Text Structure
Numeracy and Counting
Numerals
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| #(asz) | 6(asz) | 6(asz)[one] | NU |
| #(disz) | 2(disz) | 2(disz)[one] | NU |
| #u | 5(u) | 5(u)[ten] | NU |
| #(gesz’u) | #(gesz’u)[600] | #(gesz’u)[600] | NU |
Subtraction
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ‘minus’(*) | 1(u) | 1(u)[ten] | NU |
| la2 | la[hang][-ø] | NF.V.ABS | |
| 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
(*) Although Jagersma seems to treat la2 as a noun (Jagersma 2010, 99; 246), ePSD and Zettlekasten refer only to the verbal forms of la2. Presumably, la2 here is best seen as verbal form la.ø (this is the tenseless non-finite verbal form, see Zólyomi 2017, 91 = NF.V.ABS). A CDLI search of 1(u) la2 results in several thousand occurrences, a small minority of the time the preterite is indicated with the spelling la2-a. In the CDLI ED corpus, in 275 instances of la2, 3 occur with the writing la2-a. In cases where the writing does not specify the preterite, the tenseless la.ø should be assumed.
Multiplication
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| a-ra2 #-kam | a-ra2 | ara[times] | N |
| ‘for the X time’ | 2(disz)-kam | 2(disz)[one]-ak-am | NU.GEN.COP-3-SG |
Fractions
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| igi-#-gal2(*) | igi-60(disz)-gal2 | igi[eye]60(disz)[one]gal[fraction][-ø] | NU.ABS |
| as noun phrase in ABS: | |||
| ‘one sixtieth was dispersed’ | |||
| as metrological expression: | igi-6(disz)-gal2 | igi[eye]6(disz)[one]gal[fraction] | NU |
| ‘one sixth of oil’ |
(*) See Jagersma 2010, 261-262 for a discussion of the igi #-gal2 fraction formula. When igi #-gal2 is a participant in the sentence, for example ‘one sixtieth was dispersed,’ the formula will act as a noun phrase taking a case marker (TERM, ABL, ABS, etc.). However, when the fraction is a metrological expression, simply quantifying a substance ‘one sixth of oil,’ it is not a participant in the sentence and is not marked for case.
Modifying Commodities
Units
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| #(barig) | 4(barig) | 4(bariga)[unit] | N |
| gur | gur | gur[unit] | N |
| sila | sila3 | sila[unit] | N |
| {gi}gal or hal(*) ‘basket’ | hal | hal[unit] | N |
| gin2 | gin2 | gig[unit] | N |
| gu2 ‘talent’ | gu2 | gun[unit] | N |
| sar(**) ‘plot (of land)’ | sar | sar[unit] | N |
| sa ‘bundle’ | sa | sa[unit] | N |
| sag gur-ra(***) | sag | sag[head] | N |
| ‘difference from the gur measurement’ | gur-ra | gur[unit]-ak | N.GEN |
(*) Occurs in P121584 and P116687 without determinitive gi, otherwise the writing with gi is more common. SACT 2 #195 has 15 {gi}hal ku6 “15 reed baskets for fish.”
(**) For an example see Jagersma 2010, 251 (32).
(***) This term is not explained at ePSD or in Zettlekasten, it is, however, discussed by Gomi 1996, 144–146. Gomi examines terminology relating to difference measures (i.e. when cereals are poured from a larger to a smaller container, the excess is the difference). It would appear that this term is genitival: ‘difference of the gur’.
Quantity
The standard metrological expression in this period is: numeral – measurement – measured item, e.g. 15 gig4 ku3-babbar ‘fifteen shekels of silver’ (Jagersma 2010, 253).
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2(barig) X gur | 2(barig) | 2(bariga)[unit] | N |
| e.g. 2(barig) zu2-lum gur | zu2-lum | zulum[date] | N |
| ‘2 gur (of) dates’ | gur | gur[unit] | N |
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 hal X(*) | 1(u) | 1(u)[ten] | NU |
| e.g. 1(u) hal ku6 | hal | hal[unit] | N |
| ‘10 baskets of fish’ | ku6 | kud[fish] | N |
(*) Occurs in P121584 and P116687 without determinative gi, otherwise the writing with gi is more common. SACT 2 #195 has 15 {gi}hal ku6 “15 reed baskets for fish.”
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ki-la2-bi # sar | ki-la2-bi | kila[size]-bi | N.3-SG-NH-POSS |
| ‘its size (is) X’ | 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
| sar | sar[unit] | N |
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ki-la2-bi # gin2 | ki-la2-bi | kila[weight]-bi | N.3-SG-NH-POSS |
| ‘its weight (is) X’ | 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
| gin2 | gin2[unit] | N |
Labour
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| X 2(u) sar-ta(*) | 2(u) | 2(u)[ten] | NU |
| ‘(action done) with 20 plots (person per day)’ | sar-ta | sar[unit]-ta | N.ABL |
(*) For an example see Jagersma 2010, 251 (32).
Quality
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sze gur lugal | sze | sze[barley] | N |
| ‘barley by the royal measure’ | gur | gur[unit] | N |
| (lit. ‘barley (by the) gur of the king’ | lugal | lugal[king][-ak] | N.GEN |
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| us2(*) ‘second quality’ | us2 | us[follow][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
(*) us2 occurs very frequently (thousands of times) in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus as us2-sa when the preterite form is intended by the scribe; the writing us2 should therefore be taken as the non-finite tenseless NF.V.ABS. There is a discrepancy in CDLI as to how to translate saga us2: sometimes “good/fine second quality,” sometimes just “second quality”. Jagersma 2010, 632 (18) indicates that us2 alone is “second quality,” hence saga us2 should be “good/fine second quality”.
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| saga us2 ‘good/fine, second quality’ | saga | saga[good][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| us2 | us[follow][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| #-kam us2(*) | 4(disz)-kam | 4(disz)[one][-ak]-am | NU.GEN.COP-3-SG |
| ‘X (here: 4th) quality’ | us2 | us[follow][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| (often follows udu niga) |
(*) For the form #-kam us2 Jagersma 2010, 257 analyzes us2 as us2-ø (STEM-NFIN). He terms it an attributive participle, which would seem in form to be the present participle (as opposed to the past participle which requires reconstructing a final -a). In Zólyomi’s grammar p. 91, the form STEM-NFIN is termed a “tenseless non-finite verbal form” and glossed as follows: STEM-TL (MTAAC: NF.V.ABS).
