Non-finite verbal forms
Non-finite verbal forms are more nuanced in relation to aspect than finite ones, suffixes
distinguishing between three different types: completive /’a/, habitual / 0 / (that is no
marking) and incompletive /ed/. The only other affix non-finite verbal forms can have
is a prefix /nu/ turning affirmation into negation (the grammatical category referred to
as polarity).
As in English, the same non-finite form can function like an adjective (running men)
as well as like a noun (running hurts). Sumerian adjectival roles occur in completive and
habitual aspects. In the former, intransitive stative verbs express an inherent state,
munus sag 9 – ga“beautiful (sag 9 ) woman (munus),” while dynamic verbs express a state
that is the result of a completed action, iri gul-la“destroyed (gul) cities (iri).” Transitive
stative verbs tend to occur instead in habitual aspect: lu 2 mu tuku“person (lu 2 ) having
(tuku) a name (mu),” that is, “famous person.”
However, non-finite forms can also function like a verb in that they can have, for
example, a direct object: lugal iri gul“a king (lugal) (habitually) destroying (gul) cities
(iri).” A reason for analyzing these zero-marked forms as habitual is that they also occur
in professional titles, like dub-sar“scribe,” a compound noun with an implicit head,
literally “(someone habitually) writing (sar) tablets (dub).”
Finite verbal forms
The morphology of Sumerian finite verbal forms is particularly rich – with multiple
affixes expressing lexical and grammatical meanings, in the latter case signaling changes
in mood and voice as well as polarity and aspect – and only an outline of that
complexity is possible here.
As in non-finite verbal forms, a change to negative polarity is expressed with word-
initial /nu/. However, in finite forms a wider range of morphemes is possible in this
position, including precative /ha/ and vetitive /bara/. Again as in non-finite forms a
change to incompletive aspect is signaled in intransitive finite forms by suffixing /ed/,
the verb’s subject being specified in both completive and incompletive aspects by the
same set of pronominal suffixes. However, in transitive forms /ed/ rarely occurs, the
aspect distinction being expressed instead by contrasting sets of pronominal subject
affixes: singular prefixes and plural circumfixes in completive aspect but suffixes in
incompletive aspect. In addition, some transitive verbal forms also include direct object
affixes in a reverse pattern: suffixes in completive aspect and prefixes in incompletive
aspect.
When a corresponding noun phrase occurs in the same clause, these pronominal
affixes are not translated, but in the absence of such a phrase they are. To cite a tran-
sitive example in incompletive aspect: lugal-e kalam ib 2 –gen 6 –ne 2 “the king (ergative)
makes the land (absolutive) firm,” but without noun phrases, ib 2 –gen 6 –ne 2 “he makes
it firm,” the verbal form comprising /i/ (whose function here may simply be to ease
pronunciation) + /b/ (“it/them,” a non-human prefix whose human equivalent is /n/)
+ gen 6 (“firm”) + /e/ (“he,” a suffix that makes no gender distinction, therefore being
translatable in other contexts as “she” or “it/they”).
The core pronominal prefixes can be preceded by a series of relational morphemes,
corresponding broadly to the relational case markers, the first of which can have its–– Graham Cunningham ––