Journal of Semitic Studies LV/2 Autumn 2010 doi: 10.

1093/jss/fgq001
The author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.
325
THE AKKADIAN IPRUS FROM
THE UNIDIRECTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
ALEXANDER ANDRASON
UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH
Abstract
This paper is aimed at describing the Akkadian construction iprus from
the perspective of the unidirectional theory of grammaticalization.
First, general notions of grammaticalization, unidirectionality and
source determination are given. Next, in the first part of the article, the
author presents the development of the resultative construction as pos-
ited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994).
These famous definitions will be modified in view of observations
of Maslov (1988) and Andrason (2009a and 2009b). In the second
part, the author proceeds to the analysis of the iprus gram. Firstly,
the core and peripheral uses of the iprus are presented. Secondly,
employing the unidirectional model of the development of resultative
constructions established in the first part, the author explains all
meanings and functions of the iprus as realizations of different stages
of the regular resultative evolution. In consequence, from the unidi-
rectional perspective, the synchronic set of chaotic and unrelated
values displayed by the iprus turns into a homogeneous and regular
picture a single resultative diachrony, i.e., one original resultative
input that follows a determined diachronic path. Finally, the author
shows how this proposal fits into the proto-Semitic model and how
other Semitic languages may support the unidirectional resultative
interpretation of the iprus.
There exists a wide range of theories explaining the verbal system of
Akkadian. Some of them emphasize its aspectual nature, while others
stress the temporal or the perfectal component. What unifies all these
theories is the fact that they describe elements of the Akkadian verbal
organization from the synchronic perspective, having based the
model a priori on the alleged dichotomy between two constructions:
the iprus and the iparras and, depending on the scholars view, this
opposition consists of aspect, tense or relative tenses. In consequence,
due to the radical synchronic perspective, both the iprus and the ipar-
ras are usually described as static items that form a static contrast.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 325 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
326
However the author of this paper, who admits the supremacy of the
diachronic method, intends to present the iprus as a dynamic gram,
and consequently to explain its nature and values from the unidirec-
tional perspective of grammaticalization and universal paths (cf. Dahl
1985 and 2000, and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). Following
the laws of grammaticalization, any verbal formation must be under-
stood as a developing gram that moves from the periphery of the
system into the core area, acquiring and losing determined meanings.
This means that different uses (both typical/core and atypical/periph-
eral) of a construction are the results of its gradual, unidirectional and
ordered development. Thus, if the theory is correct, the dynamic view
of the iprus should enable us to group the synchronically chaotic and
unrelated values displayed by the Akkadian gram into a homogenous
and regular set one original input that follows a single diachronic
path. Moreover, it should be possible to explain the complex opposi-
tion between the iprus and the iparras in terms of two distinct func-
tional trajectories without, at the same time, reducing it to a bipolar
contrast.
1


1
The author is aware of the unusual application here of the diachronic and
synchronic method. Normally these terms refer to earlier and later forms (diachronic)
or contemporary forms (synchronie). However, the author uses the universal dia-
chrony (paths) of a given construction in order to explain contemporary data. Put
differently, the diachronic approach provides a schematic explanation for forms that
are all viewed as contemporaneous. In this way, the diachronic model enables us to
relate all superficially incompatible values of a construction (in this case of
the iprus) and define it as a homogeneous form, i.e., as a synchronic expression of
a prototypical diachrony (the resultative path). This means that every grammatical
formation at a given moment is a synchronic manifestation of a diachronic develop-
ment that is consistent with predetermined universal paths. Certainly, such a view
does not explain conditions that determine different uses of the construction in
question. However, it does explain why the construction displays various and almost
opposite meanings (for instance the past and the future in the case of the iprus), and
furthermore it reduces all synchronic values to a single input and its subsequent
regular diachrony. This method of explanation coincides with methodology used in
Indo-European studies. For instance, in Germanic languages the same verbal mor-
phology serves to provide both the simple past (strong preterite) and present mean-
ing (preterite-present verbs or modal verbs). In order to explain this paradox, one
must resort to the concept of the resultative (perfect) that was the PIE source of
both groups of verbs (cf. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988). In a similar vein the value
of the verb oda is explained in Classical Greek this verb had a clear present
meaning while the same morphological pattern in the immense majority of verbs
showed prototypical perfect uses. Yet again, both types originated in the PIE resulta-
tive and followed either of the two drifts that resultative constructions universally
follow (on resultative paths and drifts see part 1).
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 326 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
327
In the next part of the article, general notions of grammaticalization,
unidirectionality and source determination will be given. Then, we
will focus on the development of the resultative construction as pos-
ited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1989).
These famous definitions will, however, be modified in view of obser-
vations provided by Maslov (1988) and Andrason (2009a and 2009b).
After that, the author will proceed to the analysis of the iprus. Firstly,
the core and peripheral uses of the Akkadian formation will be pre-
sented. Secondly, applying the unidirectional model of grammati-
calization, we will explain all meanings and functions of the gram as
manifestations of different stages of a regular functional evolution,
i.e. as a single diachrony. Finally, it will be demonstrated how this
proposal fits into the proto-Semitic model and how other Semitic
languages may support the unidirectional interpretation of the iprus.
0. Introduction Grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is a change that attributes a grammatical character
to a formerly independent word or a semantically transparent periph-
rasis (cf. Meillet 1948: 132), or put differently, grammaticalisation
consists in the increase of the range of the morpheme advancing from
a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more gram-
matical status (Kuryowicz 1965: 52). This means that grammati-
calization is a movement whereby one unit acquires a grammatical
function and loses its phonetic substance, semantic independence,
transparency and complexity, syntactic freedom, and pragmatic sig-
nificance (cf. Heine and Reh 1984: 15). In consequence, a semantic
item or a periphrasis becomes an element of the grammatical (mor-
phological, analytic or synthetic) system of the language travelling
from the peripheral area to the more central sphere (cf. Bybee, Perkins
and Pagliuca 1994 and Dahl 2000). According to Dahl (2000), there
are two types of grams, i.e. peripheral grams and core grams. This dis-
tinction reflects differences in grammaticalization. Non-grammatical-
ized peripheral grams are usually lexical and analytical. Core grams, on
the other hand, are fully grammaticalized and may be inflectional (cf.
Dahl 2000: 1517). Moreover, a distinction may be made between
coming grams, i.e. those which are invading the core area of the sys-
tem, and leaving grams, i.e. those which have already achieved their
functional apogee and are consequently moving out of the centre zone
back to the periphery. The leaving grams, even though peripheral, are
usually synthetic. It must be also emphasized that grammaticalization
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 327 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
328
is a complex process in which various phenomena participate and
converge, e.g. generalization, decategorialization, specialization,
increased frequency, morphologization and phonological reduction
(cf. Hopper and Traugott 2003: 99174).
Grammaticalization theory claims that the functional paths are univer-
sal, unidirectional and input-output determining (cf. Bybee 1994: 915).
As far as the the verbal system is concerned, Dahl (1985, 2000) and
Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) establish three possible evolutionary
processes: from locative constructions into imperfective (and present),
from modal expressions into modality and future, and finally from
resultative-completive periphrasis into perfective past and simple past. In
this article, we will deal especially with the third trajectory, which may be
applied to the Akkadian preterite iprus. In the next paragraph, we will
present the resultative path as posited by Dahl (1985, 2000) and Bybee,
Perkins and Pagliuca (1994). However, these definitions will be slightly
modified in light of the evidence concerning the development of the
resultative constructions provided by Maslov (1988) and Andrason
(2009a and 2009b). The precise description of the resultative path will
enable us to reconstruct the history of the Akkadian iprus and explain its
uses in Old Babylonian from the unidirectional perspective.
1. Resultative and its development
Dahl (2000: 1517) determines the resultative path as a diachronic
process which begins with lexical periphrases that include items with
the meaning of already or finish. The lexical inputs that correspond
to the meaning of already generate the resultative proper, while
those that have their source in the finish lexemes lead to the creation
of the perfect. The resultative consequently develops into the perfect,
and then after a possible convergence with the finish perfect, it turns
into a perfective or past. This development may be illustrated by the
following picture (cf. Figure 1):
OUTPUT PATH INPUT
finish perfective
perfect