Example 5
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| du(*) ‘medium quality’ | du | gin[quality_designation][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
(*) While CDLI reads du, BDTNS and ePSD seem to read gin/gen(DU). See, for example, P100672. An explanation for CDLI’s variant reading is given by Englund, CDLN 2011:4, however, no lexicographical resource establishes du ‘medium quality’ as a distinct Sumerian word. The ePSD entry for the verb gin ‘(to be) permanent’ has an alternative value of ‘medium quality’ listed, and this verb can be written with the DU sign: gin(DU). MTAAC, at present, takes gin as the intended verb. As a quality designation, gin(DU) should be seen as a non-finite verb functioning as an adjective: NF.V.ABS.
Example 6
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| # X du gur(*) | 1(u) | 1(u)[ten] | NU |
| e.g. # kasz du gur | 7(asz) | 7(asz)[one] | NU |
| ‘# gur of regular quality beer’ | 2(ban2) | 2(ban)[unit] | N |
| kasz | kasz[beer] | N | |
| du | gin[quality_designation][-ø] | NF.V.ABS | |
| gur | gur[unit] | N |
(*) Example from P144591. gin(DU) is qualifying the quality of noun that precedes it. See above for an explanation of gin(DU).
Example 7
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| udu u2(*) ‘grass-fed sheep’ | udu | udu[sheep] | N |
| u2 | u[grass] | N |
(*) CDLI regularly translates udu u2 as ‘grain-fed sheep’. ePSD2 classifies u2 ‘grass-fed’ as an adjective. As Zólyomi’s grammar does not allow for adjectives, u2 has been taken as a noun in apposition.
Example 8
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sila4 ASZ-ur4 ‘lamb, asur-type’ | sila4 | sila4[lamb] | N |
| ASZ-ur4 | asur[type_of_sheep] | N |
Example 9
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| zi3 KA(*) | zi3 | zid[flour] | N |
| ‘KA flour’ | KA | KA[flour type] | N |
(*) Text example: P100943. While CDLI and Heimpel 2009 (JCS 61, 35) do not hyphenate here, BDTNS and Zettlekasten interpret a compound: zi3-KA. Problematically, no one is certain how to read KA and an exact translation of this term remains impossible; the question of whether to hyphenate or not is likewise unresolvable.
Example 10
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| zi3 sig15(*) | zi3-sig15 | zidsig[flour_type] | N |
| ‘flour type’ |
(*) Text example: P102838. While neither CDLI nor BDTNS segment these two components, the treatment of the term at ePSD and in Zettlekasten indicates that this term should be segmented and treated as a noun.
Example 11
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| udu szimaszgi2 | udu | udu[sheep] | N |
| ‘szimaszki sheep’ | szimaszgi2 | szimaszki[type_of_sheep] | N |
Example 12
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| masz-gal szimaszgi | masz-gal | maszgal[goat] | N |
| ‘szimaszkian sheep’ | szimaszgi | szimaszki[type_of_sheep] | N |
Individual constructions
Gurusz Work Assignments
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| # gurusz u4 #-sze | 5(disz) | 5(disz)[one] | NU |
| assignment location SN(*) | gurusz | gurusz[male] | N |
| ‘# workers, for # day/s, at the water installation of PN’ | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| 1(disz)-sze3 | 1(disz)[one]-sze | NU-TERM | |
| kab2-ku5 | kabku[water-installation] | N | |
| i7-sal4-la{ki} | Isalla[1][-ak][-‘a] | SN.GEN.L1 |
(*) Example text: P101135. For u4 #-sze, see Jagersma 2010, 251 (#34, 35). In most texts, it isn’t obvious that the locative case is the intended case marker (as it is not written). However, in rare cases, the locative case is explicit in the writing kab-ku5-a: P100526, P112626, P112716, P120290, P127121. In comparable contexts another assignment location, the kisur ‘threshing floor’, is occasionally spelled ki-su7-ka, with the final a being the locative.
Gurusz Functions
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sahar si-ga ‘earth filled in’ | sahar | sahar[earth] | N |
| si-ga | si[fill]-a | NF.V.PT |
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| engar-gesz-i3-ka(*) | engar | engar[farmer] | N |
| “farmer of (sesame) oil (lit.the tree of oil)” | gesz-i3-ka | gesz-i3[sesame]-ak-ak | N.GEN.GEN |
(*) Example text: P112711. This term occurs twelve times on CDLI segmented as engar-gesz-i3-ka, and twice as engar gesz-i3-ka. On BDTNS it is always segmented in the latter way. The double genitive, always present with this term, justifies reading it as a phrase rather than a noun “the farmer of (sesame) oil” or more literally “the farmer of the tree of oil”. As Jagersma explains, sesame was the Sumerian oil crop and the sign gesz-i3 can be read “sesame” (while i3-gesz is typically read “oil” – this distinction may be artificial).
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| a-da gub-ba a-sza3 PN(*) | a-da | a[water]-da[N.COM] | |
| ‘stationed at the water(works) – the field Ganmah’ | gub-ba | gub[assigned]-a | NF.V.PT |
| a-sza3 | aszag[field] | N | |
| Gan2-mah | Ganmah[1] | FN |
(*) Example text: [P112711] (https://cdli.ucla.edu/P112711). While the comitative on the noun here is perhaps unexpected, this interpretation seems justified when compared with CDLI translations of a-da gub-ba, i.e. P209503 “at the water(works) stationed.”
Purpose Designations
N (is) X – i.e. the silver (is) a loan (better: debt/obligation), where X can be a loan, a brideprice, interest etc.
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ur5-ra/sze3(*) ‘loan’ | ur5-ra | urra[loan] | N |
(*) As described in Garfinkle 2004, 11.
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ku3 ur5-ra/sze3 ‘silver loan’ | ku3 | kug[silver] | N |
| ur5-ra | urra[loan] | N |
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| še ur5-ra/še3(*) ‘barley loan’ | sze | sze[barley] | N |
| ur5-ra | urra[loan] | N |
(*) As described in Garfinkle 2004, 11.
