32 PRINCE— PRONOUNS AND VERBS OF SUMERIAN. [April 23, 



a reduplication of the first personal singular = me- -\- verbal -n. 

 We find the redupHcated suffix -mu-mu 'our' (see below), which 

 confirms this view. 



Me-en-ne declines regularly, although no genitive has been found 

 as yet; proha.h\y = me-en-ne-ge (kit); dat. me-en-ne-ra, me-en- 

 ne -Ir ; loc. me-en-ne-a, these last two cases being given by Poebel. 



The suffix of the first person plural appears as i) -mu-mu, Lang- 

 don, p. 109, n. I, although this is rare; 2) Clay, Miscellaneous 

 Tablets, has found : dumu-mu-mes ' our child,' a direct plural of 

 -mu; 3) as -men : en-men 'our lord,' Langdon, p. 103 (Delitzsch, 

 § 33' gives -men as frequent in this sense) ; 4) the common suffix is 

 -me: ad-da-me ' our father ' ; ama-me ' our mother ' ; ki-me-ta = ittini 

 ' with us,' etc. The curious form ki-me-ne-ne = ittisnnu ' with 

 them,' Delitzsch, § 43, probably was wrongly translated and means 

 ' with us ' ; i. e., ki ' with ' -f- me-ne-ne, a pluralized form of the usual 

 -me. There seems to be no distinction in these suffixes between 

 rectus and oblique. This is clearly indicated by the series of suffixes 

 an-ne-en, en-ne-en, in-ne-en, me-en-ne-en, un-ne-en, all which are 

 used for the first person plural (MSL., p. xxii, § 5) and are not 

 honorifics as I thought (AJSL., XXVIII. , p. 73) . These are merely 

 plural first personal suffixes with possible connecters (cf. just below 

 s.v. wie-en-zi-en) . The -nen element which appears in all of them 

 must represent -me-n. 



Me-en-zi-en^:=^attunu 'you' (given by all sources) and also si-Tie 

 'you,' a real plural of the second personal element zi {ze = za-e), 

 Langdon, p. 104. Note the parallel me-ne ' we.' In view of the 

 fact than za-e-me-en also=-attumi, IV. R. 21, i B. rev. 3, clearly = 

 za-e -f men = ' thou and I,' it is probable that me-en-zi-en also = ' I 

 and thou ' (me, 'I ' -f verbal -en + zi(ze), ' thou + verbal -en) . 

 But this za-e-me-en is equivalent to Poebel's full form of za-e (see 

 above s.v. za-e). It is impossible that za-e-me-en could have been 

 a second personal singular separate form and at the same time a 

 second person plural ! If it were really used in both senses there 

 must have been a different tone for each usage of w^n = respectively 

 the verb 'to be' and the first person. Note that the odd reading 

 1^1-e-me-en, HT. 139, §7, clearly = za(l)-e-me-en. 



Of me-en-zi-en no genitive has been discovered, but it probably 



