19IS-] PRINCE— PRONOUNS AND VERBS OF SUMERIAN. 41 



'he upon me'; nii-ni-, 'he it for me'; mu-na-an-, 'he it for me'; 

 mn-si-in-, ' he upon me ' ; mu-uh-, ' he for me ' ; mu-un-, ' he for 

 (to) me.' 



The second personal object shows : mi-ni-, ' I thee therein,' but 

 consistently -ra-, ' to thee ; thee ' ; -ra-ah-, ' it for thee.' 



The third personal object is seen in ba-an-, ' he it ' ; ba-an-na, ' he 

 it; he it for him'; in-na, 'I to him'; mu-na-an-, 'he to (for) him; 

 they it for him ' ; niu-un-ni-in-, ' they it for her (him) .' The ele- 

 ment -na clearly = ' to him/ as na-ab = ' it for him ' ; -ni-i-, ' for 

 him,' as ba-ni-i, ' I it for him ' ; i-ni-i, ' I it for him ' ; mi-ni-i-, ' I for 

 him ; thou for him.' 



We find in these forms the duplicate mi-ni-i-, ' I thee therein ' 

 and 'I for him'=^i and 3 object; mu-un-, 'he for me,' but mu-na- 

 an-, ' he it for me ' and ' he it for him.' 



Poebel's table of pronominal elements as used by the verb (p. 

 45) is most ingenious, but not satisfactory, as will be shown. His 

 classification is as follows : 



This he has elaborated from his Paradigms (pp. 70 ft) ; thus : 

 ni-la-en, ' I pay ' ; n is pref ormative -|- the i which contains the i p. ' ; 

 /a=iroo?-|- ew-suffix of the i and 2 p.; ni-la-en also =^' thou pay- 

 est'; only here, he thinks, that his 2 personal e is contained in the 

 i of n-i. Ni-la-e also means 'he pays,' where the 7t = pref ormative 

 of the third person -}- connecting vowel i + root /a-|-3 personal 

 suffix -e. The analysis of the forms, just given is my own, made 

 from what I believe to be his theory. The '-vowel for the first 

 person again appears in the simple forms i-dim, ' I made ' ; the 

 ^-vowel of the second person in e-dim, ' thou madest ' and the n of 

 the 3 p. in indim, 'he made' (p. 78). Similarly a-tum, ' I brought' 

 {a = a'^); a-men, 'I am' (Clay); e-titm, 'thou didst bring' and 

 an-tum, 'he brought' (p. 80) seem to indicate the correctness of his 

 idea. But, without entering more deeply into this ingenious and 

 carefully thought out theory, it may be demolished by the simple 

 fact that a- (=0'), e- and n- do not always mean the i, 2 and 3 



