The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian

6. Verbal Morphology 63
- < 9. šu-ul-lu-ú-ub-ri e-er-bi-né-eš e-ep-¯e-e-ni >
- < 10. ta-la-a¯-¯u-u-um * ta-la-a¯-¯u-u-um e-ep-¯e-e-ni >
- < 11. ¯a-a-šar-ri pu-ú-si-¯u-um * pu-ú-si-¯u-um >
- < 12. ¯a-a-šar-ri na-a¯-¯a-ab ú-la-nu-u-um >
‘9. A šullûubri (bread) the dog in the oven, 10. drawing * drawing in the oven, 11. in the
oil dipping * dipping, 12. in the oil lied down having a meal.’
There is only one subject: erbi-ni-š ‘the dog (Erg.)’ and one finite verbal form: na¯¯ab
‘he lied down’. The other verbal forms with -m ending are participles. It can also be noted that
several words in the Absolutive case are used with an unmarked Locative meaning. And this
section is also written in dactylic hexameters as the previous one.
According to Wilhelm (2004a:111) and Bush (1964:187—193), Hurrian distinguished
tense differences by means of the following suffixes:
a) Present tense: -Ø;
b) Past tense: -oš- *[-os-] in Wilhelm's recontruction of Hurrian;
c) Future: -ett- *[-et-] in Wilhelm's recontruction of Hurrian.
(According to Diakonoff—Starostin [1986:89—90], there is some indication that these suffixes
may have once been aspect markers.)
This approach does not seem to be correct on several counts. It seems that the past tense
maker is only -š- *[s] without the vowel. What Wilhelm reconstructs as a vowel *o is nothing
but the valency marker *-u-, something that amply testifies to the untenability of this vowel
system with *o and *e. The other valency marker -i- is shown in several person names, which
Wilhelm (1996:176) considers obscure formations. We propose to interpret them as follows:
- Aniš-¯urbe ‘The rhyton made (him/her) happy’
- Àaiš-Teššub ‘Teššub took (him/her)’ (cf. Àaib-Teššub)
- Paiš-Kumme ‘Kumme built (it)’
- Te¯iš-menni ‘Menni made (him/her) greater’
- Šeriš-adal 89 ‘The strong (one) pleased (him, her)’
The verb ending -iš seems to be a more recent development than the obsolescent Old
Hurrian ending -ib.
The tense marker of the future does not seem to be correct either. The marker is actually
-ed- *[-(y)i:d]. The dental -tt- exists only as the marker of the third person plural. It can be
noted that the future has grammatical affinities with the conditional, as shown by KBo 32.15 Ro
I 8'—9', which connects:
-
-
‘8'. Will Teššub be hungry, 9'. we would give half a kor of barley’
89 This word is the origin of the non-existing equative case marker -š in Speiser (1941:204).