.2).

3.1.2.1 Grammatical changes supposedly induced by contact with AkkadianThegrammaticalchangesthathavebeendescribedasinducedbycontactwithAkkadiancanbeclassifiedintoatleastthreetypes:A.Loss of grammatical distinctions found only in Sumerian: changeswhere a grammaticaldistinction of Sumerian is no longermaintained consistently, or is replaced as a result of amismatchbetweenSumerianandAkkadiandistinctions.B.Structural interference:structuralchanges inSumerianunder the influenceofanAkkadiangrammaticalpattern.C.Transferofrule:changeswhereanAkkadianphonologicalruleiscarriedovertoSumerian.

A. The loss of grammatical distinctions found only in Sumerian

GenderAsnoted, theSumerian systemofgrammaticalgender20 wasbasedonadistinctionbetweenhumanandnon-human;whileAkkadian,incommonwithallSemiticlanguages,distinguishedfeminine andmasculine genders. Themixing up of the 3rd ps. sg. human and non-humanpossessive enclitics (-/ani/ and -/bi/) is attested from the early Old Babylonian Periodonwards.21 But the distinction between human and non-human also plays a role in both theverbalaffix systemand thecase systemofSumerian.Thecase-marker -/ra/ functions as thecase-markerofhumannounsinanumberofsyntacticfunctions,incontrasttoeither-/e/or-/a/,whichmarknon-humannounsinthesamesyntacticfunction.(Incausativesoftwo-participantverbs,forexample,thehumancauseeiscase-markedwith-/ra/,andthenon-humanwith-/e/).22 The human case-marker -/ra/ is at times replacedwith non-human -/e/.23 This phenomenonoccursfromtheUrIIIPeriodonwards,24 andisattestedparticularlyoftenafterthegenitivecase-marker-/ak/.In(a)and(b)belowtheparticipantcase-markedwith-/e/functionsasanindirectobject(construedwith /na/ in theprefix-chain),while in(c) it functionsasanobliqueobject(construedwith/ni/intheprefix-chain).Thereisnoobviousexplanationforthisreplacementinphonetic terms,but since -/e/ servesas thenon-humancounterpartof -/ra/ in the functionof

20ThetermgenderisusedhereinabroadersensethanisusualinAssyriology:itreferstoanysystemofnounclasses‘inwhichaclasstowhichanounisassignedisreflectedintheformsthataretakenbyotherelementssyntacticallyrelatedtoit’(Matthews1997:248[s.v.nounclass]).21Falkenstein:1950:23andfn.1;Falkenstein1950a:1272;Kärki1967:203;Römer1969:107;Kienast1982:110;Thomsen1984:72(§103);Attinger1993:172(§108);Römer1999:63andfn.165.22SeeTable2inZólyomiinpressandZólyomi1999:229(Table5).23SeeFalkenstein1950:99and118;Kärki1967:247;Attinger1993:240(§152aR1);Zólyomi1999:25276;Römer1999:fn.222;Zólyomi2000.24 Falkenstein (1950:118) states that thephenomenon is alreadyattested in amanuscriptofan inscriptionofEntemena (= ms. E of Entemena 45–73 in Steible 1982). Sollberger (1956:43, to B5), however, correctsFalkenstein’sreadingfor∂inana-ke›to∂inana-ra¥.AnexampledatedtotheUrIIIperiodisÅulgi2039:1–3∂mes-lam-ta-ed¤-≠a±,lugala¤zid-da,lagaå˚-ke›where

M.isthegodtowhomthethesealisfashioned(l.9:mu-na-dim¤)(textno.followsFrayne1997)

11

indirect and oblique object, it seems reasonable to account for it as an example of genderconfusion.Itisnotablethatnocertainoccurrenceofareplacementof-/e/by-/ra/isknown.(a)∂en-ki-ke›,ki-tuåkugkiaѤ-Ña¤-ni,mu-na-du‹(N„r-Adad511–13[Larsa,1865–]) ‘IhavebuilthisbelovedshiningresidenceforEnki’(b)∂en-ki-ke›∂nin-maæ-emu-na-ni-ib-gi›-gi›([1.1.2]EnkiandNinmaæ56) ‘EnkiansweredNinmaæ’(c)ud-bi-amss.L⁄andM⁄:munus-ra//mss.H⁄andI⁄:munus-earæuå-asa¤nam-ga-mu-ni-ib¤-dug›([1.6.2]TheexploitsofNinurta368) ‘Atthattimehe(=Ninurta)alsoreachedawomanwithcompassion’.

