Sumerian Grammar-Society of Biblical Literature

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Sumerian Grammar-Society of Biblical Literature HDO1-71-edzard.qxd 09/04/2003 10:03 Page i SUMERIAN GRAMMAR HDO1-71-edzard.qxd 09/04/2003 10:03 Page ii HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK SECTION ONE THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST EDITED BY H. ALTENMÜLLER · B. HROUDA · B.A. LEVINE · R.S. O’FAHEY K.R. VEENHOF · C.H.M. VERSTEEGH VOLUME SEVENTY-ONE HDO1-71-edzard.qxd 09/04/2003 10:03 Page iii SUMERIAN GRAMMAR BY DIETZ OTTO EDZARD BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003 HDO1-71-edzard.qxd 09/04/2003 10:03 Page iv This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Edzard, Dietz Otto. Sumerian grammar / by Dietz Otto Edzard. p. cm. – (Handbook of Oriental studies. Section 1, Near and Middle East ; v. 71 = Handbuch der Orientalistik) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12608-2 1. Sumerian language–Grammar. I. Title. II. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten ; 71. Bd. PJ4013.E38 2003 499'.955-dc21 2003049567 ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 90 04 12608 2 © Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands EDZARD_f1_v-xviii 4/28/03 2:39 PM Page v v CONTENTS Preface ........................................................................................ xi Abbreviations .............................................................................. xiii C O The Sumerian Language .............................. 1 1.1. General Characteristics .................................................. 1 1.2. The (hopeless) question of the linguistic affiliation of Sumerian ........................................................................ 2 1.3. The linguistic environment of Sumerian .................... 3 C T How we read Sumerian ................................ 7 2.1. General ............................................................................ 7 2.2. Spelling of Sumerian .................................................... 8 2.2.1. Classification of cuneograms .............................. 8 2.2.2. Combination of cuneograms; spelling proper .... 10 2.2.3. Evolution of Sumerian spelling .......................... 10 C T Minimalia of Sumerian phonology and syllabic structure .................................................................... 13 3.1. Phonology ...................................................................... 13 3.1.1. Vowels .................................................................. 13 3.1.2. Consonants .......................................................... 14 3.2. Syllable structure ............................................................ 22 C F The “word” in Sumerian, parts of speech ...................................................................................... 23 4.1. “Word” ............................................................................ 23 4.2. Parts of speech .............................................................. 23 C F Substantives .................................................... 29 5.1. General ............................................................................ 29 5.2. Possession ........................................................................ 29 5.3. Number .......................................................................... 31 5.4. Case ................................................................................ 33 5.4.1. Notes on the phonetic and spelling behaviour of the case particles ............................................ 35 5.4.2. Notes on the individual case particles .............. 35 5.4.2.1. Absolutive .............................................. 35 5.4.2.2. Ergative .................................................. 35 EDZARD_f1_v-xviii 4/28/03 2:39 PM Page vi vi 5.4.2.3. Genitive ................................................ 36 5.4.2.4. Locative ................................................ 39 5.4.2.5. Dative .................................................. 40 5.4.2.6. Comitative ............................................ 40 5.4.2.7. Ablative-instrumental .......................... 41 5.4.2.8. Terminative .......................................... 42 5.4.2.9. Directive .............................................. 43 5.4.2.10. Equative .............................................. 44 5.4.2.11. Recapitulation of the case particles .... 44 C S Adjectives .......................................................... 47 C S Determination, specification: demonstrative particles .................................................................................. 49 7.1. -ne(n) ............................................................................ 49 7.2. -bi .................................................................................. 50 7.3. -e(?) ................................................................................ 50 7.4. -ri(?) .............................................................................. 50 7.5. -“e .................................................................................. 51 7.6. Recapitulation .............................................................. 51 C E Overview of the sequence of particles for possession, number and case ................................................ 