Total Pageviews

Welcome to Sumerian new Grammar

This article is a new grammer of Sumerian.

Sunday, September 18, 2016




Suggestions and opinions of the most famous Sumerologists.

Here , I would like to show , consensus(of opinions) and difference of opinions of the most famous Sumerologists about Sumerian grammar . For this aim, I have chosen four wellknown books about " The Sumerian grammar" , and I have introduced those hereunder at abbreviations:


1- H.J.L MSG = Hayes.John.Lewis “ A manual Sumerian Grammer and Texts Aid…1990 Undena.

2-D.O.E SG= Edzard .Dietz .Otto. “Sumerian Grammar”2003 BrillLeiden.

3-P.A GSG = Poebel.Arno “ Grundzüge Sumerischen Der Grammatik “ 1923

4-P.A SP= Poebel.Arno “ The Sumerian Prafix forms E- and I- in Time of Earlier Princes of The Lagash” 1931 by The University of ChcagoIllinois.


H.J.L MSG p.1 .Introdation. about difficulties in studying Sumerian language and grammar. He said:” Sumerian is not well understood as is Akkadian; a number of features in the morphology and in the syntax are not clear. Although there has been considerable linguistic progress in the last two decades, enough still remain unsure so that scholars often have widely divergent views about Sumerian. Some of the reasons for these difficulties are summarized here; they will be discussed in more detail in the course of this book.

(1) Sumerian is not genetically related to any other known language, living or dead. By contrast, it was discovered early-on that Akkadian was a Semitic language. This genetic relationship aided early scholars in their reconstruction of Akkadian grammar and vocabulary. But in the case of Sumerian, there is no such help available.

(2) The writing system of Sumerian only imperfectly mirrors the spoken language; it does not indicate all the grammatical features which are known to have existed in the spoken language. This schematic nature of the script makes it very difficult to reconstruct the morphology.

(3) There are many instances of sentences which seem to differ only slightly in their morphology or syntax. But with no comparative evidence, and with no native speakers to turn to, it is difficult to determine what these differences in morphology and syntax may mean. There are undoubtedly many nuances of meaning which cannot be determined at all.

It has been remarked by Igor Diakonoff, “ It is a joke well known among Assyriologists that there are as many Sumerian language as there are Sumerologists” (1976:99). Similarly, Thorkild Jacobsen has recently said : knowledge of Sumerian is still in a rudimentary, experimental stage where scholars differ on essential points, so that translations, even by highly competent scholars, may diverge so much that one would never guess that they rendered the same text. … Scholar have not yet been able to agree on basic grammar and its restrain(1987;xv)”.

He has been continued on p18, on the subject of Problem of Sumerian phonology, and then he says:” it is not easy to reconstruct the phonological system of Sumerian, or the precise pronunciation of any of its sounds. …there is no comparative evidence to provide help. Moreover, most of the evidence for Sumerian phonology has been filtered through the Akkadian phonological system; Sumerian phonology is seen through Akkadian eyes. For instance, it is quite likely that the word for “son” in Sumerian was pronounced/domu/,with an initial /o/ quality vowel. But Akkadian does not have an /o/- quality vowel, and hence no /o/-sign, and so word is spelled out in syllabic Akkadian as: du-mu. if there were only Akkadian evidence, it might never be known that Sumerian had an /o/-quality vowel. Thus, the Sumerian of the Ur III period( 2112-2004 BC) is actually based on Akkadian of the Old Babylonian period (1894-1595 BC), and later. ( Similarly, much knowledge of Sumerian grammar derives from the interpretations given to it by Akkadian-speaking scribes and scholars; ..). Likewise, very little is known about the historical development of Sumerian phonology. … Without the evidence of lexical lists, it is quite difficult to fix the value of s logogram. … The upshot of this is that Sumerian probably possessed sounds which Akkadian did not.”.

p.26 :”… Oftn, reference ( Sumerian words) is made to Akkadian words which were borrowed from these Sumerian words. This practice is open to methodological criticism, since Akkadian is not Sumerian, and there is no reason to assume that Sumerian words always kept exacttly the same meaning when placed into an Akkadian context. But since normally much more is known about the Akkadian term than about the Sumerian term, it is useful to examine the Akkadian equivalents.

Again , I would like to say: In that book and many or all such like writings, many signs or words of Sumerian by Sumerologists have been changing. I think those works are incorrect , and Sumerian scribes have been writing right. for example : : domu,/ng = η in some words are incorrects /, ke4,e2, i3, am3, and Sumerian:domo,/ng in a few words like : dug4,sig4 ../, lil2, ka,NI,a-an are corrects.

H.J.L MSG. p.19. He says:”. …Thus,virtually all transliterations of Sumerian will use the value dumu for “son”,even though this is one of the clearest cases where an/o/-quality value can be postulated for Sumerian.