already past resultative
Figure 1. Resultative path according to Dahl (1985, 2000)
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 328 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
329
According to Dahl (1985) and Bybee and Dahl (1989) the perfective
equals in fact the perfective past since the typical system that includes
the timeframe perfective aspect is tripartite and the perfective is
restricted to the past. In consequence, the transformation of the per-
fect into the perfective involves the further change into the perfective
past. Finally, the aspectual distinction may be lost and the gram
acquires pure temporal past significance.
A highly similar trajectory (called here anterior path) has been
posited by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994). According to their
model, the evolution originates in three possible types of expres-
sions: first, in periphrases with the verbs have and be, together
with participles (as commonly used in Romance and Germanic lan-
guages). These constructions give the resultative proper, and conse-
quently the anterior. They may also lead to evidential uses and func-
tions. Secondly, the anterior path may have its source in verbs that
convey the idea of coming. This type will directly generate the
anterior. Thirdly, the anterior may be a descendent of completive
locutions that, on its own, can derive from finish constructions
and directional expressions. The completive, as we have said, turns
regularly into the anterior. However, some completives may become
what Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca call derivational perfective (as
for example in Slavic). All resultatives, completives and direct ante-
riors (i.e. those that arise from come constructions) evolve into
perfects (anterior proper), and consequently turn into the perfective,
finally becoming the simple past. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca fol-
low Dahls opinion on the perfective aspect and its temporal impli-
cation. Thus, the perfective will usually equal the perfective past.
They observe that the perfective past is more specific and it inter-
acts with the imperfectivity by contrasting with it, while the simple
past is more general and may be used to describe not only perfective
events but also situations viewed as imperfective (Bybee, Perkins
and Pagliuca 1994: 84). In consequence, in languages where there
is an imperfective past, the new anterior will develop, by contrast,
into the perfective past, while in languages where the imperfect does
not exist, the anterior will directly generate the simple past. Bybee,
Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 85) also note that derivational comple-
tives, differently from other formations which correspond to pre-
anterior stages situated on the anterior path, do not evolve into the
perfective past, but rather yield the derivational perfective. The
derivational perfective is not restricted to past events and situations;
quite the contrary, it may occur in any temporal sphere of a finite
verb, cf. the present perfective that indicates future (Polish) or
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 329 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
330
in subordinate clauses expresses the idea of purpose (Serbo-Croat).
It can also appear in the imperative or in non-finite verbal forms
(cf. Classical Greek or again Slavic languages). In fact, such a deri-
vational perfective aspect is not restricted to verbs, but it may be
present in nouns, cf. verbal nouns in Polish which can be aspectu-
ally marked expressing imperfective or perfective actions. The entire
anterior trajectory, and its sub-paths may be summarized in the fol-
lowing figure (cf. Figure 2):
INDIRECT EVIDENCE INFERENCE FROM RESULTS
be/have RESULTATIVE
PERFECTIVE/SIMPLE PAST ANTERIOR come
finish
directionals DERIVATIONAL PERFECTIVE
COMPLETIVE
Figure 2. The anterior path according to Bybee,
Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 105)
Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) maintain that the completive and
the resultative, i.e. the constructions which reflect pre-anterior stages
of the development, are highly similar. Both present an event as com-
posed of two temporal and consecutive planes: the previous cause and
the posterior result. However, while the resultative emphasizes the
resulting present state of a prior action, the completive stresses the
previous action. As shown in the figure (cf. Figure 2), the resultative
can also acquire an evidential character. This change is itself a gradual
development that passes through the following stages: a) information
via direct evidence, b) via indirect inferred evidence; and c) via
reported (second-hand) evidence; cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca
(1994: 95).
As we have said, the resultative is a semantically complex and bipo-
lar formation. According to Maslov (1988: 64) [t]he term [resulta-
tive]
2
include[s] two temporal planes: that of precedence, and that
of sequence. The situations corresponding to these planes are in one
way or another related, as cause and effect. In consequence, the inter-
nal structure of a resultative construction can be represented in the
following way (cf. Figure 3):