Alsothecase-marker-/ra/issporadicallyreplacedalsoby-/a/fromtheUrIIIPeriodon.25 Thisis attested onlywith participants that function as indirect object (construedwith /na/ in theprefix-chain),andonlyif thecase-markerisprecededbyasingularpossessiveenclitic(-/Ñu/,-/zu/,or-/ani/).Itisnotclearwhetherthistooisaphenomenonofgenderconfusion.Case distinctionsOntheattritionoftheSumeriansystemofcasesexpressinglocalmeaning,e.g.promiscuoususeof-aand-e,seeWilcke(1998,esp.464),andZólyomi(inpress).Thephenomenonisthoughtto be explained by the mismatch between the Sumerian system and the functionallycorrespondingAkkadianstructures. Itisalsopossiblethatthisuncertaintyovertheuseof-aand-eliesbehindtheoccasionalchangeofword-finalgenitivecase-markersto/e/fromtheOldBabylonianPeriodon.26 In(a),Ur-Namma’snameis the rectumofananticipatorygenitive;theexpected formwouldbe ∂ur-∂namma-ka:(a)sipad∂ur-∂namma-ke›ar¤-a-niæuå-am‹([2.4.1.2]Ur-NammaB64) ‘ThefameoftheshepherdUr-Nammaisterrible’

B. Structural interference

Indefinite genitivesOnstructuralandfunctionalgrounds,definiteandindefinitegenitivesmaybedistinguishedinSumerian.27 Theformermarkspossession;thelatterusuallyexpressesasortofattribution.Thestructuraldifferencebetweenthetwocanbeseenbestwhenapossessiveencliticisattachedtothegenitiveconstruction:(a) (b)sipadanåe-ka-ni28 sipadanåe-na=sipadanåe-ak-ani =sipadanåe-ani-akherderdonkey-genitive-his herderdonkey-his-genitive‘hisdonkeyherder’ ‘theherderofhisdonkey’

25SeeRömer1965:255;Kärki1967:247;Attinger1993:172–173(§108R),230(§145R),and248(§157aR);Römer1999:69andfn.218.26SeePoebel1923:137(§§372–373);Sjöberg1961:101;Kärki1967:48–49;Attinger1993:259(§1683°)and214478;Wilcke1998:passim;Römer1999:68210.27For the terms seeZólyomi1996:36–38.The term ‘indefinitegenitive’ ismotivatedby the fact that in theseconstructions therectumdoesnotrefer toanydefinite,existingentity.Klein1983:fn.18uses the term‘internalgenitive’forindefinitegenitive.28GudeaCyl.B10:1(2.1.7).

12

In (a), it is the regens, i.e. theherder, thatbelongs to the referentof thepossessiveenclitic,whilein(b)itistherectum,i.e.thedonkey.Thefunctionaldifferencebetweenthetwotypesofgenitivesisreflectedinthedifferentorderofthegenitivecase-markerandthepossessiveencliticin(a)and(b). Inamuch-debatedexpressioninll.81and99ofGilgameå and Aga(1.8.1.1),theorderofthegenitivecase-markerandthepossessiveencliticisthatofanindefinitegenitive:29 åag›erin¤-na-ka-ni=åagerin-ak-anihearttroops-gen-his

Here Krecher (1986:46) and Wilcke (1998:462–463) plausibly propose to translate theexpressionas if itwereadefinitegenitive: ‘inthemidstofhis troops’.TheysuggestthattheexpressionisformedbycopyingthestructureofitsAkkadianequivalent:ina libbi ummΩnÏåu.Ending as it does with a word in the genitive case followed by a possessive suffix, theAkkadian construction is very similar structurally to a Sumerian indefinite genitive. It isassumedthattheuseofanindefinitegenitiveinapossessivemeaningisduetothemeaningofthestructurallysimilarAkkadianconstruction. Yoshikawa(1992)identifiesagenitiveconstructionwheretheregenstakesasuffix-/e/,comparabletotheAkkadianconstruct.Wilcke(1998:463–465)explainsthereductionofdoublegenitives asdue to the influenceof thecorrespondingAkkadian structure.F.Huber (2001)surveyschangesinthegenitiveconstructionintheroyalcorrespondenceofUr.Causative verbal formsIn the3rdmillennium,Sumerianhadno regular formalisedway of indicating causativity.Acausativeverbalformdifferedfromthecorrespondingnon-causativeformonlyintheincreasednumberofparticipants. Incausativesofone-participantverbalforms thecausee functionedasobjectoftheverb;whileincausativesoftwo-participantverbalformsthecauseefunctionedasthe oblique object andwas construedwith thedirective prefix in the verbal prefix-chain. Incontrast to Sumerian,Akkadian is a languagewith amorphological causative: the causativeverbalform(uåaåkin)isderivationallyrelatedtothenon-causativeverb(iåkun). But by the time of the royal inscriptions from Larsa and Babylon, Sumerian haddevelopedawayofexpressingcausativityverysimilartothatofAkkadian:theverbalelementsearlierusedformallytorefertothecauseeinthecausativesoftwo-participantverbalforms,/b/+ /i/and /n/+ /i/, fused intounanalysablemorphemes, /bi/and /ni/, respectively,andbecamemarkersofcausativityusedbothintransitiveandintransitiveverbalforms:30

∂en-lil¤-le, nam tar-ra-zu, mi-ni-ib-gal (u¤-≠åar±-bi¤) (Samsu-il„na 7 14’–15’ [Babylon,1749]) ‘Enlilhasmadeyourfategreat’.

Verbal government The case-marking of verbal participants in Sumerian is occasionally influenced by thecorrespondingAkkadianconstruction.ThephenomenonisalreadyattestedinthetimeofGudeaandbecomesverycommonintheOldBabylonianPeriod.In(a)below,theobliqueobjectofthecompoundverbsi—sa¤isnotcase-markedwithan-/e/asexpected,butisinsteadinthe

29SeeZólyomi1996:fn.17andWilcke1998:462forearliercommentsontheexpression.30Foramoredetailedargumentandformoreexamples,seesection5.ofZólyomiinpress.

