The old Babylonian paronomastic infinitive in -am.

• Author: Cohen, Eran
• Position: Report

1. The paronomastic infinitive in Akkadian is an interesting construction. The phenomenon comprises two basic types, based upon form, one ending in -um(-ma), the other in -am. The former, which is attested in about seventy cases from the OB letter corpus, has been described in Cohen 2004; for the latter, which is rather rare, a solution arrived at recently is hereby proposed. The literature referring to the paronomastic infinitive ending in -um(-ma) has already been discussed (ibid., 105-6) and will not be repeated. The principles of classification of these cases, however, will be reviewed and exemplified here briefly to provide a framework for the discussion of the two types.

2. The construction alakum(-ma) illik, whose cognates are found in other Semitic languages as well, has in fact three distinct subtypes, which have been differentiated mostly based on their syntax.

   A preliminary explanation is due: a verbal form has three basic components: 1. a subject index; 2. a verbal lexeme and 3. a nexus (the predicative link) between them. (1) In an unmarked verbal clause, the verbal lexeme found in the finite verbal form is basically the rheme, or the entity which carries the new information in the clause. In the first two subtypes of the paronomastic infinitive in -um(-ma), the infinitive is a syntactic representation of the verbal lexeme. Once it is represented outside the verbal form, it can assume other functions as well.

   The first function is topicalization, i.e., the marking of an element as topic, a text-linguistic function whereby an entity serves as a discourse anchor in order both to maintain the reference to previous parts of the text and to represent what is being discussed, about which predication occurs:

   [1] t[em eqlim s]upram [kiam] unahhid-ma ... tem eqlim ... sa unahhid[u]ka saparum-ma ul taspuram "Send me a re[port about the field]', [thus] I instructed (you) but ... as to sending, you did not send me a report concerning the field ... (about) which I instructed you." AbB 12, 18:9-15 The infinitive form inside the construction saparum-ma ul taspuram is the topic of the entire sentence. Note that it often shows a resumption of previously mentioned entities, which is typical for topics in general. In this case it is the verbal lexeme, which occurs first in the imperative (supram); by the time it occurs again, the idea of sending is already presupposed, and regarded as old information. Negation occurs only in this subtype.

   The second function is focalization, (2) the marking of an element as focus, i.e., as the most salient piece of information in a clause, but not just because it is new (as the rheme is defined), but for other reasons: contrast, exclusivity, specificity, etc. In the second subtype, the infinitive, representing the verbal lexeme, is focalized, thereby marking the verbal lexeme as the most salient entity in the sentence:

   [2] 30 sutu sa immerisunu usamqitu ana sahatim ukt[as]siram u inanna paharum-ma ipahhury 30 Suteans, whose sheep they struck down, have (lit. has) gathered to attack, but (as of) now they have only been assembling. ARM 6, 58:15-18 ("pour l'heure ils n'en sont qu'a se rassembler," Durand 1997-2000, 2: 509) In this example the rationale for focus is the exclusivity (the idea of "only") of the verbal lexeme, that is, the contrast between sahatum 'attack' and paharum 'assemble' is marked as salient.

   The third subtype is different; both previous subtypes are a specific case of a general phenomenon (Goldenberg 1971: 71): topicalization is signalled by other means as well, e.g., by means of the preposition/conjunction assum, which often topicalizes whatever follows it, or by means of extraposition. Focalization of any noun or adverb may be signalled by the particle -ma, or by means of special patterns. The third subtype, however, is distinct from the first two subtypes, in constituting one, rather than two entities: the entire construction is often interchangeable with an asseverative form (lu aprus). (3) Like the asseverative, the third subtype serves to denote insistence; unlike the asseverative, it does not denote an oath, and can occur inside a subordinate clause. Both the third subtype and the asseverative occur many times in response to a negative, or doubtful utterance. In syntactic terms it is referred to as "nexus focusing," because what is signalled as especially salient is the contrasted (non-) existence of the nexus. Here one expects contrast and occasionally even lexemic resumption:

   [3] PN [...] sa istu pana ana simtim illik u inuma awilum su balatum-ma balit mimma epes[a]m ul ile PN, [...] of old, has died. But when this gentleman was alive, he could not build anything. ARM 2, 101: 14-18 ("De toute facon, lorsque cet homme etait encore bien vivant, il etait incapable de rien construire," Durand 1997-2000, 2: 632). Note that there is no dispute that the man is dead, only a marked contrast between the two clauses, where the nexus between the man and the verbal lexeme is focalized.

   This third subtype sometimes seems to have evolved further semantically to denote notions such as definitely, totally, etc.:

   [4] sabum sa ina GN wasib kayyantam-ma uttazzamu ummami awatni ana sarrim suksid u anaku assum nukur[t]im-ma awatisunu mesum-ma ames The troops staying in GN are constantly whining as follows: "Bring our matter to the king!," but I, just because of the war...