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| maš2-ga2-ga2(*) ‘the interest is established’ | masz2-ga2-ga2 | maszgaga[established_interest] | N |
(*) For translation see Garfinkle 2004, 11. Note: dub-sar constructions are analyzed as compound nouns in Zólyomi 2017, 92; often they consist of a noun + non-finite verbal form (dub=ø sar-ø : tablet=ABS write-TL) “he who writes tablets”. However, at ETCSRI, dub-sar is simply tagged N1 (noun phrase one – head), i.e. it is analyzed as a noun.
Example 5
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| nig2-mu10-us2-sa2(*) ‘brideprice’ | nig2-mu10-us2-sa2 | nigmussa[bride price] | N |
| here: | e2 | e[house] | N |
| ‘for the brideprice of the house of Nigdugani’ | nig2-du11-ga-ni-sze3 | Nigdugani[1][-ak]-sze | PN.GEN.TERM |
(*) The example here is from P128598. As the terminative is written, there is no ambiguity as to the required case.
Example 6
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ku3 masz(*) ‘silver interest’ | ku3 | kug[silver] | N |
| masz | masz[interest] | N |
(*) It is advisable to gloss ku3 as kug[silver] rather than in kug[metal] on analogy with the CDLI translation of P211864 (and the fact that ‘metal interest’ seems unlikely). Note: ku3 by itself is regularly translated ‘silver’ in CDLI.
Example 7
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| la2-ia3(*) ‘arrears’ | la2-ia3 | la’u[arrears] | N |
(*) Variously read la2-ia3 (CDLI), la2-NI (Zettlekasten), la2-i3 (BDTNS). ePSD2 confirms this is a noun: la’u [arrears] [N].
Example 8
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sze nig2-gal2-la(*) | sze | sze[barley] | N |
| ‘barley on hand’ | niggala | niggala[possession] | N |
(*) nig2-gal2-la by itself is simply ‘possession’, however sze niggala is translated ‘barley on hand’ (i.e. available barley) at CDLI. The nouns are in apposition.
Example 9
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sze gurx(|SZE.KIN|)-a(*) | sze | sze[barley] | N |
| ‘barley harvested’ | gurx(|SZE.KIN|)-a | gurx[reap]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) In 244 attestations of this term in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus, the non-finite is written with a preterite spelling; in some 90 other instances, it is spelled with a tenseless (ABS) spelling: sze gurx(|SZE.KIN|). In P101066, this term seems to designate a work assignment: # workers for 1 day: barley harvest.
dub-sar Constructions / Compound Nouns
The MTAAC project treats dub-sar constructions as nouns.
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| maš2-ga2-ga2(*) ‘the interest is established’ | masz2-ga2-ga2 | maszgaga[established_interest] | N |
(*) For translation see Garfinkle 2004, 11. Note: dub-sar constructions are analyzed as compound nouns in Zólyomi 2017, 92; often they consist of a noun + non-finite verbal form (dub=ø sar-ø : tablet=ABS write-TL) “he who writes tablets”. However, at ETCSRI, dub-sar is simply tagged N1 (noun phrase one – head), i.e. it is analyzed as a noun. This convention is followed for MTAAC.
Named Entities
NE POS tags
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| PN – Personal Name | {d}suen-a-bu-szu | Suenabuszu[1] | PN |
| RN – Royal Name | {d}szu-{d}suen | Szusuen[1] | RN |
| DN – Divine Name | {d}en-ki | Enki[1] | DN |
| YN – Year Name | mu | mu | N |
| amar-{d}suen | Amar-Suen[1].[-ø] | RN.ABS | |
| lugal.am3 | lugal.ø.am | N.ABS.COP-3-SG | |
| MN – Month Name | iti | iti[month] | N |
| gu4-ra2-bi2-mu2-mu2 | Gurabimumu[1][-‘a] | MN.L1 | |
| SN – Settlement Name | mu-ri-a-na-ba-ak | Muri’anabak[1] | SN |
| TN – Temple Name | e2-kur | Ekur[1] | TN |
| FN – Field Name | GAN2-mah | GANmah[1] | FN |
| EN – Ethnic Name | Martu | Martu[1] | EN |
Gentilics
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| PN GN(*) ‘Gude’a, the Amorite’ | gu3-de2-a | Gude’a[1] | PN |
| mar-tu | Martu[1] | EN |
(*) Example text: P100148 (where the PN GN happens to be in the dative in the context of that text, not indicated here). Sumerian gentilics like this should be taken as being in apposition for the time being (Zólyomi, personal communication, 25 July 2018). Other relationships (for example, genitival ‘PN of GN’) are possible, but not demonstrable at present. MAR-DU2 is analyzed as a noun at ETCRSI, see for example Ur-Nanshe 31.
Special Personnel Types and Named Groups
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| aga3-us2 lugal(*) ‘royal soldier’ | aga3us2 | aga’us[soldier] | N |
| lugal | lugal[king] | N |
(*) The two nouns are taken to be in apposition.
Insertions (Interlocutions)
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ki PN(*) | ki | ki[place] | N |
| PN | PN[1][-ak][-ta] | PN.GEN.ABL |
(*) Sallaberger’s conventions in discussing ki PN(-ta) seem to suggest that ki PN is an alternative, abbreviated spelling of the more common ki PN-ta. This is not entirely clear at present (Sallaberger 2000, 252).
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ki PN-ta(*) ‘from PN’s account’ (lit. ‘from the place of PN’) | ki | ki[place] | N |
| PN-ta | PN[1][-ak][-ta] | PN.GEN.ABL |
(*) Zólyomi 2017, 183. Note: it should be understood as ‘from the account of so and so’ because the ablative -ta does not attach to animate nouns (here it goes with ki).
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| GAN2 PN-ta(*) ‘from PN’s field’ (lit. ‘from the field of PN’) | GAN2 | GAN[field] | N |
| ur-e2-nun-na-ta | Ur-enunna[1][-ak]-ta | PN.GEN.ABL |
(*) No analysis of this statement is available. The genitive is reconstructed on analogy with ki PN-ta; see also P432131, where CDLI translate a-sze3 {d}suen-ta as “from the field of Suen” (implying a genitive).