13

absolutivecase,reflectingtheaccusativecaseoftheobjectofthecorrespondingAkkadianverbå„åurum:31 (a)åu-luæsibi¤-sa¤([2.1.7]GudeaCyl.A10.8[Lagaå,22ndcent.]) ‘Iperformcorrectlythehand-washingrites’.In (b) the place of entry is case-marked with -/åe/ instead of the expected -/a/. ThecorrespondingAkkadianverberËbum / å„rubummarks the sameparticipantalwayswith thepreposition ana. The use of this preposition overlapped considerably with the use of theSumerian case-marker -/åe/, and their correspondence was extended by analogy with otherexpressionswhichoriginallyusedacase-markerdifferentfrom-/åe/,butwhichweretranslatedintoAkkadianwithana:32 (b)mualanurudgu-lae¤∂utu-åe‹i-ni-in-kur·-re(Gungunum,yearname8[Larsa,1932]) ‘Year:HebroughtintothehouseofUtuabigcopperstatue’.

Precatives formed with the æamøu constructionConventionally the prefix /æe/- expresses the precativewith the so-calledmarû constructionwhen theverbal form is two-participant, and the æamøu construction is used onlywith one-participant(intransitiveorpassive)verbalforms.33 FromtheOldBabylonianPeriodonwardstheprecativeoftwo-participantverbalformsissporadicallyformedwiththeæamøuconstructionasin(a):34 (a)igizidæe¤-enfl-åi-bar(Warad-Sîn1225[Larsa,1834])35 [expected:æe¤-en-åi-bar-re] ‘Mayhelookatmefavourably’

ThephenomenonislikelytobeduetotheinfluenceoftheAkkadianprecative,whichisformedwiththepreterite.Attinger(1993:293)claimsthat‘lesexemplesnesontfréquentsquedanslestextescomposésaprès l’ép.d’Ur III: inscriptions royales……,hymnes royaux……, textesgrammaticaux’(hisitalics).

C. Transfer of rules

Loss of mimation The-mofAkkadianmimation(-um,-am,-im etc.)graduallydisappearsinword-finalpositionduringthecourseoftheOldBabylonianPeriod.Thesameruleisoccasionallyappliedtothe3rdps. sg form of the Sumerian copula -/am/, resulting in /a/ from theOldBabylonian Periodonwards:36 (a)teå¤[kalam]-≠ma±-kaba-åubub([2.4.1.1]Ur-NammaA45[Nippurversion])37 ‘Ashe,whowasthevigouroftheLand,hadfallen’

Theresulting/a/without/m/canundergothesamechangeasotherword-final/a/morphemesandmightchangeto/e/.

31SeeFalkenstein1950a:123–124;Falkenstein1950:81–82(§103a2);Kärki1967:234–236;Attinger1993:182(§116R2)and228(§143c);Wilcke1998:460fn.9and466(tol.101)formoreexamplesinvolvingcompoundverbs.Forsi—sa¤,seeWilckeinpress.32Forotherphraseswhichshowthesamepatternofchangeseesection4.ofZólyomiinpress.33ThenatureofdeonticandepistemicmodalitiesexpressedinSumerianby/æe/-andotherprefixesisreviewedbyCivilinpress.34Kärki1967:175and319–320;Krecher1969–1970:128;Römer1970:163;Steible1975:15;Attinger1993:293(§191b1¿).35Kärki(1967:175and319)restoresan‘überhangendenVokal’by transliterating theverbalformas“æe¤-en˛(=IN)-åi-bare”inthisandsimilarexamples.36SeeAttinger1993:312(§206a1¿);Wilcke1998:464;Römer1999:127andfn.719.37TheSusams.hashere:teå¤kalam-ma.

14

Local prefixForanattempttoexplainthechangeinthewritingoftheverbalelementcalled‘local’prefix38 asacaseoftransferofrules,seeZólyomi1999:230and2000;forAttinger’sdifferingviews,seeAttinger1999and2000.