H.J.L MSG .p .19-20. :” Similarly,it is sure that Sumerian had a velar /η/ , which did not exist in Akkadian. The sign /mu/ for example, represents /ηu/ , the velar nasal follwed by an /u/-quality vowel;… The sign… ( MU) represents/ηu/, the velar nasal followed by an /u/-quallity vowel; this is the morpheme for the first person singular possessive-sufix on nouns. But the normal value of this sign in Akkadian is /mu/…. Virtually all Sumerologists accept the existence of the velar nasal /η/ (although somescholars prefer to speak of a palatal nasal, and others have seen more complex phonemes,such as /ηm/. When Sumerian word containing this phoneme are loaned into Akkadian,it is usually ( although not always)reflected as ng. For example, saĝa “ kind of priest” appears in Akkadian as šangû.

I reply:/mu/ is correct. In 3 dialects : “/mo/ means : date tree, moon,month,(ex: 6 month), I, my, mine.” In Sumerin’s verbal chain prefix/mu-/ is equal to prefix of e- . In S-dialect me- prefix is equal that. But , I think mo- prefix is a KH-dialect , or mu- prefix is a unknown- dialekt in my country ,dead or alive. S-dialect has not any /e-/ prefix. For example: in S-dialect / me-na-da/ =/ e-na-de / in B-dialect means “ he/she was building/making/ laying/placing”.

Had Sumerian a nasal [ng=η]? I think yes, that is right , Sumerian had a velar /ng/ in a few of words.

S-dialect,B-dialect,k-dialect: “dong”= dug4 “speech,word ,preaching,command; ”donga”= words, …”for (ng=η), sig4= seng "stone" . Sumerian : gu3 =” to speak”, = du11. But do = du11 only in S-dialect means “speech,declamation (while defying an enemy), ”. But “ go” =gu3 is stem of “ to speak. Other words like:/deng o feng / tong,bong,jeng,pang, …etc./ have this nasality η ( = ng).

in continuation…
F.Abbasi


F.Abbassi

Part 2 " Suggestions and opinions of the most famous Sumerologists"

D.O.E. SG. In chapter 12.9. Prefixed indicator [e,i] , He believes :”Prefixed [e] or [i], spelled e- or i3,is difficult.It has challenged Sumerologists for more than a century. If a basic function once existed it many well have vanished over the long period during Sumerian was spoken and written.


Note: Our trasliteration NI = i is confirmed by allograph i- form Ur III onward.
Vanstiphout 1985, 1-2, resumed the Forschungsgeschichte; see, thereafter, Wilcke 1988, 2-4.
It is advisable to start from forms where no suffixes occur, i.e., 3rdsg. forms of intransitive conjugation pattern 1 (see 12,7.1): e-ĝen “ he went”, e-ĝál “it is/was present”, i3-til “he lived, stayed”.

H.J.L MSG. p.34. 7. He has said:” The entire sequence of verbal prefixes occurring before the verbal root is usually referred to as the "verbal chain". the first prefix to appear in this chain is an optional "modal-prefix" ( also referred to as a "mood-maker"). Modal-prefixes are used for such sentence types as co hortative, jussive, subjunctive, etc. A "normal" declarative sentence is in the indicative mood, which is unmarked. … The second position is occupied by the "conjugation-prefix. There are some half dozen conjugation-prefixes. These prefixes are among the most mysterious features of Sumerian; it is not known exactly what information these prefixes convey. This means that it is not known, for example, what the difference in meaning is between a finite verbal form whit the conjugation-prefix "mu" and one whit the conjugation-prefix "i3". Such variation occurs in the texts, but it is not known what this variation implies.

Needless to say, there are several theories about the function of conjugation-prefixes. They may be connected whit time: … They may have to do with space: … At times, they seem to correspond to a polite-familiar distinction. it is probable that the conjugation-prefixes convey nuances which are nat normally conveyed in English. This means that even if it were understood what the conjugation-prefixes meant, it would not be possible to translate into English. except by an elaborate periphrasis. ( Jacobsen, for example, believes that the conjugation-prefixes "mu" is used " to indicate 'closeness' to the speaker if by closeness we understand not only closeness in space and time but also emotional closeness, empathy, involvement" [ 1965: 4371.)
In practice, Sumerologists ignore the conjugation-prefixes; they are not reflected in translation. Writing in 1972, Maurice Lambert said: "Today, the prefix does not exist for the translator of Sumerian, it is only an object of study for the grammarian"(1072-3:39).