2
Maslov uses the term perfect.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 330 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
331
resultative
D
1
D
2
D
1
D
2
posterior result prior cause
Figure 3. The structure of a resultative construction
Maslov (1988: 64) adds that [u]sually, one of the two situations
seems to be semantically more important, while the other serves,
as it were, as a background, often barely suggested. This inherent
semantic instability leads to a focus either on the precedence or on
the consequence. Gradually, one of the two planes becomes domi-
nant and the other disappears. Here the terms prior and posterior
are used to describe the internal correlation between two planes of
the resultative. In relation to the time of the context (the main time
of sentence, text, dialogue, discourse etc.) the labels anterior and
simultaneous will be used. This means that the emphasis on the
prior plane (cause) of the resultative construction will surface as
anterior drift to the main time of the context, while the emphasis
on the posterior plane (result) will surface as simultaneous drift to
the main time. Though the resultative is originally shaped and
grammaticalized in the present tense context (in the spoken lan-
guage, and in discursive genres that are closely related to it), it is
not a tense expression. In fact, the resultative does not carry any
exact time reference by itself. The tense is frequently provided by
the auxiliary verb or by the context if there is no verb in the initial
periphrasis. The development following the anterior drift (resultative
perfect past) corresponds to Dahls resultative path (1985,
2000) and to the anterior path as posited by Bybee, Perkins and
Pagliuca (1994). On the other hand, scholars have paid less atten-
tion to the simultaneous path (resultative stative present).
However, this development is extremely common and may be
observed for example in Latin (cf. the verbs like memini and odi),
Greek (cf. the verb oda) and in Germanic languages (cf. the pret-
erite-present verbs like kunna in Old Icelandic and Gothic). More-
over, as demonstrated by the history of the Romance and Germanic
families, the two drifts may be active in a single language (cf. Andra-
son 2009a and 2009b). In consequence, the complete model of the
development of a resultative construction based on Dahl (1985,
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 331 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
332
2000), Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994) and Andrason (2009a
and 2009b) may be summarized in the following way (cf. Figure 4):
3
EVIDENTIAL
ANTERIOR PERFECT PERFECTIVE PAST
RESULTATIVE
STATIVE PRESENT
Figure 4. The resultative path
The trajectory described above applies to the present temporal refer-
ence. Since grammatical items usually start their grammaticalization
in the present time frame, the development in this temporal context
is more advanced and better marked (cf. the difference between
the pass compos originally the present perfect vs. the plus-que-
parfait the past resultative in French). Furthermore, the anterior
drift is regulary stronger than the simultaneous drift, which
is frequently limited to stative verbs (this may have its roots in the
fientive nature of verbs which describe an action rather than a state).
However, the resultative may also occur in the past or future time
context. The evolution, though governed by the same principles,
i.e. by the anterior and simultaneous drifts, is not identical with the
resultative path in the present time frame. The outcomes of
the simultaneous drift in the past are first the past stative and later
the simple past. Similarly with the future temporal reference, the
same drift produces the future stative and subsequently the simple
future (cf. the memineram and meminero in Latin). The anterior drift
in the past gives the past perfect (the pluperfect) and then, usually,
the remote past tense. In the future temporal environment, it leads
to the creation of the future perfect (future resultative) that may
finally generate the simple future (cf. Polish byem (z)robi y bd
robi), cf. Figure 5:

3
The objections that have been targeted at the grammaticalization and path
theory have led to its use for heuristic purposes rather than as the prediction of
linguistic developments. However, the author claims that even if the future shape
of a language is not entirely predictable, the grammaticalization laws are determin-
istic in nature. In this respect, languages are examples of chaotic systems they
are governed by deterministic laws but their shape remains to a certain degree
unpredictable.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 332 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
333
PAST STATIVE PAST
PAST CONTEXT
PAST PERFECT REMOTE
RESULTATIVE
FUTURE STATIVE FUTURE
FUTURE CONTEXT
FUTURE PERFECT FUTURE
Figure 5. The anterior and simultaneous drifts in the past and
future time context
It is important to stress that the growing resultative gram when
acquiring new semantic values does not have to lose its previous uses.
It may preserve them as typical and primary functions (cf. pass com-
pos in French which still conveys resultative meaning even though it
may be used as a perfective or narrative past) or as secondary and
peripheral uses (cf. the preterite-present verbs in Germanic languages
this original stative present function of the resultative is preserved
only with approximately ten verbs while the perfect of all other strong
predicates acquired the past meaning).
Having explained the universal evolution of resultative constuc-
tions, in the following section, we shall analyse the typical and atyp-
ical uses of iprus, This inventory of functions will subsequently enable
us to define the Akkadian formation from the grammaticalization
perspective as a homogeneous phenomenon, a diachronic path.
2. Akkadian iprus
The core of the Akkadian verbal system is formed by the opposition
between two verbal forms, i.e. the iprus and the iparras (called dura-
tive or present, cf. Knudsen 1986, Kienast 2001, Malbran-Labat and
Vita 2005) this opposition is usually defined in terms of aspectu-
ality (perfective aspect vs. imperfective aspect, cf. Malbran-Labat and
Vita 2005: 978, 102) or relative tenses (anteriority vs. non-anteri-
ority, cf. Streck 1999). According to Landsberger (1926) and Hueh-
nergard (2005: 19) the iprus indicates a punctual event seen as occur-
ring or having occurred at a single point in time. It frequently
corresponds to the simple past or, in temporal clauses, to the pluper-
fect. In Akkadian grammar the iprus formation is usually labelled
preterite and consequently defined as the tense of narration of past
events (cf. the following example in Huehnergard 2005: 119):
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 333 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
334
(1) Erib-Sn u Nur-Samas tapptam ipusu-ma ana bit Samas irubu-ma
emsunu ipusu-ma kaspam babtam amtam u wardam sa arranim u libbi
alim mitaris izuzu
Erib-Sin and Nur-Shamash entered into a partnership; they entered
the Shamash temple and carried out their intention: they divided
equally the silver, outstanding goods, (and) female and male slaves of
(both) business trip(s) and within the city (CT 2 28 = Schorr, VAB 5
no. 172).
According to Malbran-Labat and Vita (2005: 102) the iprus se opone
al inacabado [i.e. the iparras] sobre el plano del aspecto [y] expresa
una accin considerada como acabada. However, they affirm that
both the iprus and the iparras may have not only aspectual but also
temporal values (cf. Malbran and Vita 2005: 97). Loesov (2006: 111)
rejects Landsbergers view, and claims that the primary function of
the iprus is the expression of a general past and not of punctual or
momentary events (cf. the example 2). Even though Loesov criticizes
the theory of the aspectual opposition between the iprus and the ipar-
ras, he admits that the aspectual interpretation of the iprus is pre-
dominantly perfective
4
(cf. the following example in Loesov
2006:111).
(2) eqlam mari PN assur-ma MU 15.KAM akul
I cut off of the field belonging to the sons of PN and lived from it for
fifteen years (AbB 4, 69:7 ff.).
Streck (2003: 425) is another modern scholar who does not agree
with the traditional definition of the iprus construction as a punctual
past. His hypothesis of relative tenses seems to work better than the
traditional aspectual view; for instance, this model can more accu-
rately explain the use of the iparras with the conjunction lama when
the time of the main clause is the past. There also exists a deictic tense
approach that relates the iprus and the iparras in independent clauses
with clearly temporal interpretation, respectively as past (cf. the inter-
pretation of the iprus in Lipinski 2001) and non-past. This hypoth-
esis seems to be weak when it comes to explaining situations which