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| nig2-ka9 N-ta(*) ‘from the account of N’ | nig2-ka9 | nigSZID[account] | N |
| nam-szusz3-ta | namszusz[cattle-management][-ak]-ta | N.GEN.ABL |
(*) Example text: P100240. It is not certain that the genitive is to be reconstructed here – there is a strong association between nig2-ka9 and the genitive in the CDLI corpus, and the suggestion is made here on analogy with ki PN-ta.
Example 5
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ugu PN gar(*) | ugu2 | ugu[capital] | N |
| e.g. ugu PN[-ak][-a] gar ‘put on the capital of PN’ | da-da-ga | Dadaga[1][-ak][-‘a] | PN.GEN.L1 |
| ba-a-gar | ba-e-gar[place][-ø] | MID.L2.V.3-SG-S |
(*) Example text: P100775. Note: the signs read ugu2 in CDLI are read a-gu3 elsewhere (ePSD, BDTNS, etc.) (both readings stand for the noun ugu[capital]). For the analysis of ugu PN-ak-a (with GEN.L1) and for ugu PN-ak-ta (with GEN.ABL) see Sallaberger 1995, 444. For the analysis of ba-a-gar with a L2 see Zólyomi 2017, 81 (90).
Example 6
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ugu PN zig(*) | ugu2 | ugu[capital] | N |
| ‘removed from the capital of PN’ | PN | PN[ak]-ta | PN.GEN-ABL |
| zig | zig[raise][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
(*) Example text: P100775. Note: the signs read ugu2 at CDLI are read a-gu3 elsewhere: ePSD, BDTNS, etc. Both readings stand for the noun ugu[capital]. For the analysis of ugu PN-[ak][-a] (GEN.L1) see Sallaberger 1995, 444. For the analysis of ugu PN-[ak]-ta (GEN.ABL) see Sallaberger 1995, 444. For the analysis of ba-a-gar with L2 see Zolyomi 2017, 81 (90).
Example 7
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| giri3 PN(*) ‘via PN’ (lit. ‘foot of PN’) | giri3 | giri[foot] | N |
| PN | PN[1][-ak] | PN.GEN |
(*) Sallaberger (2000), 3.5.2 confirms that this phrase is in the genitive, despite the fact that it is rarely reflected in the writing. See also Jagersma 2010, 151 (72).
Example 8
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| kiszib PN(*) ‘seal of PN’ | kiszib | kiszib[seal] | N |
| PN | PN[1][-ak] | PN.GEN |
(*) On analogy with Jagersma 2010, 81 (24), 151 (71), 215 (49), kiszib PN should be in the genitive.
Example 9
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| i3-ba PN(*) ‘oil ration of PN’ | i3-ba | iba[ration] | N |
| PN | PN[1][-ak] | PN |
(*) The genitive is rarely indicated, but it seems apparent in P119014, which disambiguates nin-dingir-ra in P101975.
Example 10
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sza3 SN{ki}-a(*) ‘in SN’ (lit. ‘in the heart of SN’) | sza3 | szag[heart] | N |
| uri2{ki}-ma | Urim[1].[-ak][-‘a] | SN.GEN.L1 |
(*) This phrase designates the place of transaction; see Sallaberger 2000, 3.5.3.
Example 11
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| nig2-dab DN | nig2-dab | nigdab[requisitions] | N |
| {d}al-la-tum | Allatum[1][-ak] | DN.GEN |
Example 12
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sza3 a2 u4-da(*) ‘in/for that work day(?)’ | sza3 | szag[heart] | N |
| a2 | a2[labor] | N | |
| u4-da | uda[day] | N |
(*) u4-da by itself is ‘day’ (u.d with locative -a becoming u4-da), see Jagersma 2010, 727; it is a fixed expression, functioning as a noun. a2 u4-da is translated in Zettlekasten (p. 33) as ‘work/strength of (one) day’; a translation and/or interpretation of ša a2 u4-da was not available.
Example 13
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| SN-sze gen-na(*) ‘gone to SN’ | szuszin{ki}-sze3 | Szuszin[1]-sze | SN.TERM |
| gen-na | gen[go]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) Example text: P100908. For a translation of a similar phrase and context see P118388 r.18.
Example 14
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| gabri kiszen3 PN(*) | gaba-ri | gabari[copy] | N |
| ‘copies of sealed tablets of PN’ | kiszib3 | kiszib[seal] | N |
| ab-ba-kal-la | Abbakalla[1][-ak][-ak] | PN.GEN.GEN |
(*) Text example: P101019. Double genitive reconstructed on analogy with the CDLI translation of P339242.
Example 15
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| inim PN-ta(*) | inim | inim[word] | N |
| ‘by the order of PN’ | ur-e11-e-ta | Ure’e[1][-ak][-ta] | PN.GEN.ABL |
(*) As translated in P104470. For an analysis of this term see Jagersma 2010, 195.
Example 16
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| i3-dub PN-ta(*) ‘from the granary of PN’ | i3-dub | idub[granary] | N |
| PN-ta | PN[-ak][-ta] | PN.GEN.ABL |
(*) Example text: P102081. Grammatical elements reconstructed on analogy with ki PN-ta statements. See P102278 for example translations.
Example 17
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| gu2-na(*) ‘tribute’ | gu2-na | gun[tribute]-ak | N.GEN |
(*) Example text: P102129 (with parallel text P312548). See ePSD entry for for GUN; example translation SACT 1 #119. See discussion in Sigrist Drehem p. 100.
Messenger Texts
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAT PN lu2 kin-gi4-a(*) | szu-{d}en-lil2-la2 | Szu’enlila[1][-ra] | PN.DAT-H |
| ‘X for PN, the messenger’ | lu2 | lu2[man] | N |
| kin-gi4-a | kiggia[messenger] | N |
(*) Text example: P101171. In these contexts, the relationship between MAT PN is typically treated as a dative one, see Sigrist 1995, #32 where he translates “for Ili-Dagan, the messenger.” The case, while not explicit in the writing, is likely to have been deduced contextually (in disbursement texts with the verb zig, the recipient, often the messenger, is in the dative).