3-P.A GSG = Poebel.Arno “ Grundzüge Sumerischen Der Grammatik “ 1923 p. 213. part of prafixes.532.533,534 he said:" An der Splitze der nicht negierten indikativischen Verbalform, also vor der Verblwurzel und gegebenen Falls auch vor dem präteritalen Subgektselement, dem Kausativelment und den gewönlichen dimensionalen infixen, stehen die Bldungselmente i-, mu-, al-, ba-, immi- und imam-, welche dieser ihrer Stellung wegen zum Unterschied von den ihnen folgenden infigiertenElementen als die verbalen Präfixe im engeren Sinne oder schlechthin als die verbalen Präfixe bezeichnet warden.

Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach ist nur das das Präfix i- einfaches Element; es dient imvoll entwickelten Verbalsystem dazu, die finite Verbalform als solche kenntlich zu machen, stellt also in gewissen Sinne das eigentliche Verbalelement dar. Allen Anschein nach ist es auch in den übrigen der oben aufgeführten Präfixe enthalten und dart demnach als Grundpräfix bezeichnetwerden. Die ausser i- in mu-, bi-, ba- usw.enthalten weiteren Element sind adveabieelle Bestimmungen, die jedoch im Unterschied von den dimensionalen Infixen sich eng mit dem prefix i- verbunden und in dieser Verbindung z. T. auch ihre Bedeutung modifiziert haben haben.
Das Präfix i- (geschr. i3-, i-, i…) im älteren Sumerisch vorzugsweise e- neben i- (geschr. i3-) , ist zweifellos mit dem Pronomen -e "dieser", "der", "er" iddentisch und ursprünglich das pronominale Subjekt einer mit der Verbalwurzel gebildeten identifizierenden kette dar; .. "

4-P.A SP= Poebel.Arno “ The Sumerian Prafix forms E- and I- in Time of Earlier Princes of The Lagash” 1931 by The University of Chicago Illinois.

In 4-P.A SP p. 1. 2. 3 Poebel has believed:" The object of the following investigation is to elucidate the relation between the verbal prefix forms e- (written E-) and i3- (written NI-) in the older Sumerian texts. As will be remembered from my Sumerian grammar, contention is that E- and NI- do not represent tow different verbal prefixes, each of which expresses alogical or grammatical idea of its own, but simply render tow different pronunciations of the simple verbal prefix, as I call it, the function of which is to denote the finite verbal form. It needs no further proof that if, as I contend, the difference between E- and NI- is simply a phonetic one, the factors that cause the different pronunciations of the prefix must also be of a phonetic . And, vice versa if the following investigations succeed in proving that the factors on which the prefix writings E- and NI- depend are in fact exclusively of a phonetic character, this will, of course, be the full proof for our contention that the prefix NI- is to be read i3 and that e- and i3- are but phonetic variations of one the same verbal prefix."
Then,he has continued at p 2. , and he introduces a list of verbal chains by e- and i3 prefix:e-ag, e-ag2, e-ba, e-babbar, e-bal, e-bar, e-gal2, e-gar, e-gaz, e-ĥa(kh),-la, e-la2, e-la2-laĥ4-ĥi, e-nag, e-pa3-da, e-sar, e-tag, e-tag4-a.

(Note: i3=ni. I would like to show those verbal chains, as which Sumerian and Akkadian scribes had shown with ni- prefix.)
ni-BU( = bu, gid or sir); ni-de2, ni-diri(g), ni-du3, ni-du8, ni-dub, ni-du11(g), ni-dul, ni-du(r), ni-duru2-durun-eš, ni-e, ni-gi2, ni-gub, ni-gul-gul, ni-IL2( = il2 or gur2), ni-keš(-du), ni-ku2(-e), ni-ku5(d), ni-ri(g), ni-si12, ni-si(g), ni-si3(m), ni-SU( = su or ruk), ni-su3, ni-su3-su3-gi-eš, ni-šub, ni-tuk, ni-tuš, ni-u5-a, ni-u2ru(I?), ni-us2,ni-ri(g).
Poebel makes by i3 his theorem " vowel harmony" , but that is a great mistake in Sumerian grammar. Becouse, many of those verbal phrases are in negative form. and ni-sign is a negative form for e- and i?- prefix, in B-dialect. for example in B-dialect : e-go, or i-go. means " He/She is speaking" and e-god or i-god means " He/She was speaking" ( go = gu3 , god = gu3(d?)); e-re /i-re or e-še/i-še = Sumerian e-ri6/i?-ri6, (še = še13), means " He/She is going " and e-ra/i-ra = Sumerian e-ra2/ i?-ra2 , e-ša4 / i?-ša4 means" He/She was going." , and with  ni-  for example" ni-gu3 means " He/She is not speaking" or ni-na-du3 means " He/She was not building".
please follow me…
F. Abbasi
نویسنده: Fereydoon Abbassi - چهارشنبه ٩ بهمن ۱۳٩٢
 In the name of god
 comparison the paradigm of verbal chain in sumerian and shoshtarian
Hayes . L . John  (2000 : 163-164) in “Manual of Sumerian …” under the title “Conjugation”   has said :   Following is the paradigm for the marû of the transitive verb in the singular. The model verb used is sar, which is a member of the affixation class. The CP(Conjugation Prefix) used here is i3.

first person singular
i3-sar-re-en
i3.sar.e.en
I write.
second
i3-sar-re-en
i3.sar.e.en
You write.
third
i3-sar-re
i3. sar.e.Ø
He/she writes.