3.1.2.2 Changes in Sumerian without apparent Akkadian influence Not all developments in Sumerian can be traced to Akkadian influence. Linguists haverecognisedthatsomeofthechangesincontractinganddyinglanguagesseemtobetheproductofpatternpressureswithin the individual language itself (‘autonomous change’), or evenofmovementawayfromexpanding-languagepatterns(‘divergentchange’).Insomecases,itmayhavebeenSumerianthatinfluencedthelanguageswithwhichitwasincontact,buttheevidencefor this is limited. For example, it has been observed that while in Old Sumeriancomplementation(e.g.indirectspeech)wasexpressedbyparataxis,fromtheperiodofGudeaandtheThirdDynastyofUrSumerianbegantodeveloptheuseofsubordinatedcomplementswith suffixed -a.OldAkkadian similarlyusedparataxiswithoutany finitecomplements,butOldBabylonianbegan todevelopvarious formsofcomplementation.Thedata imply that thephenomenondevelopedearlierinSumerian.However,theinfluenceofSumerianonAkkadianwouldhavetobeonapurelyfunctionallevel,forwhilethegrowthofcomplexconstructionsinSumeriancouldhaveencouragedtheincreaseinsimilarlycomplexconstructionsinAkkadian,inSumerianthestructureisbasedonnominalisation(bymeansofthesuffix-/a/),whereasinAkkadian it developed by so-called ‘bleaching’ of causal-adverbial constructions with kÏma(originally‘how;inwhatmanner’)suchthatitcouldbeusedtomean‘that’:aqbi kÏma…‘Isaidthatetc.’39 Jagersma (in press) argues that earlier the Sumerian phoneme inventory contained aphonemedistinctfromboth/d/and/r/whichsubsequentlymergedwitheither/d/or/r/duringthelaterthirdmillennium.Thereisnoevidencesofarthatthiscanbeattributedtotheinfluenceofasecondlanguage,likelythoughthismayseem. Thereissomeevidencefrompersonalnamesofdiachronicchangeinidioms:compareEarlyDynasticÑa¤-ka-nam-he¤-til‹‘Mayheliveformysake’withlaterUrIIIÑa¤-ke›-eå¤-he¤-til‹,presumablymeaningthesame(seeKrecher1993:193). Krecher(1987:79–81)arguesthatintheoriginalconstructionofthecompoundverbåu— teÑ/tiÑ ‘to receive’, åuwascase-markedwith -/e/and theparticipant ‘received’was in theabsolutivecase.Thisconstructionlaterchangedsothattheparticipant‘received’becamecase-markedwith -/e/and åubecame theobject.Heclaims that thischangeoccurredaspartofawidertendency‘toconstrueasunmarkedverbalcomplementthenounfoundinnearestplacetoverb(=precedingtheverb) ifthisnoun isnotaccompaniedbyanadjectivalorapronominalattribute’(1987:80). A relatively limitednumberof substituteadjectives formedwith -zu ‘knowing’, -tuku‘having’,-du/dug›/di‘doing’andespecially-Ñal¤‘being/having’havebeenidentified.Itislikelythat themeaningof theverbalelement in theseexpressionswasgraduallybleached,and thattheywere in the process ofmoving from productive verb-phrasal constructions to nominalswithgrammaticalisedcliticsusedasadjective-formingmechanismsofrestrictedapplication(seeBlackinpressa).NothingremotelycomparablecanbeidentifiedinAkkadian.

3.2 Synchronic variation

38SeeAttinger1993:240–246(§§153–154)fortheterm.39SeeDeutscher2000.

15

Parallelwith the historical changes just outlined, there are certain indications of synchronicregional variation in Sumerian, as well as of sociolinguistic variation in register. For thesedifferences to qualify as dialectal, they would have to characterise distinct varieties of thelanguage,notmerehandfulsofindividualisoglossesoroccasionalsociolectalalternations. Themost striking is perhaps the exclusively literary register known in Sumerian asEmesal,which appears to have been characterised by a considerable degree of phonologicalalteration and by limited lexical substitution. It is not possible to know atwhat date it firstemerged,butitseemsreasonabletoconcludethatitoriginatedinaformofspokenSumerian.Almostcertainlyoneofitsusagesinthespokenlanguagewasasawomen’sdialect,butatwhathistoricalperiodandinwhatregionsthismayhavebeentrueisnolongerrecoverable,sincebytheearly secondmillenniumBC (theperiod inwhich it is first recorded inwriting) thathadalreadybeensubmergedbyitsspecialisationtocertainreligiousandpoeticgenresandcontexts(which include, but are not restricted to, the literary representation ofwomen’s speech; seeSchretter1990,Black1992,andKrispijninpress). Bauer(1998:435–436)suggestedthattheremighthavebeenaregionaldialectspokeninPre-Sargonic Lagaå (26th cent. BC) which was similar to the Emesal attested in literarymanuscriptsofsevenormorecenturieslater.Hisassumptionisbasedonwritingslikema-al-gainsteadofÑalga,inwhich/Ñ/isreplacedby/m/,whichisoneofthecommoncorrespondencesbetweenEmegir andEmesal. Since these deviations are attestedmainly in place names andpersonalnames,Bauerthoughtthatthemostlikelyexplanationtoaccountfortheirexistenceisthat‘derSchreiberinGirsuschriebz.B.dasFormulareinerUrkundeinderHochsprachebeließaberdieEigennamen in ihrerheimischenLautung’ (1998:436).Butprobably theevidence isreallytoomeagreforsuchaconclusion. Westenholz(1975:8)observedthatincertainPre-SargonicandSargonicadministrativetexts verbal forms with an /a/ prefix should be translated as passives. These verbal formsthereforecorrespondfunctionallytoverbalformswiththe/ba/prefix.Hestates‘thatthea-formswereconfinedtoaCentralBabyloniandialectofSumerian,andthatitsusecorrespondingtoourpassivewasaregionalspecializationintheareaofNippurandAdab.’40 Theagreementofcertainverbalprefixesinrespectofvowelheightwiththevowelofthefollowing syllable(the so-called ‘vowelharmony’of the literature)wasan isoglossdividingcitiesinsouthernBabylonia(Lagaå,Umma,Ur,andUruk,whichexhibittheagreement)fromcitiesfurthernorthinBabylonia(Nippur,Adab,Åuruppag,andIsin)intheEarlyDynasticandearlySargonicPeriods(seePoebel1931,Kramer1936andKrispijninpress).Insubsequentperiodstheagreementdisappeared. Within theEarlyDynasticPeriod,certainvotive inscriptions fromNippur,Adab,andUmmausethecase-marker-/da/insteadofthemorewidespread-/åe/intheexpressionmeaning‘todedicate/giveasagiftfors.o.’slife’.41 Compare(a)with(b):(a)nam-til‹,damdumu-na-daamu-ru(AnNip.33’–4’[Nippur])42 ‘Hededicatedthisobjectforthelifeofhiswifeandchild’(b)nam-til‹,damdumu-na-åe‹,amu-na-ru(AnNip.65–7[Nippur]) ‘He(=thesonofAdda)dedicatedthisobjecttothem(=NinlilandEnlil)forthelifeofhiswifeandchild’.