4
The aspectual theory may be also supported by the fact that the iprus of stative
verbs has the inchoative meaning. This corresponds to the situation in Slavic lan-
guages where the perfective aspect of stative verbs has not the terminative or telic
value (as in the case of regular verbs), but rather indicates the ingressive meaning,
cf. the imperfective bac si be scared vs. the perfective przestraszyc si become
scared, get scared or miec have vs. dostac get.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 334 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
335
occur simultaneously with the speech time and especially various uses
in temporal clauses.
Kienast (2001: 2967) does not reduce the iprus to a single seman-
tic domain, but enumerates its functions. The primary values of the
iprus are perfect (the expression of an anterior and completed event),
pluperfect (the same but in the past context), and narrative past tense.
Kienast also identifies two other uses which we will present in detail
when describing the atypical (or peripheral) functions of the forma-
tion, i.e. the performative value (Koinzidenzfall, cf. Kienast 2001:
297) and the future perfect meaning (futurum exactum, cf. ibid.).
Whichever model is chosen, the iprus seems to refer to past events
or situations, viewed, depending on the scholars position, as perfec-
tive, punctual, anterior, or simple. However, there are uses of the
iprus which do not directly indicate the past. In consequence, one
may detect examples where the gram cannot be labelled as a straight-
forward narrative past, preterite, perfective past or anterior to present.
We shall now introduce these atypical uses.
According to Loesov, one of the peripheral functions of the iprus,
would be the expression of performative meaning (cf. Loesov 2006:
11517) which frequently corresponds to the present tense in Indo-
European languages. The performative iprus is commonly used with
the verb saparum to send, write in the conventional greeting formula
of OB letters (cf. Example 3), or in other less formulaic phrases,
cf. atam I swear, -na-i-i-id-ka I call your attention, I order you
(cf. Loesov 2006: 117).
(3) ana sulmika aspur-am
I wish you well-being (Sallaberger 1999: 8792).
In Loesovs view, the performative use of the iprus was still productive
in Old Babylonian since even non-utterance verbs, i.e. verbs that are
not explicitly performative (e.g. sakanum put, place in as-ku-un-ka
I demand [this] of you in Goetze 1958, No. 47:279), could be
performativized (cf. Loesov 2006: 117). On the contrary, Denz
(1982), Mller (1986), Streck (1995) and Metzler (2002) relate the
performative nature of the iprus to its basic perfective aspect or ante-
rior value Consequently, the performative meaning would be consist-
ent with the prototypical domain of the construction (perfect, perfec-
tive and past functions).
There are other uses of the iprus that do not have any deictic past
reference in such cases, the formation does not equal a preterite
or a past. In the majority of temporal clauses the idea of explicit
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 335 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
336
anteriority in reference to the future (or general present) is conveyed
by the perfect iptaras. However, in subordinated phrases introduced by
the conjunction adila, when the time of the main clause is present
or future (in fact, this is the only possibility in the case of this conjunc-
tion), the iprus (and not the perfect iptaras) expresses the anteriority
(cf. Huehnergard 2005: 285):
(4) adi abi la illikam ul tr
I will not return before my father has come
Additionally, the iprus may be found in temporal clauses with the
particle lama. If the main clause describes a future event, the iprus is
used to indicate immediate and certain future actions (cf. Huehner-
gard 2005: 286):
(5) lama ipsurusu alkim
Come before they sell / have sold it
Another atypical meaning of the formation may be found in the case
of two verbs, i.e. edm and ism, which Testen (2000) labels prefixed
statives. These predicates also show some morphological irregulari-
ties. Firstly, in the form iprus they do not display the expected pre-
radical vowel (i and a), but the vowel is invariably i for all persons.
Secondly, the verbs in question do not offer, as regular verbs do, three
stem configurations (iprus, iparras and iptaras), but employ only one
form, i.e. the iprus. The meaning of the iprus of these two verbs is
also peculiar. Huehnergard affirms that, even though preterites, they
do not have any specific temporal value, and translates them as
presents, respectively know(s) and have/has (cf. Huehnergard
2005: 282). This situation recalls the Indo-European verb *oid- /
id- see its perfect (resultative) in all daughter languages, even
though formally perfect or past, has a present meaning (cf. Classical
Greek oda). Another parallel may be provided by Germanic lan-
guages and the preterite-present verbs like kunna or urfa which may
be understood as stative. The preterite (formerly perfect) of these
verbs is used in all Germanic languages (even already in Gothic)
uniquely with the present meaning (Birkmann 1987 and Andrason
2009b).
In consequence, the iprus construction can function as a past,
both perfective and simple with no perfective or punctual marking
(this second possibility does not mean that the aspect is imperfec-
tive!). It may be employed as a past tense of narration, i.e. as a pret-
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 336 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
337
erite. And in main clauses, it usually indicates the temporal context
that is anterior to the present. These three uses seem dependent on
the perspective adopted by a given scholar but as we will see, they
may be understood as three different contextual realizations of one
and the same meaning. Furthermore, in subordinated temporal, and
sometimes in principal clauses when the main time reference is the
past, the formation equals the past anterior (i.e. anterior to the past
or past perfect) the pluperfect. In clauses with adila and lama
it appears with the present-future time reference, and indicates
respectively anteriority to the future, and immediate future events.
Finally, the iprus form of two verbs edm and ism has stative mean-
ing with no explicit temporal information; in the present or general
time context, it corresponds to the Indo-European present tense.
Additionally, the iprus may appear in modal expressions as the
precative and vetitive (cf. Huehnergard 2005: 1447, Malbran-
Labat and Vita 2005: 102). The uses in the injunctive constructions
may additionally support the aspectual theory of the iprus since in
this function the gram refers to the future time sphere.
5
It is possible
to summarize the typical and atypical values of the iprus in the fol-
lowing table (cf. Table 1):
Value Uses
Preterite (simple past and past narrative) Main clauses
Past perfective (punctual) Main clauses
Anterior to present Main clauses
Performative Mainly, but not only with performative
verbs
Pluperfect, i.e. past perfect Temporal clauses and main clauses
Anterior to the future Temporal clauses with adi la
Immediate future Temporal clauses with lama
Present (past) stative (atemporal) Prefixed stative edm and ism
Precative and vetitive With prefixes (li-,lu-, i- and ayy-/e-)
Table 1. The uses of the iprus

5
The uses of the iprus in injunctions may in fact reflect the Proto-Semitic situa-
tion. According to Huehnergard (1988:22) [b]oth the zero-form yaqtul and []
the imperfect, Central Semitic yaqtulu, were probably unmarked for mood: both
could occur in both statements and injunctions. What distinguished the two forms,
accordingly, was not mood but primarily a matter of aspect, and secondarily of tense:
yaqtul is a perfective or punctual form, temporally a specific past; yaqtulu is an
imperfective or durative form, temporally a future.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 337 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
338
If one tries to relate the above mentioned uses and to find one syn-
chronic formula covering them all, one faces a hard if not impossible
task of explaining such a complex amalgam of values. How is the
future perfect connected to the present stative or to the narrative past?
In what sense is it possible to relate the stative meaning of edm and
ism to examples of many fientive verbs that in the iprus show aspec-
tually perfective value? And in what way is the discursive nature of
performative expressions cognate to the narrative? Is the iprus form
an amalgam of random meanings and uses? The formation certainly
appears chaotic if one limits the description to the synchronic per-
spective. However, if we analyse the iprus from the unidirectional
perfective, as a developing gram, the construction stops being seman-
tically heterogeneous and instead of displaying a set of random and
unrelated meanings becomes the expression of a single growing gram-
matical unit (cf. the Figure 6, see p. 339); in the case of the iprus we
are dealing with a resultative gram that progresses in three temporal
contexts following the resultative path which itself consists of two
drifts (anterior and simultaneous).
6

This understanding of the Akkadian formation coincides with the
regular evolution of the resultative as posited in part 1 above. The
main functions match the anterior drift in the present time context.
The construction may be used as anterior, perfective past or simple
past of narration. This means that, the gram has acquired all possible
values on the scale of the anterior drift. However, even if it provides
uses that reflect all stages of the anterior drift, its main function cor-
responds to the perfective past and narrative past. Furthermore, one
must also take into consideration other resultative constructions
which, being aggressive younger grams, reduce the old semantic
domain of the iprus, i.e., the stative and perfectal values (cf. the dough-
nut gram phenomenon). The usual expression of the perfect is the
iptaras, and the regular stative is conveyed by the permansive parsaku.

