Typological classification
Agglutination is one of the terms used in the analysis of word structure (morphology).
Words can be described as consisting of at least one morpheme (minimal grammatical
unit), which is called a free morpheme or base and can itself function as a word (such
as the verb run). Words can also include one or more bound morphemes (such as the
sin runs). Most languages use a combination of different morphological strategies but
favor one more than others. Sumerian favors agglutination: typically it forms complex
words by “gluing” a sequence of single-function, easily identifiable morphemes to an
unchanging, generally monosyllabic base. The immediate contrast is with fusional
morphology, as in languages such as Latin that favor instead base-alterations and
multifunctional bound morphemes with boundaries that are less easy to identify.
One use of bound morphemes is to distinguish between the subject and object of a
verb. English tends to rely on word order instead, but its pronouns preserve the
remnants of what is termed a nominative–accusative system, as in the clause he failed
him, in which heis the subject (nominative) and himthe object (accusative) of the verb
failed. In such a system the subject of a transitive verb (a verb that takes a direct object),
as in the previous example, is marked in the same way as the subject of an intransitive
verb (a verb that does not take such an object), as in he failed. However, many
languages, among them Sumerian, use instead what is termed an ergative–absolutive
system. In this the subject of an intransitive verb is marked in the same way as the
object of a transitive verb, that is, in the absolutive, while the subject of a transitive verb
is marked differently, that is, in the ergative. An ergative–absolutive system reflects
what are often the semantics of the verbal event: himin she failed himand hein he failed
potentially refer to the same person. In contrast, marking both subjects in the same way
places more emphasis on their role in performing the action of the verb. In this context
it should be noted that Sumerian is not entirely an ergative language. Where the
language emphasizes the role of the subject as performer, for example, in its personal
pronouns, Sumerian uses instead a nominative–accusative system.
The final typological classification relates to word order, Sumerian being a
subject–object–verb language, also termed a verb-final language. The verb is the head
or governing element in the clause, and verb-final languages tend to be head-final
elsewhere in their grammar. This is generally the case for Sumerian: the language’s
functional equivalent to the English subordinator thatcomes at the end of the clause
it subordinates; rather than prepositions such as to, Sumerian has postpositional
morphemes; and its possessive morphemes (such as my) are at the end of the phrase
rather than at its beginning. However, there is one major exception: modification of
the noun in Sumerian is head-initial, the language’s adjectives, for example, typically
following the noun. Similarly, in the compound noun Eme-gir 15 (“Native-language”),
the modifier gir 15 (“native”) follows the noun eme(“tongue”). There is, though, some
tentative evidence that noun modification too was once more head-final, the
subsequent syntactic shift then being attributable to the influence of Akkadian.
Genetic classificationWhile the typological classification of Sumerian is fairly straightforward, its genetic
relationship to other languages is disputed. Many scholars regard it as unrelated to any
other. Recently, however, attempts have been made to find Sumerian a home, within
–– Graham Cunningham ––