40SeealsoKrispijninpress,onthedistributionof/a/prefixes.41SeeKrecher1993:192–193.42CitedafterSteible1982.SeealsoGiååakidu(Umma)18–9;Baraæe-NI-du(Adab)11–7;andBehrensandSteible1983:9–10(s.v.a—ru4c)and288(s.v.sag—rig·).

16

Inlaterperiodsonlytheuseof-/åe/isattested.Theterminativefunctionofthemorpheme/da/ascase-markerandverbalprefixappears also tobeattested in some incantations from theFaraPeriod.43 OnthebasisofthisevidenceKrecherhypothesisesthat‘dieterminativischeFunktiondes -/da/ [gehörte] einer älteren Sprachschicht an, zumindestwohl inMittelbabylonien. -/da/wurdedannschoninderfrühdynastischenWeihinschriftendurch-/åe/ersetztdochwohlumderAufhebung derDiskrepanz zwischen traditioneller und gegenwartssprachlicher Formwillen:-/åe/ war (inzwischen) das einzige in der Alltagssprache hier üblicheMorphem’ (Krecher1993:192–193). Waetzoldt(1992)studiedtheverbalformsusedwith3rdps.pl.subjectsintheæamøuconstructioninUrIIIadministrativeandlegaldocumentsandlettersfromLagaåandUmma.Heobserved that, of the alternating forms -/b/-base and -/n/-base-/eå/, the former ismuchmorecommon and the latter is used only exceptionally.He concludes ‘daßwir es bei /b/vor derVerbalwurzelmiteinerumgangssprachlichenFormzutunhaben,währendinderHochspracheundbesondersindenliterarischenTexten/n-V-eå/benutztwurde’(1992:640).

4. The way forward The above rather extensive catalogue of examples should leave no one in any doubt of theexistenceandtheextentbothofchronologicalchangeandofcontemporaneousvariationwithinthe preserved sources of Sumerian, a legitimate and important dimension in study of thelanguage.Sumerologistsprobablynolongerneedremindingthatthecorporatheyworkwitharedifferent in many respects from the corpora compiled by linguists working with livinginformantsoncontemporarylanguages,althoughtherestillremainsatemptationtohandletheSumerian material as if it could be described using a single homogeneous model. It isencouragingthatincreasinglythestudyofSumeriangrammaristreatedaswithinthepurviewoflinguisticsratherthanasameredepartmentofAssyriology,andthatreferencesandexplicatoryexamplesarepresentedfromotherworldlanguages.Inanycaseanextensivelinguisticliteratureexistsona rangeof featuresandconstructions thatmayatfirsthaveappearedexotictothosewhose route has been through the study of Akkadian or other Semitic or Indo-Europeanlanguages.Butthereishardlyasingle featureofSumerianthatistruly ‘unique’,inthesensethatsomethingcomparableisnotattestedinsomeotherworldlanguage. A major problem remains that of statistically valid inference. The juxtaposition ofindividual examples from a personal collection of examples ought not to be consideredsatisfactory unless it is accompanied by proper contextualisation and assessment of thepredictive value of such examples.To document change and variation precisely, there is anevidentneed forquantitative research,drawingoncurrentdevelopments in theextensiveandgrowing discipline of corpus linguistics. A number of electronic corpora are now beingdevelopedforSumerian:theCuneiformDigitalLibraryInitiative(acorpusofthird-millenniummaterials) <http://cdli.ucla.edu/>,now incoprorating theSumerianTextArchiveofUr III andearliermaterial<http://cdli.ucla.edu/Progress/leiden.html>,aswellastheElectronicTextCorpusofSumerianLiterature<http://etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk>.Suchelectronicallysearchablecorporawillfacilitatestudyofthevariationsandchangeingrammaticalpatternsonastatisticallysignificantscale.Withconcordanceandcollocation softwareas research tools, itwillalsobepossible toplotthechangesintheuseofindividuallexemesandidioms.References

43SeeKrebernik1984:43,218–219and310–311;Krebernik1998:260.