6
It is important to note that one gram may follow several drifts (or sub-paths)
at the same time. For example, a resultative construction can simultaneously follow
three drifts established for the resultative path, i.e., anterior drift, simultaneous drift,
and evidential drift. There are numerous examples of such a multi-faced development,
e.g. the PIE perfect that in the majority of verbs became a past (e.g. in Greek, Latin
and Gothic). However, some stative verbs had followed the simultaneous drift and
thus became presents (cf. Latin memini, Greek oda, and preterite-present verbs
in Germanic languages). As observed by Graves (2000) and Lindstedt (2000), in
Macedonian and in some other Slavic languages the same morphology has followed
both the anterior and evidential drifts (evidential drift is the third possible drift that
constitutes the resultative path, cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 95).
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 338 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
339
Consequently, this situation (i.e., the coexistence of three resultative
diachronies) leads to the phenomenon of layering. The anterior drift
in non-present time spheres is more conservative and shows clear
perfectal uses as pluperfect and future perfect. As usual, the simulta-
neous drift is less active being restricted to two stative verbs edm
and ism. With the present time reference it conveys a present stative
or simply present meaning. Less commonly, it appears in the past
and future time context giving respectively a past (stative) and future
(stative).
It is also possible that in the case of the iprus one deals with a zero
gram (cf. Dahl 1985 and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 901),
and the perfective value of the iprus is a consequence of the develop-
ment of the iparras. Originally, the iprus was a resultative gram with
no aspectual value. However, due to the development of the imper-
fective iparras (cf. imperfective path in Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca
1994 and Dahl 2000), the non-aspectual iprus became a default per-

7
It should be noted that the author does not attempt to determine a discrete
location on the evolutionary path for each and every one of the meanings of the
iprus. These graphic locations are simplifications. It is obvious that the semantic-
functional development of the iprus reflects a gradual and non-discrete progress on
the resultative path.
PAST STATIVE PAST
PAST CONTEXT
PAST PERFECT REMOTE
ANTERIOR PERFECT PERFECTIVE PAST
RESULTATIVE PRESENT CONTEXT
STATIVE PRESENT
FUTURE STATIVE FUTURE
FUTURE CONTEXT
FUTURE PERFECT/IMMEDIATE FUTURE
main clauses regular uses
edm and ism
edm and ism
clauses with adi la
and lama
edm and ism
temporal clauses, main
clauses in the past time
reference
Figure 6. The iprus as a developing resultative gram
7
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 339 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
340
fective category. It must be stressed that the aspectual meaning was
not a prototypical characterization of the Akkadian formation the
iprus took up the space left over by the overtly marked iparras. Nev-
ertheless, the iprus may still provide a general perspective of an event,
which is not limited to the perfective aspect (cf. the example given by
Loesov above). A similar phenomenon, but with a marked perfective
and an unmarked imperfective (the situation opposite to the relation
between the iprus and the iparras) may be found in Slavic languages,
for example in Polish, where some imperfective verbs can still (of
course only in determined contexts) provide a perfective view of
events. In consequence, the simple past meaning of the iprus less
common than the perfective value may stem from its origin (the
resultative was not marked aspectually) as well as from the universal
development of the past perfective into a simple past. However, in the
case of the iprus the gram is far from being grammaticalized as an
expression of all past events since the language includes a core cate-
gory that describes imperfective past events, i.e. the iparras. The sim-
ple past meaning of the iprus does not mean that the aspect is imper-
fective it means that the form is aspectually unmarked, i.e., neither
perfective nor imperfective. The development of the iprus in terms of
a zero gram may be summarized in the following way,
cf. the Figure 7:
objective Akkadian origin
peripheral use? core use peripheral use?
NON-ASPECTUAL RESULTATIVE ASPECTUAL ZERO GRAM SIMPLE PAST
Figure 7. The iprus as a zero gram
From the typological perspective, the Akkadian example is not iso-
lated, and a parallel, both synchronically and diachronically, situa-
tion may be found in French in the case of the pass compos. Let us
first present all possible meanings of the French gram according to
Grevisse 1975 (cf. Table 2, see p. 341).
Like the iprus, the pass compos seems to be synchronically an
amalgam of unrelated meanings. However, diachronically one deals
with a single resultative gram that has its roots in the Latin possessive
periphrasis habeo scriptum. The pass compos shows all possible values
situated on the scale of the anterior drift: resultative, anterior, perfec-
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 340 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
341
tal, perfective past, simple past and narrative. Since, the present tense
(the tense of the auxiliary in forms like jai termin) in French may
also indicate future events, the construction can provide future per-
fect or future immediate information. The pass compos has not lost
its resultative and perfect uses because there is no grammaticalized
new resultative or perfect. The only new resultative expression (venir
de + infinitive) has still a lexical force, or at least has not been gram-
maticalized entirely. As in the case of the Akkadian iprus, the anterior
drift in the past and future temporal context (the form is then respec-
tively javais termin and jaurais termin) is less advanced and more
conservative this means that the uses with the non-present time
reference are practically reserved to perfectal or resultative ones.
3. Iprus and Proto-Semitic yaqtul
If the description of the Akkadian iprus as a dynamic category (i.e. as
a resultative diachrony) is correct, we should be able to relate this fact
to Proto-Semitic and to other Semitic languages. In consequence, two
questions must be answered. First, how does this model fit into the
description of the Proto-Semitic verbal system? And secondly, is the
resultative character of the iprus preserved (at least residually) in other
Semitic languages?
According to Lipinski (2001) the proto-Semitic yaqtul
8
was the most
unmarked category situated outside the system of aspect. Lipinski
defines it as a simple past a preterite. Huehnergard (1988:21)