The first and second persons singular are identical in form (although it is not impossible that there was some phonetic difference not clearly visible to us). The final /n/ often does not show up in the writing.

why, The final /n/ often does not show up in the writing. in reply to that, I can say the first person singular and second person singular at all is incorrect, because, bath the final /n/ is untrue, the verbal chain is continuous , but in English language is simple verb, although in the B dialect and other dialects of north of the Persian gulf this tense of verb such as Sumerian  is continuous tense, but is used like a simple tense. many suffixes in texts are written by -em, -im ( or even -om)  for first person singular , and -im  for first person plural , but , at now nobody of   a sumerologist , scholar or scholarly does not to consider  those , for example, Arno. Poebel (1923:267: § 655) had said : Zur 2. Person  vgl. z. B. die Aufforderung šunir ù-mu-na(-e)-dím, (ein Šurinnu fertigte ihm an!),  Gudea, Zyl. A 622, neben šunir mu-na(-n)-dím , (  das Šurinnu fertigte er ihm an ) , ebenda 722, als Bericht über die Ausführung jener Aufforderung ; lugal-zu(-r) gišgigri ù-mu-na(-e)-DI (deinem Herrn baue (?) einen Wagen!), ebenda 617, … giš-gigri-zagin-šù mu-na(-n)-DI, (…verarbeitete er zu einem glänzenden Wagen), 719” ; Dietz .O. Edzard (1997: 73 : vi 22, vii22, vi11, 19) In “Gudea and his dynasty “for four sentences mentioned above  says : vi 22) šu-nir-ki-ág-ni ù-mu-na-dím (Would you please fashion for him his beloved standard ),  vii 22) šu-nir-ki-ág-ni mu-na-dím , (He fashioned for him his beloved standard), vi17)  1uga1-zu G1Š.gigir ù-mu-D1 (fit together a chariot for your master), vii19 G1Š.gigir-za-gìn-šè mu-na-a-DI (he fitted them together (to make) his blue chariot) .
ETCSL(The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature) in text of cylinder a, same four sentences is written as following : 6: 22) cu-nir ki-aj3-ni mu-na-dim2  ( fashion for him his beloved standard ) , 7: 22) cu-nir ki-aj3-ni mu-na-dim2  (he fashioned for him his beloved standard), 6:17 lugal-zu jicgigri-mu-DI  ( build (?) a chariot for your master ),  7:19) jicgigri za-gin3-ce3 mu-na-a-DI ( build a blue chariot from them for him).

four verbal chain are :
1.) mu-na-dim2,  2.) mu-na-dim2
3.)mu-DI (but is Poebel’s mu-na(-e)-DI, I think Poebel is correct , however , in original ortugraphy of text Edzard and ETCSL(The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature), are right). then that has been a mistake from the Sumerian scribe.
4.) mu-na-a-DI

Please pay attention to verbal form or inflectional paradigm of the Shosharian dialect at north of the Persian gulf for “to build” by continuous past tense:

1.) I was building  
2.) you were building
3.) he/she was building
 4.) we were building
5.) you were building
they were building




                                   plural                                             singular
first person
me-na-dem
first person 
me-na-dim
second person
me-na-di
second person
me-na-di-in
third person
me-na- d
third person
me-na-de-en



that is fixed for Sumerian  verbal root “na”  meaning “to build”


,
                                  plural                                             singular
first person
mu-na-dem2
first person 
mu-na-dim2
second person
mu-na-di
second person
mu-na-di-in
third person
mu-na- du3
third person
mu-na-de-en

I think du3  is equivalent by /d/ + /u/, here  /u/ is a suffix third person pronoun.

be glad , please follow me.