17

Attinger, Pascal (1993), Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du⁄⁄/e/di ‘dire’ (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband). Fribourg, Suisse: EditionsUniversitaires/Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

Attinger,Pascal(1999),‘L’infixedirectif/i/,/y/’,N.A.B.U.no.94.Attinger,Pascal(2000),‘L’infixedirectif/i/,/y/,II’,N.A.B.U.no.44.Bauer, Josef (1998), ‘Der vorsargonische Abschnitt dermesopotamischen Geschichte’, in

Bauer,Josefetal.(1998),431–585.Bauer,Josefetal.(1998),Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit(OBO160,

I;Annäherungen,1).Fribourg,Suisse:EditionsUniversitaires/Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

Behrens, Hermann and Horst Steible (1983), Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Freiburger altorientalische Studien, 6). Wiesbaden: Franz SteinerVerlag.

Black,Jeremy(1992),[reviewofSchretter1990],OLz87,382–385.Black, Jeremy (1998), Reading Sumerian Poetry (Athlone Publications in Egyptology and

AncientNearEasternStudies).London:TheAthlonePress.Black, Jeremy (in press), ‘Sprachwandel im Sumerischen’, in J.-W. Maayer und W.

Sommerfeld, ed., 2000 v. Chr. — Politische, wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende (DOG Internationales Kolloquium,Frankfurt/Marburg,April2000).

Black,Jeremy(inpressa),‘SomeSumerianadjectives’,inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).Black, Jeremy— G. Zólyomi, eds. (in press), Workshop on diachronic and synchronic

variations in the phonology, morphology, and syntax of Sumerian. Papers presented at the 6th meeting of the Sumerian Grammar Discussion Group, Oxford, 17th and 18th September 1999(ActaSumerologica,22).

Boisson,C.P. (1989), ‘Contraintes typlogiques sue le système phonologique du sumérien’,Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris84/2,43–95.

Civil,Miguel(1999–2000),‘ReadingGilgameå’,Aula Orientalis17–18,179–189.Civil,Miguel(inpress),‘ModalPrefixes’,inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).Coghill,Eleanor andGuyDeutscher (2002), ‘The origin of ergativity in Sumerian, and the

“inversion” in pronominal agreement: a historical explanation based on Neo-Aramaicparallels’,OrientaliaNS71,267–290.

Cooper,JerroldS.(1973),‘SumerianandAkkadianinSumerandAkkad’,OrientaliaNS42,239–246.

Cooper, J.S. (in press), ‘Rightwriting:Talking about Sumerian orthography and texts’, inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).

Croft, William (1990), Typology and Universals (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).Cambridge,etc.:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Croft,William (1999), ‘ModernSyntacticTypology’, inMasayoshiShibataniandTheodoraBynon, eds., Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford — New York: OxfordUniversityPress,84–144.

Comrie, Bernard (1989), Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.

Deimel,Anton (1924),Åumerische Grammatik der archaistischen Texte.Rome:PontificiumInstitutumBiblicum.

Delitzsch,F.(1914),Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik.Leipzig.Deutscher, Guy (2000), Syntactic Change in Akkadian. The Evolution of Sentential

Complementation.Oxford—NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Edzard,D.O. (1977), ‘Der gegenwartige Stand derAkkadistik (1975) und ihreAufgabe’,

ZDMGSuppl.3,47–54.Edzard,DietzOtto(2003),Sumerian Grammar(HandbookofOrientalStudies,Sect.I,71).

Leiden—Boston:Brill2003.

18

Edzard,DietzOtto(inpress),‘WannistSumerischalsgesprocheneSpracheausgestorben?’,inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).

Falkenstein, Adam (1949), Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagaå, I: Schrift- und Formenlehre(AnalectaOrientalia,28).Roma:PontificiumInstitutumBiblicum.

Falkenstein,Adam(1950),Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagaå, II:Syntax(AnalectaOrientalia,29).Roma:PontificiumInstitutumBiblicum.

Falkenstein,Adam(1950a),‘SumerischereligiöseTexte’ZA49,81–150.Falkenstein,Adam(1964),Das Sumerische,HandbuchderOrientalistik,1.Abt.,2.Band,1.

Abschnitt,Lief.1.Leiden:Brill.Falkenstein, Adam (1960), ‘Kontakte zwischen Sumerern und Akkadern auf Sprachlichem

Gebiet’,Genava8,301–314.Fox, Anthony (1995), Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to Theory and Method

(OxfordTextbooksinLinguistics).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Frayne, Douglas (1997), Ur III Period (2112–2004) (Royal Inscriptions ofMesopotamia.

EarlyPeriods,3,2).Toronto,etc.:UniversityPressofToronto.Gragg,GeneB.(1972),‘ObservationsonGrammaticalVariationsinSumerianLiteraryTexts’,

JAOS92,204–213.Haayer,G. (1986), ‘Languages in contact.The case ofAkkadian and Sumerian’, inH.L.J.

Vanstiphoutetal.,eds.,Scripta Signa Vocis. Studies about Scripts, Scripture, Scribes and Languages in the Near East, presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends.Groningen:EgbertForsten.