Statement of Intended Use
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAT Noun-sze(*) ‘materials for X’ | sa3-gal | sagal[fodder] | N |
| MAT SN-sze ‘materials for place X’ | udu-sze3 | udu[sheep]-sze | N.TERM |
(*) As described in Sallaberger 2000, 3.5.1. The example given here is based on Liu, forthcoming #1. The terminative is written in this example ‘fodder for the sheep’ but in many cases the case will go unmarked.
Swearing and Witnessing
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| mu lugal in-pa3(*) ‘he swore by the king’s name’ | mu | mu[name] | N |
| lugal | lugal[king][-ak][-ø] | N.GEN | |
| in-pa3 | i-n-pad[swear][-ø] | FIN.3-SG-H-A.V.3-SG-P |
(*) See Jagersma 2010, 147 (41) for analysis and evidence that mu and lugal are in the genitive.
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| igi PN-sze3(*) ‘in the presence of PN’ | igi | igi[eye] | N |
| PN-sze3 | PN[-ak]-sze | PN.GEN.TERM |
(*) See Jagersma 2010, 143 (29).
Temporal Insertions
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| u4 # la2 #-kam(*) | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| ‘these are the (offerings/deliveries etc.) of the X(9th) day’ | 1(u) | 1(u)[ten] | NU |
| la2 | la[hang][-ø] | NF.V.ABS | |
| 1(disz)-kam | 1(disz)[one][-ak]-am | NU.GEN.COP.3.SG |
(*) For similar phrases, see Jagersma 2010, 251 (#34, 35). Although Jagersma seems to treat la2 as a noun (Jagersma 2010, 99; 246), ePSD and Zettlekasten refer only to the verbal forms of la2. Presumably, la2 here is best seen as verbal form la.ø (this is the tenseless non-finite verbal form as seen in Zólyomi 2017, 91. A CDLI search of 1(u) la2 results in 4171 occurrences, but it is never spelled la2-a, making a preterite non-finite form la.a unlikely.
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| u4 #-kam(*) ‘it is the X(6th) day’ | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| 6(disz)-kam | 6(disz)[one][-ak]-am | NU.GEN.COP.3.SG |
(*) For similar phrases, see Jagersma 2010, 251 (#34, 35).
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| X u4 #-šze3(*) | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| e.g. ‘(20 labourers) for 1 day’ | 1(disz)-sze3 | 1(disz)-sze | NU.TERM |
(*) For an example see Jagersma 2010, 250 (27).
Reason Clauses
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| mu X-še(*) | mu | mu[name] | N |
| ‘because of X (here: because of PN)’ | szu-szu-mu-dar-sze3 | Szuszumudar[1]-sze | PN.TERM |
(*) Text example: P100018. BDTNS reconstructs the missing terminative here. For analyses of similar examples, see Jagersma 2010, 614.
Phrase Structure
Conjunctions
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| a2 ma2 hun-ga2 u3 ma2 bala ak(*) | a2 | a[wage] | N |
| ‘The wages of the hired boat, | ma2 | ma[ship] | N |
| and the transfer done’ | hun-ga2 | hug[hire]-a | NF.V.PT |
| u3 | u[and] | CNJ | |
| ma2 | ma[ship] | N | |
| bala | bala[tax] | N | |
| ak | ak[do][-ø][-ak] | NF.V.ABS.GEN |
(*) Text example: P102701. The interpretation of these lines follows Jagersma 2010 645 (81) ‘wages of the hirelings’ and P130219 r. 1 ‘barge punted and transfer done’. That the conjunction u3 does not alter phrase final structure, the genitive of belonging to a2 appearing at the end of the phrase, is indicated by Jagersma 2010 p. 99 (79).
‘Adjectives’ (Non-Finite)
Zólyomi does not believe that the Sumerian adjective has a distinct form (Zólyomi 2017, 91-92). Adjectives in his system are considered to follow one of the following non-finite verbal forms: tenseless, preterite or present-future. At MTAAC, these are tagged as follows:
FORM — TAG — ANALYSIS Tenseless - NF.V.ABS - STEM.ø Preterite – NF.V.PT – STEM.a Present-Future – NF.V.F – STEM.ed
Analysis: unless a form is marked with a written -a or -ed, forms should be considered tenseless (this is in keeping with Zólyomi 2017, where all instances of a -PT tag occur with non-finite forms that include a written final -a). Indications are that scribes made preterite forms explicit by writing a final -a in the Ur III administrative corpus as well: see occurrences in CDLI of the writings dadag-ga (P378821), gal2-la2, sa10-a, dab5-ba, etc.
Note: According to Zólyomi’s system, the subordinator suffix –`a occupies slot 15 of the finite verbal chain. It does not occur with non-finite forms (Zólyomi 2017, 72, 94, 102).
Tenseless
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| adj. niga ‘fattened’ | niga | niga[fattened][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| adj. igi-sag(*) | igi-sag | igisag[choose][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| igi-sag-ga2 ‘choice/select’ | igi-sag-ga2 | igisag[choose]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) igi-sag occurs 138 times with spelling igi-sag (V.NF.ABS) and 19 times with spelling igi-sag-ga2 (V.NF.PT) in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus. The word does not occur in the ED corpus. For lexical value see JCS 40 p. 173 (Author-Year needed).
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| adj. gal(*) ‘big’ | gal | gal[big][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| gal-la2 | gal[big]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) gal is often written gal-la2 in the CDLI Ur III corpus (over 100 times) to specify the V.NF.PT form. This is similarly true for the ED corpus.
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ku5(*) ‘cut’ | ku5 | kud[cut][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| ku5-ra2 | ku5-ra2 | kud[cut]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) kud is often written ku5-ra2 in the CDLI Ur III corpus (over 100 times) to specify the V.NF.PT form. This is similarly true for the ED corpus.
Example 5
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ak(*) | ak | ak[do][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| ak-a ‘do/done/carried out’ | ak-a | ak[do]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) ak is written ak-a 25 times in the CDLI Ur III corpus to specify the NF.V.PT form.
Example 6
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ga6-ga2(*) ‘carried’ | ga6-ga2 | gag[carry]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) ga6-ga2 is the non-finite preterite form of the stem gag ‘to carry’ and occurs hundreds of times in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus with this spelling.