نویسنده: Fereydoon Abbassi - دوشنبه ٧ بهمن ۱۳٩٢
John L. Hayes (2000: 6-7)  says
     The Sumerians referred to their own language by a term which is often transliterated  eme-
gir15 (the reading of the second sign is not sure, and so the term is also transliterated eme-gi7or eme-ku, the latter especially in older .secondary literature)
eme means "tongue" in Sumerian. The means of gir15 it used to be thought that it meant "Sumer"; in that case, the term eme-gir15 would mean "the language of Sumer". More likely, the term means something like "noble, prince"; eme-gir15 would then mean "the noble language". Because of the uncertainly in reading this word, the term "Main Dialect" is here used instead.
      In addition to Main Dialect, there is also a sociolect called erne-sal. The meaning of the second element of the name is uncertain; it may mean "line thin". The: "Status" of This sociolect has been much discussed. It has traditionally been called a ''women's language", because it appears in literary texts of the Old babylonian period, used by goddesses when speaking to other goddesses. For example, in the myth Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld the goddess Inanna speaks to her aide Nin-Shubur in Emesal. Emesal is not consistently used such contexts, however; in other texts Inanna speaks in Main Dialect. Moreover, in texts of the later Old Babylonian period, Emesal is also used for specific genres of texts. Certain kinds of lamentations are always written in Emesal, even though recited by male priests (although the latter may well have been eunuchs). Texts in some of these genres were preserved and even composed in Mesopotamian schools over a thousand years after Sumerian had ceased to be a spoken language. … The most recent detailed study of Emesal is by Manfred Schretter (1990), who accepts the view that it is a women's language. There has been less discussion about the possible "origins" of Emesal, Larisa Bobrova has proposed that it originated as a geographical dialect in the south ofSumer which then became closely tied to the temple and cult of the goddess Inanna (L. Bobrova and A.Yu. Militarëv 1989)
     There are occasional references in late Sumerian texts to what are apparently jargons of particular occupations. For example, there are passing references to eme-udul, "the language of cowherds", and to eme-ma2-la‹4, "the language of sailors". We know nothing of these jargons but their names. Similarly, there are passing references to what may be some kind of "literary dialects": eme-gal, "great language", eme-sukud,"high language", and so on. It is not known what these designations mean 
In my opinion, eme is a sinister for Sumerian language , and so that, Anton. Deimel in “Sumerische Akkadisch und loutwerte... Nachträge , in his sign lists , had introduced that eme-sign is same zu12 , in dialects of north of  the Persian gulf “ zu” means langue and language. but gir15-sign, and gi7-sign in that the territory is unknown. but is striking that, the ku-sign means a plural article (like “the” in English). then “zu12-ku means “the (all Sumerian) language”. sal-sign as “čal in that dialects is mentioned above, main meaning is “pit” and is referred to vulva of a feminine gender as a  metaphor. therefore , zu12-sal or  zu12-čal is ''women's language", and zu12-ma2-la4 is equivalent with zu-ma-lah in that dialects and that means “ swimmer language”  in north of the Persian gulf .
 all be happy, cheerio F.Abbassi.




نویسنده: Fereydoon Abbassi - دوشنبه ٢٩ اسفند ۱۳٩٠

Introduction The first post in www.sumer20ten. blogspot.com

Evrybody welcome to my weblog . I am F.Abbassi ,I was thinking about 20 years ."   What things are wrong in Sumerin grammar? " . I will try to list  them here in several articles on some posts. in order to give a correct idea of Sumerian new grammar. Those articles are about voice,words and system of
Sumerian language and grammar .(phonology, morphology, syntax..etc.) You can see many of Sumerian grammar , books and articles or all such like writings have a lot of wrong doing in your writings. Because they have been changing the Sumerian voices : domu,sor,i3,e3... ; words:lil2, a-an,ka,ni ...; morphology, grammatical sentence for example :mu.na(n.)du..., for Sumerian  mu-na-du3., and  to mistake in translation. In fact, mu-na-du3 means " He/she was building " , but Sumerologists  have translated that "he built.".Gradually,they  are supposing theirs works are  proper Sumerian grammar texts. Regretfully, we can see everyday by new grammar, that  right sumerian grammar  go out of sight. I think Sumerin scribes had been writing right. Therefore, we con not show that  Sumerian scribes , did not anything about your grammar. Hayes. p.5.   .. A.Leo Oppenheim has pointed: The fact that Sumerian is a complicated though very understood language.  ...  (this) language  has created during the past hundred years a large literture ..."
F.Abbasi.



نویسنده: Fereydoon Abbassi - دوشنبه ٢٩ اسفند ۱۳٩٠
The Sumerian language is  ancint language of  Iranian new language farsi.
H.J.L MSG. p.37. About single verbal chains, John.L.Hayes said:”To sum up,the verbal phrase in Sumerian normally consists of: an optional modal-prefix(the indicative is un,arked); an obligatory cunjugation-prefix. whose function is unclear; one or more basically obligatory dimensional-prefixes, which cross-reference all case relationships (except that of the agent and patient); an obligatory personal-affix, which in the past tence cross-references the agent; the verbal root; an obligatory personal-affix, which in the past tence cross-references the patient; other optional affixes.


This particular verbal form may be summarized as follows:

mu . na . (n.) du . ø

(1)   (2)   (3) (4)  (5)

(1) cunjugation-prefix

note(1): In m-dialect and more or less in both n-dialect and s-dialect in the Khorasan state in the Iran mo- prefix is a conjugation-prefix for continuous verbs.