53 C N Pronouns ........................................................ 55 9.1. Personal pronouns ........................................................ 55 9.2. Possessive pronouns ...................................................... 56 9.3. Demonstrative pronouns .............................................. 57 9.3.1. ur5 ........................................................................ 57 9.3.2. ne-e(n) ................................................................ 57 9.4. Interrogative pronouns ................................................ 57 9.5. Alleged pronouns .......................................................... 58 C T Numerals .......................................................... 61 10.1. General .......................................................................... 61 10.2. Cardinal numbers ........................................................ 61 10.3. Ordinal numbers .......................................................... 66 10.4. Fraction and measure terminology ............................ 67 10.5. Distributional relations of numbers ............................ 67 C E Adverbs ...................................................... 69 EDZARD_f1_v-xviii 4/28/03 2:39 PM Page vii vii C T The verb .................................................. 71 12.1. Preliminaries .............................................................. 71 12.2. ¢am†u and marû .......................................................... 73 12.3. Plural verbs ................................................................ 74 12.4. Verbal base ¢am†u/marû/sg./pl. grids ...................... 74 12.5. Sorts of plurality (¢am†u reduplication) .................... 79 12.6. Note on verbal reduplication .................................... 80 12.7. Conjugation ................................................................ 81 12.7.1. Conjugation pattern 1: Intransitive (and passive) ................................................ 81 12.7.1.1. The verb me .............................. 82 12.7.2. Conjugation pattern 2a: Transitive .......... 83 12.7.3. Conjugation pattern 2b: Transitive .......... 87 12.7.4. Prefixless finite verbal forms ...................... 90 12.7.5. Was Sumerian a language with “split ergativity”? .................................................. 90 12.8. Dimensional indicators .............................................. 92 12.8.1: 1–26. Non-ventive indicators ...................... 94 12.8.2: 27–62. Ventive indicators .......................... 103 12.8.3. Dimensional indicators without reference to a person? ................................................ 109 12.9. Prefixed indicator [e, i] ............................................ 109 12.10. Prefixed indicator [a(1)] ............................................ 111 12.11–12. Modal and connecting indicators ........ 112 12.11. Modal indicators ........................................................ 113 12.11.1. Indicative .................................................... 113 12.11.2. Negative indicative .................................... 113 12.11.2.1. Suffixed -nu ............................ 114 12.11.2.2. [nu] as a separate verbal base 115 12.11.3. Cohortative ................................................ 115 12.11.4. Negative cohortative .................................. 116 12.11.5. Precative .................................................... 116 12.11.6. Vetitive (negative precative) ...................... 117 12.11.7. Affirmative 1 .............................................. 117 12.11.8. Negative affirmative .................................. 118 12.11.9. Prohibitive .................................................. 118 12.11.10. Affirmative 2 .............................................. 119 12.11.11. Affirmative 3 .............................................. 120 12.11.12. Frustrative
Recommended publications
  • Transparency in Language a Typological Study
    Transparency in language A typological study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration © 2011: Sanne Leufkens – image from the performance ‘Celebration’ ISBN: 978-94-6093-162-8 NUR 616 Copyright © 2015: Sterre Leufkens. All rights reserved. Transparency in language A typological study ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 23 januari 2015, te 10.00 uur door Sterre Cécile Leufkens geboren te Delft Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Hengeveld Copromotor: Dr. N.S.H. Smith Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Dr. J. Audring Prof. dr. Ö. Dahl Prof. dr. M.E. Keizer Prof. dr. F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen i Acknowledgments When I speak about my PhD project, it appears to cover a time-span of four years, in which I performed a number of actions that resulted in this book. In fact, the limits of the project are not so clear. It started when I first heard about linguistics, and it will end when we all stop thinking about transparency, which hopefully will not be the case any time soon. Moreover, even though I might have spent most time and effort to ‘complete’ this project, it is definitely not just my work. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly, by thinking about transparency, or thinking about me.
