Paratactic relative clauses in Sumerian

G. Zólyomi(1)

Show more

Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Department of Assyriology and Hebrew Studies
Email: zolyomi.gabor@btk.elte.hu

Cite as: Zólyomi, G. 2020: Paratactic relative clauses in Sumerian. Hungarian Assyriological Review 1: 9–20.

DOI: https://doi.org/har01a01

Open Access

Abstract

Using the interpretation and analysis of the passage Ur-Namma 28 1:10-13 as starting point, this paper argues that copular clauses in Sumerian may function as paratactic relative clauses in biclausal constructions. It also demonstrates that the choice that which participant of the copular clause will function as head is determined not by the syntactic but by the pragmatic function of the participants. In the concluding part, the paper contends that the grammatical construction used in the frequently discussed passage E-ana-tum 5 5:10–17 is the same as that of Ur-Namma 28 1:10-13. It shows that the oddity of the E-ana-tum passage is due to the phenomenon that the name E-ana-tum is used once as an expression referring to a person, the ruler of Lagaš, and once as an expression referring to his name.

Keywords: Sumerian grammar, copular clauses, left-dislocation, paratactic relative clauses, royal inscriptions

Copyright and acknowledgements

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data availability. The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Disclosure statement. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding statement. The author received no financial support for the research and the publication of this article.

References

Deutscher, G. 2000: Syntactic Change in Akkadian. The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford.

Edzard, D. O. 1997: Gudea and His Dynasty. (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3, I) Toronto. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442675551

Falkenstein, A. 1950: Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagaš. II: Syntax. (Analecta Orientalia 29) Roma.

Frayne, D. 1997: Ur III Period (2112–2004). (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3, II) Toronto. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442657069

Frayne, D. 2007: Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 1) Toronto. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442688865

Horowitz, W. 1998: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. (Cuneiform Monographs 8). Winona Lake.

Jacobsen, T. 1960: The Waters of Ur. Iraq 22, 174–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/4199683

Jagersma, A. H. 2010: A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. PhD Dissertation, Universiteit Leiden.

Karahashi, F. 2008: Sumerian enclitic -ŕm and Akkadian enclitic -ma: From copula to focus marker. In: Biggs, R. D. et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62) Chicago, 85–91.

Kuteva, T. – Comrie, B. 2005: The typology of relative clause formation in African languages. In: Voeltz, F. K. E. (ed.): Studies in African Linguistic Typology. (Typological Studies in Language 64) Amsterdam, 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.64.12kut

Marchesi, G. 2006: Lumma in the Onomasticon and Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia. (History of the Ancient Near East. Studies 10) Padova.

Rey, S. – Husain, F. – Lecompte, C. 2016: Tello/Girsu. Preliminary Report of the April 2015 Reconnaissance. Sumer 62, 9–35.

Steible, H. 1991: Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, I-II. (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 9) Stuttgart.

Thomsen, M.-L. 1984: The Sumerian Language. An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. (Mesopotamia 10) Copenhagen.

Woods, C. 2008: The Grammar of Perspective. The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice. (Cuneiform Monographs 32). Leiden – Boston.

Zólyomi, G. 2010: On G. Marchesi’s Understanding of Eanatum 5 v 9-17. Cuneiform Digital Library Notes 2010:2. [https://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdln/php/single.php?id=10]

Zólyomi, G. 2014: Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. Warsaw — Berlin. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110401707

Zólyomi, G. 2015: Csatornák, nevek és kopulás vonatkozói mellékmondatok a sumerben. In: Bács, T. et al. (eds.): Aegyptiaca et Assyriaca. Tanulmányok az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Ókortudományi Intézetéből. (Antiqua et Orientalia 5) Budapest, 245–254.

Zólyomi, G. 2017: An Introduction to the Grammar of Sumerian. With the collaboration of Sz. Jáka-Sövegjártó and M. Hagymássy. Budapest.