(2) dimensional-prefix cross-referencing the dative

note(2): in b,s and m dialects /na/ is root of past tense " to put,to place,to build,to found, to begin.."

in modern farsi that root is / nahad=na-had (the/had/ syllable like Sumerian /du3/ is morpheme of past tense) / and root of present or future tense like other Persian dialects is /ne/ .

for example :in m-dialect mo-na-do means " He/She was putting …/placing ../building../beginning.."

Here /mo/ is = Sumerian/mu/, and /do/ is morpheme of past tense like Sumerian /du3/

and in farsi" mi-nahad, means:He/She was building/.

(3) personal-affix cross-referencing the agent

(3)Important note: The personal-affix … is incorrect ,and here,for single verb case not need (n.) or any sign , but in plural verb form like: mu-na-an-du3 or e-na-an-du3 in Sumerian and e-na-an-de in b-dialect /n/ consonant of /an/is personal plural in verbal chain

(4) verbal root

note(4) Here /du3/ is not a verbal root, that is a morpheme of past tense.

(5) personal-affix cross-referencing the patiet”

note(5): For continuous verbs any sign is not needy

His original verbal chain , upper at p.31 is : mu-na-du3 “he built”.

H.J.L MSG.p.39. About conjugation- prefixes has said:” Lambert was quotted above, to the effect that the conjugation-prefixes are simply not translated.This is because it is not known what information they convey, and the odds are that their function has no easy equivalent in English.

Edmond Sollberger has said: Their true role is so distictively Sumerian, they express ideas so alien to our languages. that not only is there no consensus on the nature of their function,but we simply ignor them without impairing . or so it seems to us, our understanding of the text. There is no other translation for mu-ĝar and i3-ĝar than “(he) placed”, although it must be pretty obvious that had there been no differnce there wouldn’t have been two prefixes…It is legitimate to posit that a certain verbal form implies that the action is performed by the subject wishing to indicate that his goal, though within his immediate perception,remains without his actual sphereof physical contact; it is another thing to try and express that in one good English ( or even German) word (1973:160-61).”

D.O.E SG. p.71 (Chapter twelve, The verb 12.1) said:” Describing the Sumerian verb is the most difficult part for the grammarian. One still admires A.Poebel’s work of 1923 who practically “conquered the unconquerable” with his Grundzüge der Sumerischen Grammatik. Since Poebel, Sumerian grammar, partly for the language as a whole, partly for chosen sectors, but always with the focus on the verb, have appeared in a considerable number and in chronological density : Deimel 1924, ..; Jestin 1943, 1946,1951; Falkenstein 1949,1950, 1059; Solllberger 1952; Römer 1982; Thomsen 1984;Jacobsen 1956, 1963, 1088; Black 1988, …; Attinger 1993; Edzard 1995; Kaneva 1996.

The Sumerian verb consists of a base, e.g., gu7 “ to eat” , and a series of prefixed and/or suffixed particles. The base is quoted in lexical texts and is regularly translated by an Akkadian infinitive (gu7 = akālu). … . As the Sumerian verb is essentially person-oriented it is appropriate to speak of its “conjugation” ( or verbal inflection”).” … On.p.92. he said :” … The Sumerian verb is characterized by a series to six prefixed particles. Their main and original , but no longer exclusive , function is to indicate arrest and movement, direction, separation, company and related notions.”

Please follow me..




In the name of God

the compassionate the merciful


This is a new transliteration and translation for a table of the prince Gudea chief town or residence; governor's seat in Lagash.He was a king of the dynasty of Lagash II. Gudea was a ruler of the city of Lagashin the Southern of Mesopotamia , and he ruled during 2144-2124 BC. Many of inscriptions of Gudea mention temples built by Gudea inLagash,Uruk,Nippur,Ur, and ..etc. He explicitly claimed to have conqueredElamanAnshan. I think,substantially Sumerian were the people of the north of the Persian gulf .They were be defeated governor's people of Iran , that, by Elamaite army ( a foreign army) from Iran to Mesopotamia have been driving away, and they have some thousand years, a wish or ideal ,to conquer Elam and Anshan, for to return to Iran.

please about that debate ,see another my web blogs,in Farsi language.
Image of text
Gudea table 




common transliteration ,mine                                              common traslation , mine

column 1

1. an-gu2-an-na                                                             The powerfull An in heaven

2. nin-a-azi-mu2-a                                                           ninazimua

3. dam-ki-aga2                                                               the beloved wife or husband ?