    [Show full text]
  • Equative Constructions in World-Wide Perspective
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ZENODO 1 Equative constructions in world-wide perspective Martin Haspelmath & the Leipzig Equative Constructions Team1 Abstract: In this paper, we report on a world-wide study of equative constructions (‘A is as big as B’) in a convenience sample of 119 languages. From earlier work, it has been known that European languages often have equative constructions based on adverbial relative pronouns that otherwise express degree or manner (‘how’, ‘as’), but we find that this type is rare outside Europe. We divide the constructions that we found into six primary types, four of which have closely corresponding types of comparative constructions (‘A is bigger than B’). An equative construction often consists of five components: a comparee (‘A’), a degree-marker (‘as’), a parameter (‘is big’), a standard-marker (‘as’), and a standard (‘B’). Most frequently, the parameter is the main predicate and the equative sense is expressed by a special standard-marker. But many languages also have a degree-marker, so that we get a construction of the English and French type. Another possibility is for the equality sense to be expressed by a transitive ‘equal’ (or ‘reach’) verb, which may be the main predicate or a secondary predicate. And finally, since the equative construction is semantically symmetrical, it is also possible to “unify” the parameter and the standard in the subject position (‘A and B are equally tall’, or ‘A and B are equal in height’). But no language has only a degree-marker, leaving the standard unmarked.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Sumerian Grammar
    INTRODUCTION TO SUMERIAN GRAMMAR DANIEL A FOXVOG LECTURER IN ASSYRIOLOGY (RETIRED) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY Revised September 2008 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 THE SUMERIAN WRITING SYSTEM 4 TABLE OF SYLLABIC SIGN VALUES 16 PHONOLOGY 18 NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES 23 THE NOMINAL CHAIN 28 PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES 31 SUMMARY OF PERSONAL PRONOUN FORMS 38 THE ADNOMINAL CASES: GENITIVE AND EQUATIVE 39 THE COPULA 46 ADVERBS AND NUMERALS 51 THE ADVERBAL CASES 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE VERB 61 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 1: INTRODUCTION 69 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 2: DATIVE 73 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 3: COMITATIVE, ABLATIVE-INSTRUMENTAL, TERMINATIVE 78 CORE PREFIXES: ERGATIVE, LOCATIVE-TERMINATIVE, LOCATIVE 83 THE VENTIVE ELEMENT 90 RELATIVE CLAUSES: THE NOMINALIZING SUFFIX -a 95 PREFORMATIVES (MODAL PREFIXES) 102 THE IMPERATIVE 109 IMPERFECTIVE FINITE VERBS 117 PARTICIPLES AND THE INFINITIVE 127 APPENDIX: CHART OF VERBAL PREFIX CHAIN ELEMENTS 150 INDEX 151 EXERCISES 152 2 INTRODUCTION Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem William of Ockham This grammar is intended primarily for use in the first year of university study under the guidance of a teacher who can describe the classic problems in greater detail, add current alternative explanations for phenomena, help the student parse and understand the many textual illustrations found throughout, and provide supplementary information about the history of the language and the culture of early Mesopotamia. A few exercises have been provided to accompany study of the lessons, some artificial, others drawn from actual texts. Both require vocabulary lookup from the companion Elementary Sumerian Glossary or its equivalent. Upon completing this introduction, the student will be well prepared to progress to sign learning and reading of texts.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Sumerian Grammar”