Example 7
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| saga(*) | saga | sag[good][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| sag9-ga ‘good/high quality’ | sag9-ga | sag[good]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) The sign(s) with value sag ‘(to be) good’ are consistently read saga at CDLI (the rationale for this convention is given by Englund, CDLN 2011:4). This is in contrast to the reading sig5 for the same sign at BDTNS (see, for example, P100672). The reading saga may give the false impression that a preterite form of the non-finite is intended by the scribe. When a preterite is intended, the writing sag9-ga could have been used (although this writing does seem rare – see Zólyomi 2017, 143 h) for an example).
Example 8
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| dug(*) | dug | dug[good][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| du10-ga | du1–ga | dug[good]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) du10-ga (example P100672) is a regular writing for the non-finite preterite form of this verb, occurring more than 100 times in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus.
Example 9
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| dab-ba(*) ‘seized’ | dab-ba | dab[seize]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) Often translated at CDLI as ‘seized,’ i.e. in the context of pisan-dub-ba texts; however, confusion seems to occur here as dab-ba is just as often translated ‘of dab’ at CDLI.
Example 10
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| gid2(*) | gid2 | gid[long][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| gid2-da | gid2-da | gid[long]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) Most occurrences in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus are of the preterite form gid2-da, however, the absolute form, gid2, also occurs (see, for example, P416389).
Example 11
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| gazx(KUM)(*) ‘threshed’ | gazx(KUM) | gaz[thresh][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
(*) CDLI reads gazx, the relevant sign value is now gasz2 at ePSD ‘to kill’ (but in this context ‘to thresh (grain)’). Another possible reading of the same sign is gum ‘to pound’ which is what BDTNS reads for P101018, l.1 (however, gaz2 ‘to thresh’ still seems plausible here). Preterite spellings of this non-finite do not seem to be attested in the Ur III administrative corpus
Example 12
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ki-ag2(*) ‘beloved’ | ki-ag2 | ki-ag2[love][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
(*) As with compound verbs in general, Jagersma 2010, 471 (26b) and Zolyomi 2017, 189 (337) treat this verb as two separate elements: ki ag2. However, followed here, other interpretations treat this verb as a single word fixed expression: ki-ag2 (see CDLI and BDTNS for the text P100943). Preterite spellings in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus (ki-ag2-ga2) seem lacking, but may be obscured by the possessive -ani. Zólyomi 2017, 72 specifies that the semantic object of this verb (the one being loved) should be in the dative (for an attestation of the dative see the year name in P125272).
Example 13
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab-ba(*) ‘grasped/ piled’ | tab-ba | tab[grasp]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) This non-finite occurs mainly with a preterite spelling in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus, appearing hundreds of times in the phrase zar3 tab-ba ‘piled sheaves’.
Example 14
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| zi-ga(*) ‘expend’ | zi-ga | zig[expend]-a | NF.V.PT |
| zi-ga ‘expenditure’ | zi-ga | ziga[expenditure] | N |
(*) ePSD and ePSD2 contain an entry for ziga ‘expenditure,’ apparently a substantivized form of the verbal stem zig. ePSD also considers that the majority of known instances of zi-ga in the Ur III period are in fact this substantivized form (to include administrative contexts). The evidence for a substantivized form seems to be derived mainly from lexical texts which equate zi-ga with various Akkadian terms. However, arguing against this, Jagersma 2010, 278 (49) interprets zi-ga as a non-finite form; translations from OBO 3, 255, SACT 2, 277, and Sigrist 1992, 69 maintain a verbal sense. Followed here, CDLI translates zi-ga verbally as well as nominally, depending on context.
Sequence in documents MAT MAT PN zi-ga MAT MAT SN zi-ga MAT MAT PN, MAT MAT SN zi-ga
Disbursement documents (=expenditure documents), although they may also record the name of the person who originally delivered a group of animals, are really meant to record the immediate disbursing of animals to persons or to institutions. Entities not occurring with special clauses (i.e. PN mu-ku, ki PN-ta or mu.sze), should be in seen as recipients of these disbursements, marked in the dative (human) or the terminative (non-human). MAT should be in the absolute when zi-ga is deemed to be verbal. See Sigrist 1995, 16 and 38; see also P101357, P107555, P108689, P123432 with written terminative ‘for the boat of An.’
In sequences of zi-ga u4 #-kam (P392636): ‘credited on the #th day.’
zi-ga as a noun: in sequences which lack a predicate, i.e. lists of objects - ‘debits and credits [= zi-ga]’
In sequences where a verb is impossible (P411986): ‘and credits [zi-ga] of PN’
Example 15
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| de6-a(*) ‘brought/delivered’ | de6-a | de[bring]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) de6 is, with few exceptions (P249111), rendered in the non-finite preterite form in this corpus.
Example 16
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| kal-ga(*) ‘strong’ | kal-ga | kalag[strong]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) This non-finite ‘strong’ is written with a preterite spelling throughout the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus. The sign representing the verbal stem can be read kal or kalag. The convention in Jagersma 2010, 140 (12) is to read kalag-ga, which makes the preterite spelling even more apparent.
Example 17
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ri-ri-ga(*) ‘fallen’ | ri-ri-ga | deg[fall]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) The ePSD2 entry for deg ‘to tear out, to fall’ etc., indicates that this verb is standardly written RI-ga. However, in the Ur III period, the standard spelling (1138 times) seems to be degx(RI)degx(RI), that is, the verb deg is spelled with two RI signs. This should not be confused with a reduplicated stem, it seems to be rather an alternate spelling of the (unreduplicated) verbal stem.
Example 18
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| en3-bi tar-re-dam(*) | en3-bi | inim[word]-bi | N.3-SG-NH-POSS |
| ‘to be investigated’ | tar-re-dam | tar[cut]-ed-am | NF.V.F.COP-3-SG |
(*) Example text: P102510. This compound verb is listed on ePSD as en tar, which receives the analysis (en[cvne] + tar[cut]). CVNE stands for “compound verb nominal element”, meaning, ePSD does discern the lexical value behind en. However, ePSD2 is more exact here, analyzing (inim[word] + tar[cut]). They list two instances where this compound verb is written with variant spelling inim[KA] + tar; en3 is a writing for the value inim, therefore, to ‘cut the word’ is ‘to ask’).