4. (d)nin-gi$-zi-da-ka                                                      of ningi$zida

column 2

5. nin-a-ni                                                                        his lady

6. gu3-de2-a                                                                    Gudea

7. ensi2                                                                           the ensi(prince) of

8. laga$(ki)-ke4                                                              Lagash

9. e2-gir2-suki-ka-ni                                                       the temple of egirsu

10. mu-na-du3                                                                he built

11. alam-na-ni                                                                 his statue

column 3

12. mu-du2                                                                     name (is)

13. nam-$ita-e-ba-gub

14. mu-$e3 mu-na-hu-na2                                            "nam$itaebagub mu$e munahuna"

15. e2-a-ni a-mu-na-ni-nag2/naga (NA.MA)       (in) his temple ,he dedicated a drinking

fountain ? of votive offering.



But,in spite of that , in source of Sumerologists , that translation is:
"Gudea, city ruler of Lagash, built to Geshtinanna, the queen a-azi-mu-a, the beloved wife of Ningishzida, his queen, her temple in Girsu, He created for her [this] statue." she granted the prayer," he gave it a name for her and brought it into her temple."

The statue of Gudea

Gudea statue 






Traslitration and translation by S and B dialects:



transliteration                                                        translation

1. ilu qod dambar na                             hard-working/diligent ilu created the heaven.

2. munes-ku a ne-sar-a                         the compassionate (ilu) sprinkle water on fields

3. ta4 gu14-nig4/ka                               (the ilu) is like /parallel/pair/couple the life/love

4. ilu munes-ku ge$t zi-da                      the ilu, that compassionate gave to all life.

5. munes-ku a/o/u-ne2                           the servant of his (is Gudea)

6. gu3-de2-a                                         Gudea

7. pa-de4-$e2/o                                    ruler / governor(of)

8. laga$-gu14-lil2                                  locality of the Lagash and outskirts

9. e2 ger-su gu14-ka-ne2                      it place of the temple of gersu

10. me-na-du3                                      he was building.

11. alam na-ne2                                    (thay) were placed (the) statue

12. mu-tur5                                           month/seasen of to fall sick

13. nam-chita e-wa2-ra2                       for to be finished tragical events

14. mu-$e3 me-na-khu-na2                  in that time he was placing (the statue) in its place

15. e2-a-ne2 a me-na-ne2-naga           to his temple (of ilu) he will come (and) ,immediately they were placing (the statue)
the king Gudea




please follow me



be glad everyone!.



The Sumerian language is  ancint language of  Iranian new language farsi.
H.J.L MSG. p.37. About single verbal chains, John.L.Hayes said:”To sum up,the verbal phrase in Sumerian normally consists of: an optional modal-prefix(the indicative is un,arked); an obligatory cunjugation-prefix. whose function is unclear; one or more basically obligatory dimensional-prefixes, which cross-reference all case relationships (except that of the agent and patient); an obligatory personal-affix, which in the past tence cross-references the agent; the verbal root; an obligatory personal-affix, which in the past tence cross-references the patient; other optional affixes.


This particular verbal form may be summarized as follows:

mu . na . (n.) du . ø

(1)   (2)   (3) (4)  (5)

(1) cunjugation-prefix

note(1): In m-dialect and more or less in both n-dialect and s-dialect in the Khorasan state in the Iran mo- prefix is a conjugation-prefix for continuous verbs.

(2) dimensional-prefix cross-referencing the dative

note(2): in b,s and m dialects /na/ is root of past tense " to put,to place,to build,to found, to begin.."

in modern farsi that root is / nahad=na-had (the/had/ syllable like Sumerian /du3/ is morpheme of past tense) / and root of present or future tense like other Persian dialects is /ne/ .

for example :in m-dialect mo-na-do means " He/She was putting …/placing ../building../beginning.."

Here /mo/ is = Sumerian/mu/, and /do/ is morpheme of past tense like Sumerian /du3/

and in farsi" mi-nahad, means:He/She was building/.

(3) personal-affix cross-referencing the agent

(3)Important note: The personal-affix … is incorrect ,and here,for single verb case not need (n.) or any sign , but in plural verb form like: mu-na-an-du3 or e-na-an-du3 in Sumerian and e-na-an-de in b-dialect /n/ consonant of /an/is personal plural in verbal chain

(4) verbal root

note(4) Here /du3/ is not a verbal root, that is a morpheme of past tense.

(5) personal-affix cross-referencing the patiet”

note(5): For continuous verbs any sign is not needy

His original verbal chain , upper at p.31 is : mu-na-du3 “he built”.

H.J.L MSG.p.39. About conjugation- prefixes has said:” Lambert was quotted above, to the effect that the conjugation-prefixes are simply not translated.This is because it is not known what information they convey, and the odds are that their function has no easy equivalent in English.