    Cuneiform Digital Library Preprints <http://cdli.ucla.edu/?q=cuneiform-digital-library-preprints> Hosted by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (<http://cdli.ucla.edu>) Editor: Bertrand Lafont (CNRS, Nanterre) Number 2 Title: “Introduction to Sumerian Grammar” Author: Daniel A. Foxvog Posted to web: 4 January 2016 INTRODUCTION TO SUMERIAN GRAMMAR DANIEL A FOXVOG LECTURER IN ASSYRIOLOGY (RETIRED) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY Revised January 2016 CONTENTS PREFACE 4 THE SUMERIAN WRITING SYSTEM 5 PHONOLOGY 17 NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES 22 THE NOMINAL CHAIN 27 PRONOUNS AND DEMONSTRATIVES 30 SUMMARY OF PERSONAL PRONOUN FORMS 37 THE ADNOMINAL CASES: GENITIVE AND EQUATIVE 38 THE COPULA 44 ADVERBS AND NUMERALS 49 THE ADVERBAL CASES 53 INTRODUCTION TO THE VERB 60 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 1: INTRODUCTION 68 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 2: DATIVE 73 DIMENSIONAL PREFIXES 3: COMITATIVE, ABLATIVE-INSTRUMENTAL, TERMINATIVE 78 CORE PREFIXES: ERGATIVE, LOCATIVE-TERMINATIVE, LOCATIVE 84 THE VENTIVE ELEMENT 91 RELATIVE CLAUSES: THE NOMINALIZING SUFFIX -a 97 PREFORMATIVES (MODAL PREFIXES) 104 THE IMPERATIVE 111 IMPERFECTIVE FINITE VERBS 119 PARTICIPLES AND THE INFINITIVE 130 APPENDIX 1: CHART OF VERBAL PREFIX CHAIN ELEMENTS 155 TABLE OF SYLLABIC SIGN VALUES 156 APPENDIX 2: THE EMESAL DIALECT 158 INDEX 159 EXERCISES 161 3 PREFACE Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem William of Ockham This grammar is intended primarily for use in the first year of university study under the guidance of a teacher who can describe the classic problems in greater detail, add current alternative explanations for phenomena, help the student parse and understand the many textual illustrations found throughout, and provide supplementary information about the history of the language and the culture of early Mesopotamia.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Case in Ossetic*
    Iran and the Caucasus 14 (2010) 287-322 Evolution of Case in Ossetic * Oleg Belyaev Moscow State University Abstract Ossetic sets itself apart from the other New Iranian languages by having a relatively elaborate system of nine cases. Since most of them are relatively late innovations, and only four cases (Nom., Gen, Abl., and Iness.) can be traced back to Proto-Iranian, many scholars tend to ascribe the development of the case system to Caucasian in- fluence. The exact nature of this influence, however, has never been demonstrated. The aim of this paper is, first, to not only reconstruct the etymologies of Ossetic cases, but also to provide a chronology of how the case system developed. The sec- ond aim pursued here is to give a systematic comparison of the case system of Os- setic with those of the neighbouring languages and to determine if there is any ex- ternal influence on the case system and, if so, what languages this influence came from. I conclude that Ossetic developed from a case system identical to those of Khotanese and Sogdian towards the present state under the influence of contact with Georgian and, later, with Turkic and Vaynakh languages. In the process of the discussion, I also argue that two new cases, the Directive and Regressive, are under- going grammaticalisation in contemporary Ossetic. Keywords Ossetic, North-East Iranian languages, Georgian, Vaynakh Languages, Case, Internal Reconstruction, Language Contact, Areal Linguistics §1. INTRODUCTION Compared to other modern Eastern Iranian languages, which usually have case inventories ranging from two to four cases, Ossetic has a strikingly elaborate system of nine cases (eight in Digor).
    [Show full text]
  • Unimorph Schema)
    The Composition and Use of the Universal Morphological Feature Schema (UniMorph Schema) John Sylak-Glassman Center for Language and Speech Processing Johns Hopkins University [email protected] June 2, 2016 c John Sylak-Glassman ** Working Draft, v. 2 ** Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Overview 4 3 Construction Methodology 5 3.1 Guiding Principles . .5 3.2 Constructing the Schema . .6 4 Annotation Formatting Guidelines 7 5 Dimensions of Meaning and Features 8 5.1 Aktionsart . .8 5.2 Animacy . 10 5.3 Argument Marking . 12 5.4 Aspect . 13 5.5 Case . 15 5.5.1 Core Case . 15 5.5.2 Non-Core, Non-Local Case . 16 5.5.3 Local Case . 18 5.6 Comparison . 20 5.7 Definiteness . 21 5.8 Deixis . 22 5.8.1 Distance . 22 5.8.2 Reference Point . 22 5.8.3 Visibility . 23 5.8.4 Verticality . 23 5.8.5 Summary . 24 1 5.9 Evidentiality . 24 5.10 Finiteness . 26 5.11 Gender and Noun Class . 27 5.12 Information Structure . 28 5.13 Interrogativity . 29 5.14 Language-Specific Features . 29 5.15Mood ............................................ 30 5.16 Number . 34 5.17 Part of Speech . 36 5.18 Person . 40 5.19 Polarity . 42 5.20 Politeness . 42 5.20.1 Speaker-Referent Axis . 43 5.20.2 Speaker-Addressee Axis . 44 5.20.3 Speaker-Bystander Axis . 44 5.20.4 Speaker-Setting Axis . 45 5.20.5 Politeness Features . 45 5.21 Possession . 46 5.22 Switch-Reference . 49 5.23 Tense . 53 5.24 Valency . 55 5.25 Voice .