‘Adjectives’ (Modifying Genitive Type – see Zólyomi p. 51)
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| bad3 mar-tu(*) | bad3 | bad[wall] | N |
| ‘the Amorite wall’ (lit. ‘wall of the Amorites’) | mar-tu | Martu[Amorite][-ak] | N.GEN |
(*) The interpretation of mar-tu as a noun and in a genitival relationship is based on ETCSRI. For example, Warad-Sin 30, l. 7; Šu-Suen 17, l. 20; Gungunam 5add, l. i 7. See also Jagersma 2010, 489 (8).
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| kusz gu4(*) | kusz | kusz[leather] | N |
| ‘bull leather’ (lit. ‘leather of the bull’) | gu4 | gud[bull]-ak | N.GEN |
(*) Text example: P100958. For an analysis and reconstructed genitive see Jagersma 2010, 255 (54).
Verbs
Verbal Forms in the List Section
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| # animal ba-usz2(*) | 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
| ‘1 animal, slaughtered’ | masz2-gal | maszgal[billy goat][-ø] | N.ABS |
| ba-usz2 | ba-usz[die][-ø] | MID.V.3-SG-S | |
| plural | 2(disz) | 2(disz) | NU |
| # animals ba-usz2 | udu | udu[sheep] | N.ABS |
| ‘x animals slaughtered’ | ba-usz2 | ba-ug[die][-ø] | MID.V.PL.3-SG-S |
(*) Note: all passive forms are formulated as intransitive verbs (Jagersma 2010, 494). ba-usz2 is clearly a passive form, however, as a discussion in Jagersma 2010 indicates, there are two possible understandings: “ba-úš can mean both ‘it/he/she died’ (change of state) and ‘it/he/she was killed’ (passive of causative).” Given the CDLI translation ‘slaughtered’ the animals did not simply die, they were killed – passive of causative. Some passive constructions are based on underlying causative statements (Jagersma 2010, 495, 496 (ba-uš2)). Note: despite the causative voice of ba-usz, there is no morphological distinction that distinguishes this from a change of state ba-us, and the tag remains MID.V.3-SG-S (Zólyomi, personal communication, August 22, 2018). A second issue is the existence of a special plural stem for the verb us ‘to kill’: that stem is the plural form ug ‘to kill’ wr. ug7(US), ug5, ugx(US.US). It has become commonplace to read ba-ug7 following a plural list of slaughtered animals, see examples at BDTNS, Sigrist 1992, 30, and Liu forthcoming, #11.
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sa10-sa10-de3(*) | sa10-sa10-de3 | sa-sa[pay_for]-ed-e | NF.V.RDP.PF.DAT-NH |
| ‘will pay for/to pay for’ |
(*) For an analysis of similar verbal structures see Zólyomi 2017, 100 (122), (123).
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| # u4 ba-zal(*) | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| ‘# days had passed’ | 1(u) | 1{u)[ten][-ø] | NU.ABS |
| ba-zal | ba-zal[pass][-ø] | MID.V.3-SG-S |
(*) In a small number of cases, ba-zal is spelled ba-zal-la or ba-zal-a in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus, explicitly writing a locative 1. More often the spelling is simply ba-zal. In such cases, the locative 1 should note be reconstructed: see analysis in Jagersma 2010, 652 (133) and Zólyomi 2017, 157 (236).
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| # u4 ba-zal-la | u4 | ud[day] | N |
| ‘# days had passed’ | 1(u) | 1(u)[ten][-ø] | NU.ABS |
| ba-zal-la | ba-zal[pass][-ø]-‘a | MID.V.3-SG-S.L1 |
List Texts (No Verb in the Closing Note)
Texts of this type annotated so far: P100148, P100149, P100908, P100937, P101040, P101122, P101120, P101161, P101171, P101173, P101199, P101215, P101216, P101219, P101236, P101249. In many cases, texts with no verb in the closing note may be messenger texts, which can feature repeated sequences of MAT PN followed by the total (szunigin). See McNeil 1971, 93 ‘Group B’ for messenger texts of this sort from Umma. Indications a text is of this sort: MAT is a small ration of beer, bread, oil, onion, potash; text is from Umma or Girsu; PN is an official i.e. sukkal; gaba, the frontier, is mentioned; the text ends with a list of totals. While the case marker for PN is not explicit in the texts, scholars translate these sequences in a dative sense ‘MAT for PN’ (Liu forthcoming, #17-21). In some texts featuring the verb ba-zi, “messengers” are clearly the recipients of disbursements (Sigrist 1995, #47); in disbursement texts featuring the spelling ba-an-na-zi, the dative relationship between MAT and PN is made explicit by a written -ra case marker.
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAT | 4(ban2) | 4(ban)[unit] | N |
| PN(*) | la2 | la[hang][-ø] | NF.V.ABS |
| (repeated) | 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
| sila3 | sila[unit] | N | |
| en-nu | Ennu[1][-ra] | PN.DAT-H |
(*) Example text: P100148. The dative here is assumed on analogy with ba-an-na-zi texts which regularly indicate a dative relationship between MAT and PN: MVN 03, 257 (see analysis, Jagersma 2010, 386); P248922; P210593; P108224; P108760; P112443; P113817; P118825; P123236; P332079; P143682. That a case marker is appropriate is further indicated by, for example, P100149 r. 7, where the sze3 (TERM) is written to mark MAT going to a non-human list item. A dative relationship between MAT and PN is often assumed in CDLI translations of list texts featuring the insertion gaba-ta ‘from the frontier’: P101173, P101174, P101176, P101185, P101215, P101216, P101249.
List of Arrears Due Type
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| la2-ia3 # PN, # PN(*) | la2-ia3 | la’u[arrears] | N |
| ‘arrears: # of PN, # of PN’ | 1(disz) | 1(disz)[one] | NU |
| ur-{d}isztaran | Ur-isztaran[1][-ak] | PN.GEN |
(*) Text example: P104686. The genitival relationship between MAT and PN in these lists of arrears is indicated by the co-occurrence of la2-ia3 and -kam in the same line in some texts (for example, P102392). See also Jagersma 2010, 663 (192), and the translation of the treatment of an arrears text in CDLJ 2012:001, 3.15.1.