Edmond Sollberger has said: Their true role is so distictively Sumerian, they express ideas so alien to our languages. that not only is there no consensus on the nature of their function,but we simply ignor them without impairing . or so it seems to us, our understanding of the text. There is no other translation for mu-ĝar and i3-ĝar than “(he) placed”, although it must be pretty obvious that had there been no differnce there wouldn’t have been two prefixes…It is legitimate to posit that a certain verbal form implies that the action is performed by the subject wishing to indicate that his goal, though within his immediate perception,remains without his actual sphereof physical contact; it is another thing to try and express that in one good English ( or even German) word (1973:160-61).”

D.O.E SG. p.71 (Chapter twelve, The verb 12.1) said:” Describing the Sumerian verb is the most difficult part for the grammarian. One still admires A.Poebel’s work of 1923 who practically “conquered the unconquerable” with his Grundzüge der Sumerischen Grammatik. Since Poebel, Sumerian grammar, partly for the language as a whole, partly for chosen sectors, but always with the focus on the verb, have appeared in a considerable number and in chronological density : Deimel 1924, ..; Jestin 1943, 1946,1951; Falkenstein 1949,1950, 1059; Solllberger 1952; Römer 1982; Thomsen 1984;Jacobsen 1956, 1963, 1088; Black 1988, …; Attinger 1993; Edzard 1995; Kaneva 1996.

The Sumerian verb consists of a base, e.g., gu7 “ to eat” , and a series of prefixed and/or suffixed particles. The base is quoted in lexical texts and is regularly translated by an Akkadian infinitive (gu7 = akālu). … . As the Sumerian verb is essentially person-oriented it is appropriate to speak of its “conjugation” ( or verbal inflection”).” … On.p.92. he said :” … The Sumerian verb is characterized by a series to six prefixed particles. Their main and original , but no longer exclusive , function is to indicate arrest and movement, direction, separation, company and related notions.”

Please follow me..



John L. Hayes (2000: 6-7)  says
     The Sumerians referred to their own language by a term which is often transliterated  eme-
gir15 (the reading of the second sign is not sure, and so the term is also transliterated eme-gi7or eme-ku, the latter especially in older .secondary literature)
eme means "tongue" in Sumerian. The means of gir15 it used to be thought that it meant "Sumer"; in that case, the term eme-gir15 would mean "the language of Sumer". More likely, the term means something like "noble, prince"; eme-gir15 would then mean "the noble language". Because of the uncertainly in reading this word, the term "Main Dialect" is here used instead.
      In addition to Main Dialect, there is also a sociolect called erne-sal. The meaning of the second element of the name is uncertain; it may mean "line thin". The: "Status" of This sociolect has been much discussed. It has traditionally been called a ''women's language", because it appears in literary texts of the Old babylonian period, used by goddesses when speaking to other goddesses. For example, in the myth Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld the goddess Inanna speaks to her aide Nin-Shubur in Emesal. Emesal is not consistently used such contexts, however; in other texts Inanna speaks in Main Dialect. Moreover, in texts of the later Old Babylonian period, Emesal is also used for specific genres of texts. Certain kinds of lamentations are always written in Emesal, even though recited by male priests (although the latter may well have been eunuchs). Texts in some of these genres were preserved and even composed in Mesopotamian schools over a thousand years after Sumerian had ceased to be a spoken language. … The most recent detailed study of Emesal is by Manfred Schretter (1990), who accepts the view that it is a women's language. There has been less discussion about the possible "origins" of Emesal, Larisa Bobrova has proposed that it originated as a geographical dialect in the south ofSumer which then became closely tied to the temple and cult of the goddess Inanna (L. Bobrova and A.Yu. Militarëv 1989)
     There are occasional references in late Sumerian texts to what are apparently jargons of particular occupations. For example, there are passing references to eme-udul, "the language of cowherds", and to eme-ma2-la‹4, "the language of sailors". We know nothing of these jargons but their names. Similarly, there are passing references to what may be some kind of "literary dialects": eme-gal, "great language", eme-sukud,"high language", and so on. It is not known what these designations mean 
In my opinion, eme is a sinister for Sumerian language , and so that, Anton. Deimel in “Sumerische Akkadisch und loutwerte... Nachträge , in his sign lists , had introduced that eme-sign is same zu12 , in dialects of north of  the Persian gulf “ zu” means langue and language. but gir15-sign, and gi7-sign in that the territory is unknown. but is striking that, the ku-sign means a plural article (like “the” in English). then “zu12-ku means “the (all Sumerian) language”. sal-sign as “čal in that dialects is mentioned above, main meaning is “pit” and is referred to vulva of a feminine gender as a  metaphor. therefore , zu12-sal or  zu12-čal is ''women's language", and zu12-ma2-la4 is equivalent with zu-ma-lah in that dialects and that means “ swimmer language”  in north of the Persian gulf .
 all be happy, cheerio F.Abbassi.