    [Show full text]
  • Creole Genesis and Universality: Case, Word Order, and Agreement Gerald Taylor Snow Brigham Young University
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Theses and Dissertations 2017-03-01 Creole Genesis and Universality: Case, Word Order, and Agreement Gerald Taylor Snow Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Linguistics Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Snow, Gerald Taylor, "Creole Genesis and Universality: Case, Word Order, and Agreement" (2017). All Theses and Dissertations. 6338. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6338 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creole Genesis and Universality: Case, Word Order, and Agreement Gerald Taylor Snow A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Deryle W. Lonsdale, Chair Dallin D. Oaks Heather Willson-Sturman Department of Linguistics and English Language Brigham Young University Copyright © 2017 Gerald Taylor Snow All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Creole Genesis and Universality: Case, Word Order, and Agreement Gerald Taylor Snow Department of Linguistics and English Language, BYU Master of Arts The genesis of creole languages is important to the field of linguistics for at least two reasons. As newly emerging languages, creoles provide a unique window on the human language faculty and on the development of language generally (Veenstra 2008). They also offer insight into what are arguably universal linguistic structures. Two opposing theories have been in contention in the literature with respect to creole genesis: (1) that creoles owe their origin to the lexifier and substrate languages of their speech community and to other environmental influences (McWhorter 1997); and alternatively, (2) that universal innate linguistic structures or principles are the generative source of creole grammar (Bickerton 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Common Declensions and Cases
    COMMON DECLENSIONS AND CASES: Modern English is an analytic language. It primarily makes meaning by word order. To show that a word is in the nominative case, (i.e., the word functions as the subject of a clause), modern English speakers put that word in front of the verb. To show that a word is in the accusative case (functioning as a direct objective), modern English speakers put that word after the verb. For instance, The teacher (nominative) graded the tests (accusative/direct object). Word order thus becomes very important in analytic languages. It makes no sense in modern English to write, "The tests graded the teacher." However, Anglo-Saxon (Old English), Latin, Greek, and many other languages are or were synthetic. These languages require that the case or function of each word be visibly marked through inflections or declensions. An inflection, generally speaking, is any change in a word--whether that word is a noun, adjective, verb, adverb, or whatnot. A noun might inflect to show a singular or plural meaning, for instance. Inflections in verbs fall into patterns called conjugations. When you conjugate a verb, you show all its inflections for a particular tense and mood, for instance. Declensions are inflections to words that show what their case is. (The term case simply means what part of speech a word and its modifiers are in--for instance, subject, object, etc.). NB: You always conjugate verbs. You always decline nouns and their modifiers. Grammarians will make fun of you if you talk about "conjugating nouns" or "declining verbs." In synthetic languages, word order does not matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Functive Phrases in Typological and Diachronic Perspective
    John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Studies in Language 38:3 © 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicy For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Functive phrases in typological and diachronic perspective Denis Creissels University of Lyon This paper is concerned with a particular semantic type of noun phrases in secondary predicate function, illustrated by as a negotiator in He was sent as a negotiator. It explores the cross-linguistic regularities in the polysemy patterns characteristic of the markers and constructions having the expression of this meaning as one of their possible uses, and discusses the grammaticalization paths in which they are involved. Keywords: functive, essive, grammaticalization, secondary predicate, polysemy 1. Introduction The combination of a noun phrase or adposition phrase with a verb is not always designed to express a participant in an event encoded by the verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Constructions: an Introduction