Open Issues
Uncertain Tags
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| ku6 sagkesz2 | ku6 | kud[fish] | N |
| (P121584) | sag-kesz2 | sagkesz[state_of_goods] | N |
Problem Terms
Example 1
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| e sa-dur2-ra(*) | e | eg[levee] | N |
| ‘lower levee’ | sa-dur2-ra | sadurra[bottom] | N |
(*) Example text: P142759P142759. This term does not appear at ePSD or in Zettlekasten. BDTNS treats it as a fixed single word form: e-sa-dur2-ra, word segmentation here follows CDLI convention. Its meaning and used is discussed in Civil 1994, 125.
Example 2
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| e2-tum(*) | e2-tum | bitum[administrative_term] | N |
| (administrative term) |
(*) Maeda **, 253 provides proof that e2-tum is to be read bi2-tum and suggests that the meaning of the word in administrative contexts is ‘property/ estate’. However, a recent entry in ePSD2 indicates that there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the lexical value of the word. The more general value from the ePSD2 has been adopted here.
Example 3
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAT {kuz}du10-gan ti-bala-a-sze3(*) | {kusz}du10-gan | duggan[bag] | N |
| ‘X for the portentous leather bag’ | ti-bala-a-sze3 | tibala[sign]-sze | N.TERM |
(*) Example text: P101147. Etymologically, du10-gan is a leather bag; the other elements are tibala ‘sign’; see the ePSD entry for tibala where du10-gan-ti-bal-a is referenced. This item seems to have been used to store clay tablets or metals (Stol **, 537). The word is loaned into Akkadian — see the CDA entry for tukantibalā’um, where it is translated simply ‘leather bag’. The word is segmented into to separate words at MTAAC, as the word duggan seems to be independent.
Example 4
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sig4 ar-ha(*) | sig4 | szeg[brick] | N |
| ‘half-brick’ | arha | arha[half-brick] | N |
(*) Example text P101171, where it occurs in the sequence PN lu-ki4-gi sig4 ar-ha ‘PN, the half-brick errand runner’. This lexeme is not easily located in any lexical resources, however see the ePSD2 entry arha ‘half brick’ where there are listed Ur III instances include the spelling sig4 ar-ha. See also Heimpel 2004, 2.2.1.
Example 5
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| KA-us2-sa2(*) | KA-us2-sa2 | ka’usa[profession_type] | N |
| ‘the ka’usa’ |
(*) Occurring only 39 times with the segmentation nig2-ki-zah and 6 times as nig2 ki-zah in the CDLI Ur III administrative corpus, the meaning of this term is, unfortunately, not clear. It does not feature at ePSD or ePSD2; according to Zettlekasten, Westenholz understood it as ‘provisions for the place of disappearance.’ Sigrist 1992, 192 stresses that the term is not precisely understood. Sallaberger Kalender, 43 understands it as an offering on the occasion of the disappearance of the god. Given the obscurity of the word, a generalized lexical value has been selected for above tag.
Example 6
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAT du6-ur3(*) | du6-ur3 | du’ur[cultic_mound] | N |
| ‘materials for the du-ur’ |
(*) Example text: P101455. This cultic local is discussed briefly in Sigrist 1992, 146. Beyond the fact that it could receive deliveries in administrative texts, nothing is known about the du6-ur3. It does not feature in any of the lexical resources.
Example 7
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| {na4}kin2(*) ‘millstone’ | {na4}kin2 | kin[millstone] | N |
(*) This term is difficult to find in the lexical works which generally read kinkin (rather than kin2, as at CDLI). See Zettlekasten p. 274 where the reading is instead {na4}HAR.
Example 8
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| {na4}kin2 zi-bi2(*) | {na4}kin2 | kin[mill] | N |
| ‘cumin mill’ | zi-bi2 | zibim[cumin] | N |
(*) This term is difficult to find in the lexical works which generally read kinkin (rather than kin2, as at CDLI). See Zettlekasten p. 274 where the reading is instead {na4}HAR. For zi-bi2 see entry zi-bi at ePSD ‘cumin’; for the spelling zi-bi2 see RA 86 99, where Lafont reads zi-bi2 ‘cumin’.
Example 9
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| {na4}kin2 AB.KID(*) | {na4}kin2 | kin[mill] | N |
| ‘? mill’ | AB.KID | AB.KID[unknown] | N |
(*) This term is difficult to find in the lexical works which generally read kinkin (rather than kin2, as at CDLI). See Zettlekasten p. 274 where the reading is instead {na4}HAR. AB.KID is currently undeciphered in the lexical resources.
Example 10
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| šu se3-ga(*) | šu | šu[hand][-e] | N.L3-NH |
| ‘placed(?)’ | se3-ga | sig[place]-a | NF.V.PT |
(*) This compound verb is problematic. While it is read se3-ga at CDLI, BDTNS read si3-ga (allowing for the interpretation of the verb sig ‘to place’). The compound šu…sig is not explicated at ePSD nor in Thomsen’s grammar, nor in Karahashi’s study of compound verbs based on body parts; the approximate lexical range ‘to place’ is a surmise.
Example 11
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| {gesz}si ‘sprout tree’ | {gesz}si | si[sprout_tree] | N |
Example 12
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| i3-dub(*) ‘granary’ | i3-dub | idub[granary] | N |
(*) See Jagersma p. 128 where i3-dub is taken as a substantived form, specifically a headless relative clause ‘what is heaped up’, not unlike the substantivised form of mu-ku common in this corpus. We follow here the treatment of the term as a noun at ePSD.
Example 13
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| gig(*) ‘wheat’ | gig | kib[wheat] | N |
(*) Example text: P102345. This term has previously been dealt with as gig[resin] at MTAAC. However, given the CDLI translation ‘wheat’ for this term, it is likely that gig is to be read kib “wheat” here. See relevant ePSD entry.
Example 14
| Context | FORM | SEGM | XPOSTAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| sza3-ze2(*) ‘archive label’ | sza3-ze2 | szaze[archive_label] | N |
(*) Example text: P102404. This term is segmented in the BDTNS transliteration and discussed in ASJ 10 p. 245. See also Zettlekasten p. 605. Scholars have no translation for the term as a whole (the meaning of ze2 is unclear); the rough desciption ‘archive label’ is the closest translation available.