8
The Proto-Semitic form yaqtul is the ancestor of the Akkadian iprus.
Values of the pass compos with the
auxiliary in the present tense
Uses
Past anterior to the present Main clause
Past perfective opposite to the imperfect Main clause
Narrative past preterite Main clause orally (seldom literally)
Present perfect Main clause
Present resultative, or present Main clause, cf. il est mort
Immediate future Main clause discursive
Future perfect Temporal clauses
Present of the general truth Proverbs
Table 2: The meanings of the pass compos with the auxiliary in the present tense
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 341 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
342
affirms that the yaqtul was a single form that expressed the perfective
aspect of verbal actions [] and injunctions. He adds that the yaqtul
could also have a temporal value functioning as a specific past
(Huehnergard 1988: 22). Kienast (2001: 334) claims that the yaqtul
was the basic form in the Proto-Semitic verbal system and sees its
origin in an agglutination of the proclitic personal prefix and the
nominal predicate. In his view, the contrast between the primary
form yaqtul and the Steigerungsform yaqattal consists of aspect,
respectively the perfective vs. the imperfective. The same aspectual
opposition between the yaqtul and yaqattal was posited by Diakonoff
(1965: 95, and 1988: 89) and Bubenik (1998: 44). However, Dia-
konoff and Bubenik reconstruct the imperfective as yaqatal in
their opinion the reduplication of the second root consonant was
limited to the derived D conjugation (cf. Bubenik 1998: 45). In all
these models the yaqtul is the unmarked basic form, while the yaqat(t)
al is a secondary, derived and overtly marked imperfective (a dynamic
imperfective gram in its development according to the imperfective
path; cf. Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994, Dahl 2000, Bertinetto
2000, Bertinetto, Ebbert and Groot 2000, and Ebbert 2000). This
coincides with our definition of the yaqtul (iprus) as an originally
unmarked (aspectually and temporally) form the perfective and
past marking would be acquired by default due to the development
and grammaticalization of the yaqattal (cf. zero gram). Nevertheless,
the past and perfective values could also stem from the development
determined by the resultative path (cf. the development from the
resultative through the perfective to the past). The yaqtul cannot be
reduced in Proto-Semitic to the notion of preterite, since it still shows
non-past meanings in Akkadian (cf. part 2). Furthermore, the non-past
values of the yaqtul are not limited to Akkadian. They may also be
found in Classical Arabic cf. the use of yaqtul in conditional clauses.
Moreover, the Arabic construction lamma yaqtul has clearly a present
perfect meaning. The perfectal (both present and past) values of the
yaqtul can also be found in the Biblical Hebrew wayyiqtol. Even though
this construction usually functions as a preterite, it can sometimes (in
fact very seldom) refer to future events presenting them as a single
perfective whole (cf. Waltke and OConnor 1990: 557). Addition-
ally, according to Waltke and OConnor (1990), the wayyiqtol can
describe a present persistent perfective situation. Finally, in Phoeni-
cian the proto-Semitic yaqtul may function as the future perfect
(futurum exactum, cf. Kienast 2001: 314).
There is also another fact that supports the view of the yaqtul as a
dynamic phenomenon. The opposition between the yaqtul and yaqat-
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 342 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
343
tal in Semitic languages is not simply perfective vs. imperfective but
may consist of three gradually intensified elements (aspect, tense, and
resultativity
9
-simultaneity). In consequence, the yaqtul is more
resultative, aspectually perfective and temporally past-oriented than
the yaqattal. Conversely, the yaqattal is more simultaneous, imperfec-
tive and non-past-oriented. However this opposition is far from being
discrete. One rather deals with two contrastive diachronies: the
resultative path vs. the imperfective path. Each one of these trajecto-
ries is a gradual development in consequence, the two grams do
not form a perfect dichotomy, but rather two different diachronic
movements that at different stages of their developments may surface
as an aspectual, resultative-simultaneous, or temporal opposition. In
fact, at the same time, the yaqtul and the yaqattal may involve a set
of contrasts reflecting achieved, but not necessarily lost, stages of their
development. Thus, it is no longer surprising that in one language,
even in one context, this opposition may be complex and consist of
three segments, i.e. aspect, tense, and resultativity-simultaneity.
4 Conclusion
In light of the presented evidence, we may state that the iprus is a
resultative gram that grows in accordance with the unidirectional
development codified by the resultative path and grammaticalization.
This observation enables us to claim that, in the case of the Akkadian
formation, one does not deal with a single semantic category (past,
perfective aspect, anterior etc.) but rather with a single diachrony. In
consequence, from the unidirectional perspective, the synchronic set
of chaotic and unrelated values displayed by the iprus turns into a
homogeneous and regular picture one original resultative input
that follows a single diachronic path. We have also observed that the
thesis of the resultative nature of the iprus is supported by data pro-
vided by other Semitic languages, and furthermore, it perfectly fits
into the proto-Semitic model.
The positive verification of the thesis whereby the iprus should be
understood as an originally resultative construction that undergoes the
regular development in terms of the resultative paths leads to another
conclusion. According to evolutionary linguistics, meanings that cor-
respond to less advanced stages on the anterior drift (a sub-path of the
resultative path) should be older while those that reflect more advanced