Hayes,John(1991),‘SomeThoughtsontheSumerianGenitive’,ASJ13,185–194.Hock, Hans Heinrich (1991), Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin— New York:

MoutondeGruyter.2nd,revisedandupdatededition.Huber,Fabienne(2001),‘LaCorrespondanceRoyaled‘Ur,uncorpusapocryphe’,ZA91,169–

206.Jacobsen,Thorkild(1965),‘AbouttheSumerianVerb’,Assyriological Studies16,71–110.Jacobsen,Thorkild(1983),‘LadintheDesert’,JAOS103,193–200.Jacobsen,Thorkild(1988),‘SumerianGrammarToday’,JAOS108,123–133.Jacobsen,Thorkild(1988a),‘TheSumerianVerbalCore’,ZA78,161–220.Jagersma,Bram(inpress),‘SoundchangeinSumerian:theso-called/dr/-phoneme’,inBlack

andZólyomi,eds.(inpress).Jestin,R.(1943,1946),Le verbe sumérien,2vols.Paris.Jestin,R.(1954),Le verbe sumérien.Complément.Paris.Jestin,R.(1951),Abrégé de grammaire sumérienne.Paris.Kärki,Ilmari(1967),Die Sprache der sumerischen Königsinschrifen der frühaltbabylonischen

Zeit(StudiaOrientalia,35).Helsinki.Kienast,Burkhart(1982),‘IstdasNeusumerischeeinelebendeSprache’,inVorträge gehalten

auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien, 6.–10. Juli 1981(ArchivfürOrientforschung.Beiheft19).Wien,105–111.

Kienast,BurkhartandKonradVolk(1995),Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS,19).Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag.

Klein,Jacob(1983),‘TheCaptureofAggabyGilgameå’,JAOS103,201–204.Klein,Jacob(inpress),‘TheIndependentPronounsintheÅulgihymns’,inBlackandZólyomi,

eds.(inpress).Kramer, S.N. (1936), The Sumerian Prefix Forms be- and bi- in the Time of the Earlier

Princes of Lagaå(AssyriologicalStudies,8).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Krebernik,Manfred (1984),Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla. Untersuchungen zur

ältesten keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur(TexteundStudienzurOrientalistik,2).Hildesheim—Zürich—NewYork:GeorgOlmsVerlag.

Krebernik,Manfred(1998),‘DieTexteausFΩraundTellAb„ŒalΩbÏæ’,inBauer,Josefetal.(1998),237–427.

19

Krecher,Joachim(1969–1970),‘ReviewofKärki1967’,Welt des Orients5,127–129.Krecher,Joachim(1986),‘ThePresentPossibilitiesandLimitationsofOurUnderstandingand

TranslatingSumerianTexts’,Sumer42,44–47.Krecher,Joachim(1987),‘MorphemelessSyntaxinSumerianasSeenontheBackgroundof

Word-CompositioninChukchee’,ASJ9,67–88.Krecher, Joachim (1993), ‘Alltagsformen der sumerischen Sprache?’ inZablocka, Julia and

StefanZawadzki,eds.,Åulmu IV. Everyday Life in Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the International Conference, Poznan, 19–22 September, 1989 (Uniwersytet im.Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Seria historia, 182). Poznan: Adam MickiewiczUniversityPress,189–195.

Krispijn,TheoJ.H.(inpress),‘TheChangeofOfficialSumerianintheCity-StateofLagaå’,ininBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).

Langdon,S.(1911),A Sumerian Grammar and Chrestomathy.Paris:Geuthner.Lass, Roger (1997), Historical Linguistics and Language Change (Cambridge Studies in

Linguistics,81).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Lieberman,StephenJ.(1977),The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Volume

One: Prolegomena and Evidence (Harvard Semitic Studies, 22).Missoula: ScholarsPress.

Matthews,P.H. (1997),The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguitistics (Oxford PaperbackReference).Oxford—NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Michalowski,P.(1993),Letters from Early Mesopotamia.Atlanta.Michalowski,Piotr(inpress),‘TheLifeandDeathoftheSumerianLanguageinComparative

Perspective’inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).Oberhuber,Karl(1983),‘ZurKontaktwirkungderSymbioseSumerisch-AkkadischinSatzbau

und Nominalkomposition’, in Paul Händel andWolfgangMeid, eds., Festschrift für Robert Muth zum 65. Geburtstag am 1. Januar 1981, dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen (InnsbruckerBeiträgezurKulturwissenschaft,22). Innsbruck:AMOE,279–282.

Pedersén,Olof (1989), ‘SomeMorphologicalAspectsofSumerianandAkkadianLinguisticAreas’, inH.Behrensetal.,eds.,DUMU-E¤-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Ãke W. Sjöberg(OccasionalPublicationsof theSamuelNoahKramerFund,11).Philadelphia,429–438.

Poebel, Arno (1923), Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik (Rostocker orientalistischeStudien,1).Rostock:SelbstverlagdesVerfassers.

Poebel,Arno(1931),The Sumerian Prefix Forms e- and i- in the Time of the Earlier Princes of Lagaå(AssyriologicalStudies,2).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Römer, W.H.Ph. (1965), Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit (Documenta etMonumentaOrientisAntiqui,13).Leiden:E.J.Brill.

Römer,W.H.Ph.(1969),‘EinesumerischeHymnemitSelbstlobInannas’,OrientaliaNS38,97–114.