    Comparative Constructions: An Introduction Yvonne Treis CNRS-LLACAN 1. Preliminaries Comparison is a mental act by which two or more items are examined in order to assess similarities and differences between them. The comparison can be made with regard to a certain gradable, one- dimensional property, and the items are then assigned a position on a predicative scale. This mental act of comparison finds its linguistic encoding in comparison constructions, especially comparative constructions for the expression of comparison of inequality or equative constructions for the expression of comparison of equality. The assessment that is made with regard to a multi- faceted notion (e.g. manner) finds its linguistic correlate in similative constructions. The linguistic literature has especially been concerned with comparison of inequality and comparative constructions, such as the English sentences in (1). (1) Mary is tall -er than Peter Comparee Parameter Parameter/Degree Marker Standard Marker Standard Mary is more intelligent than Peter Comparee Parameter/Degree Marker Parameter Standard Marker Standard Comparative constructions are also the focus of this special issue, which evolved out of a two-day workshop titled “Comparative and Superlative Constructions: Typology and Diachrony” convened on 16-17 June 2015 at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and organised by Lourens de Vries (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Katarzyna I. Wojtylak (James Cook University). The workshop aimed at taking a look at comparative constructions from a different angle – namely from the perspective of field linguistics. When attempting to analyse comparative constructions in a little- known minority language, a fieldworker who has built up a multi-purpose corpus for a grammatical description of a language may, firstly, be confronted with difficulties in finding correlates to comparative constructions in other languages – often because the languages does not have dedicated, grammaticaliZed constructions for the expression of comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sumerian Equative Case∗ Szilvia Sövegjártó
    The Odd Yearbook (): –, ISSN - The Sumerian Equative Case∗ Szilvia Sövegjártó 1 INTRODUCTION Sumerian was spoken in ancient Mesopotamia up to the beginning of the nd millennium BC, but its written tradition lasted much longer: even in the second half of the first millennium we find texts written in Sumerian. As Sumerian is an isolated language, the reconstruction of its grammatical system as well as the interpretation of the written records is not a straightfor- ward process. Sumerian is an agglutinative language with a rich case system: eleven distinct case markers can be identified on the basis of the texts avail- able. The present paper focuses on the different uses and the semantics of one of these cases, the equative. Blake proposes a broader definition for the term case as ‘a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads. Traditionally the term refers to inflectional marking, and, typically, case marks the relationship of a noun to a verb at the clause level or of a noun to a preposition, postposition or another noun at the phrase level.’ (Blake : ) This broader interpretation is necessary if one wants to analyze the Sumerian equative as a case marker, as it is not an inflection but an enclitic. In the linguistic literature, the equative case, sometimes also called sim- ilative, is claimed to express similarity with something as a rule (Haspelmath : ). A closely related category is the comparative case, which marks the standard of comparison in constructions expressing inequality (Haspel- math : ). The essive case is also worth mentioning here: it refers to a temporary state of being (Crystal : ), and often has predicative func- tion as well (Haspelmath : ).
    [Show full text]
  • A Grammatical Sketch of Even in This Paper I Would Like to Give a Concise
    Onur Mutlu A Grammatical Sketch of Even In this paper I would like to give a concise description of Even grammar, which is the native language of a minor ethnic group in Russia known as Evens or Lamuts. Even is spoken in Yakutia and the Kamchatka Peninsula, which ar e in the northeastern part of Russia and Siberia. It is the mother tongue of 43.8% of the Evens, whose total population was 17,055 in 1989 (Malchukov, p.3). Therefore Even had a total of 7470 mother -tongue speakers in 1989. The majority of Evens are bilin gual. They speak Russian and Even. They use Even especially in family life. Even is a written language. In the early 1930s Even’s writing system was based on the Latin alphabet, but in 1937 it was changed to the Cyrillic alphabet. In 1958, some special letters were added to the Even alphabet (Malchukov p.4). Even belongs to the Tungusic language family which is under the Altaic phylum of Ural-Altaic languages. Tungusic is divided into two subfamilies in itself: North and South Tungusic. Even is a North Tu ngusic language, whose closest relatives are Evenki and Negidal (Please see Figure 1 for a family tree). Being a Ural -Altaic language, Even displays many of the characteristics other languages of this phylum have such as agglutination, SOV word order, vowe l harmony, a complex case system, and postpositions. We’ll explore these in the later parts of the paper, but first start with the phonology of Even. 1. Even Phonology a.
    [Show full text]