9
Resultativity in a broad sense as was posited in part 1.
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 343 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
344
stages are supposed to be younger. This means that, the oldest uses
of the iprus should correspond to more resultative and less preterite
values, while the youngest ones are expected to have a more tempo-
rally explicit character (in particular, they should indicate the past).
The corroboration of this hypothesis constitutes the future research
project of the author.
Address for Correspondence:
University of Stellenbosch, Department of Ancient Studies, Private Bag XI, 7602
Matieland, South Africa
REFERENCES
Andrason, A. 2009a. Comparando diacronas. El resultativo en las lenguas romni-
cas y germnicas. Tendencias actuales en la investigacin diacrnica de la lengua.
Actas del VIII congreso Nacional de AJIHLE (Barcelona). 18395
2009b. Pretrito germnico como un resultative la situacin en el gtico.
Interlingstica XIX (Gerona). 45265
Bertinetto, M. 2000. The progressive in Romance, as compared with English, in
sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (Berlin). 559604
Bertinetto, M, K. Ebert and C. de Groot. 2000. The progressive in Europe in
sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (Berlin). 51758
Birkmann, T. 1987. Prteritoprsentia. (Tbingen)
Bubenik, V. 1998. Grammatical and lexical aspect in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic,
in Monica Schmid (ed.), Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory
and Historical Linguistics vol. 164. (Amsterdam, Philadelphia). 4156
Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. (Chicago)
Bybee, J. and . Dahl. 1989. The creation of tenses and aspect systems in the
languages of the world, Studies in Language 13: 51103
Dahl, . (ed.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. (Berlin, New
York)
Dahl, . 2000. The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological
perspective in sten Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe
(Berlin). 325
1985. Tense and aspect systems. (Oxford)
Denz, A. 1982. Die Struktur des Klassischen Arabisch, in W. Fischer (ed.), Grund-
ri der Arabischen Philologie (Band I: Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden). 58109
Diakonoff, I. 1965. Semito-Hamic Languages. (Moscow)
1988. Afrasian Languages. (Moscow)
Ebert, K.. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages in sten Dahl (ed.),
Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (Berlin). 60553
Goetze, A. 1958. Fifty Old Babylonian Letters from Harmal. Reprinted from Sumer
vol. 14. (Baghdad)
Grevisse, M.. 1975. Le bon usage. (Gembloux)
Graves, N. 2000. Macedonian a language with three perfects? in sten Dahl
(ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (Berlin). 47994
Heine, B. and M. Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Lan-
guages. (Hamburg)
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 344 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

THE AKKADIAN IPRUS
345
Hopper, P. and E. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge)
Huehnergard, J. 2005. A Grammar of Akkadian. (Winona Lake)
1988. The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations. Hebrew Studies 29. 1923
Kienast, B. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. (Wiesbaden)
Knudsen, E.E. 1986. Innovation in the Akkadian Present, Orientalia Suecana
335, 2319
Kuryowicz, J. 1965. Zur Vorgeschichte des germanischen Verbalsystems, in Bei-
trge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Volkskunde und Literatrforschung: Wolfgang Steinitz
zum 60. Geburstag. (Berlin) 24247
Landsberger, B. 1926. Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt, Islamica 2,
35572
Lindstedt, J. 2000. The perfect aspectual, temporal and evidential in sten Dahl
(ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (Berlin). 36583
Lipinski, E. 2001. Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Uitgeverij
Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies Leuven. Paris)
Loesov, S. 2006. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time Part One, in
Leonid Kogan, (ed.), Babel and Bibel 2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonof. (Annual
of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies. Winona Lake).
10148.
Malbran-Labat, F. and J.-P. Vita. 2005. Manual de lengua acadia vol.1. (Saragossa)
Maslov, J. 1988. Resultative, Perfect and Aspect, in Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed.),
Typology of Resultative Constructions. (Amsterdam). 6385
Meillet, A. 1948. Lvolution des formes grammaticales, Linguistique historique et
linguistique gnrale. (Paris)
Metzler, K.A. 2002. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten (Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 279). (Mnster)
Mller, H.P. 1986. Polysemie im semitischen und hebrischen Konjugationssystem,
Orientalia 55, 3659
Nedjalkov, V and S. Jaxontov. 1988. The Typology of Resultative Constructions,
in Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Amsterdam).
363
Sallaberger, W. 1999. Wenn Du mein Bruder bist,. Interaktion und Textgestal-
tung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. (Leiden)
Streck, M.P. 2003. Sprache und Denken im Alten Mesopotamien am Beispiel des
Zeitausdrucks, in L. Kogan (ed.). Studia Semitica. (Orientalia. Papers of the
Oriental Institute. Issue 3, Moscow). 42431
1999. Das Perfekt iptaras im Altbabylonischen der Hammurapi-Briefe, in
N. Nebes (ed.) Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen (Jenaer Kolloquium
zur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft = Jenaer Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 1,
Wiesbaden). 10126
1995. Zahl und Zeit. Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im
Sptbabylonischen. (Cuneiform Monographs Band 5. Groningen)
Testen, D. 2000. Conjugating the prefixed stative verbs in Akkadian. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 59 no. 2. 8192
Traugott, E. and B. Heine (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. (Amster-
dam)
Waltke, B. and M.P. OConnor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
(Winona Lake)
93397_JOSS_2010/2_01_Andrason.indd 345 24/06/10 14:29

a
t

E
b
s
c
o

o
n

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

9
,

2
0
1
0
j
s
s
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m