Römer,W.H.Ph.(1999),Die Sumerologie. Einführung in die Forschung und Bibliographie in Auswahl(AOAT262).Münster:Ugarit-Verlag.2nd,revisededition.

Rubio,Gonzalo(1999),‘OntheAlleged“Pre-SumerianSubstratum”’,JCS51,1–16.Sallaberger,W., ‘Zur frühenmesopotamischen Briefliteratur’ [review of Kienast and Volk

1995],OLz91/4(1996),389–407.Sallaberger,Walther(inpress),‘TextformularundSyntaxinsumerischenVerwaltungstexten’,

inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).Schorr,M.(1913),Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden(VAB5).Leipzig.Schretter, Manfred K. (1990), Emesal-Studien. Sprach- und literarurgeschichtliche

Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen (InnsbruckerBeiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Sonderheft, 69). Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts fürSprachwissenschaftderUniversitätInnsbruck.

Sjöberg,ÃkeW.(1961),‘EinsyllabischgeschriebenerUrnammu-Text’,OrSuec10,3-12.

20

Sollberger,Edmond(1952),Le système verbal dans les inscriptions «royales» présargoniques de Lagaå.Geneva.

Sollberger, Edmond (1956), Corpus de inscriptions “royales” présargoniques de Lagaå.Genéve:LibrairieE.Droz.

Steible, Horst (1975), RÏm-Sîn, mein König. Drei kultische Texte aus Ur mit der Schlußdoxologie ∂ri-im-∂sîn lugal-mu(FreiburgeraltorientalischeStudien,1).Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag.

Steible, Horst (1982), Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, I-II (FreiburgeraltorientalischeStudien,5).Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag.

Steiner,Gerd(1990),‘SumerischundElamisch:typologischeParallelen’,ASJ12,143–176.Stone,ElizabethC.andDavid I.Owen(1991),Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the

Archive of Mannum-meåu-liœœur.WinonaLane,Indiana:Eisenbrauns.Streck,MichaelP. (1998), ‘TheTenseSystems in theSumerian-AkkadianLinguisticArea’,

ASJ20,181–199.Thomason,SarahGreyandTerrenceKaufman (1988),Language Contact, Creolization and

Genetic Linguistics.Berkeley,etc.:UniversityofCaliforniaPress..Thomsen,Marie-Louise(1984),The Sumerian Language. An Introduction to Its History and

Grammatical Structure(Mesopotamia,10).Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag.VanDeMieroop,Marc,‘NippurtextsfromtheearlyIsinperiod’,JANES18(1986),31–51.Waetzoldt,Hartmut(1992), ‘ZurBildungdesPluralsbeim sumerischenVerb’, inSusaneR.

Anschütz,ed.,Texte, Sätze, Wörter und Moneme. Festschrift für Klaus Heger zum 65. Geburtstag.Heidelberg:HeidelbergerOrientverlag,635–641.

Westenholz, Aage (1975), Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena (Det Kongelige DanskeVidenskabernesSelskab,Historisk-FilozofiskeSkrifter,7,3).K˜benhavn.

Wilcke,Claus(1990),‘Orthographie,GrammatikundliterarischeForm.BeobachtungenzuderVaseninschriftLugalzaggesis(SAKI152-156)’,inT.Abuschetal.,eds.,Lingering over Words. Studies … W.L. Moran (HarvardSemitic Studies).Atlanta,Georgia:ScholarsPress,488–498.

Wilcke,Claus(1998),‘Zu‘GilgameåundAkka’.ÜberlegungenzurZeitvonEntstehungundNiederschrift,wie auch zumText des Eposmit einemExkurs zurÜberlieferung von‘ÅulgiA’undvon‘Lugalbanda’’,inDietrich,ManfriedandOswaldLoretz,eds.,Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen(AOAT,253).Münster:Ugarit-Verlag,457–486.

Wilcke,Claus (2000),Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien. Überlegungen zur Literalität im Alten Zweistromland (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften,Philosophisch-historischeKlasse, Sitzungsberichte, Jahrgang 2000,Heft 6).München:VerlagderBAW.

Wilcke,Claus (inpress), ‘Theverb si-sa¤:Adiachronic list ofdatableoccurrencesgroupedaccording to the number of participants to the action’, inBlack andZólyomi, eds. (inpress).

Woods,Christopher(inpress),‘Deixis,Person,andCaseinSumerian’,inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).

Yoshikawa, Mamoru (1992), ‘A Sumerian Genitival Construction in Terms of ‘StatusConstructus’’,ASJ14,403–406.

Zólyomi,Gábor(1996),‘GenitiveConstructionsinSumerian’,JCS48,39–45.Zólyomi,Gábor(1999),‘DirectiveInfixandObliqueObjectinSumerian:AnAccountofthe

HistoryoftheirRelationship’,OrientaliaNS68(1999),215–253.Zólyomi,Gábor(2000),‘AboutaFoundDonkeyandthe‘Local’Prefix’,N.A.B.U.no.34.Zólyomi, Gábor (in press), ‘Structural Interference from Akkadian in Old Babylonian

Sumerian’,inBlackandZólyomi,eds.(inpress).