^{page 353 note 1} I call thus the language of the epoch of Gudîa and of the incantations as they have come down to us. The oldest forms I call Old Sumerian, and the later (the so-called dialectic or imisal), Neo-Sumerian.

^{page 355 note 1} Also in the Turkish family of languages we find this tendency to change l in y, e.g. yuy-mak ‘to wash’ (comp. Sum. lug), yay-mak ‘to spread out, to foot’ (comp. Sum. lal ‘to hang up, to spread out, to put down ’). As for r and n to y, these two sounds became, of course, at first l before they became y, for which change (r to l, and n to l) we have numerous analogies already in Older Sumerian, still more in Neo-Sumerian and in Turkish; comp. Sum. gir ‘foot,’ Mong. gül; Sum. ur ‘foundation,’ Turk. ul; Sum. shur ‘to cry,’ Turk, söy-le-mek ‘to speak’; Sum. dur, dir ‘full,’ Turk, dolu; Sum. bar ‘side, heart,’ Turk, bel ‘loins, midst’; Sum. nigin ‘circle, to collect, assemble,’ Turk. yigil, iyil ‘to assemble, to go round about’; Sum. gun ‘neck,’ Turk. buy-un; anshu ‘ass,’ Mong. elsi-gen (Turk, eshe-k); nin ‘four,’ Chagat. nil-au ‘the fourth’; Mong. nogai, nochoi ‘dog,’ Neo-Sum. lug, lig, etc. etc.

^{page 355 note 1} It must not be confounded with this, if even in the Oldest Sumerian we find the verbal subject-prefix mun beside ban (from the pronominal stem of the 3rd person sing, ba); we have here the same law of sound as in the Turkish mun-da for bun-da (or ban-da), comp. Radloff, Phonetik der nördl, Türksprachen, p. 160, § 222.

^{page 356 note 1} One of the forms met with is also suy (preserved still in Osmanly in the declension of su), comp. b) g to y.

^{page 356 note 2} In connection with this change is to be understood the change, sometimes met with, from š to l (and further from l to d), e.g. aš ‘six,’ Turk, al-ta; the quoted gušgin, vuldin; giš ‘wood,’ Neo-Sum. vush, Mong. modu-n, Turk. odun. The transition r to l to d is very common already in Older Sumerian.

^{page 358 note 1} Words having u or i as root-vowel often take, in the state of prolongation, the same vowel instead of the usual a (vowel harmony); for such forms as gar-i (gayi) for garra, sag-i (sayi) for sagga, see above, p. 354.

^{page 360 note 1} Originally khongi-n, comp. the Mong. genitive ending -in, -un with the Turk. -ing (Sum. -gi).

^{page 360 note 2} The Turkish participle in -an belongs also here; also some words ending in -m (e.g. yaty-m ‘position,’ soku-m ‘a fat ox,’ tari-m ‘cultivated,’ in which the concluding -m (as in Neo-Sumerian) has originated from -n.

^{page 360 note 3} Compare also the Turkish participle in -r, forming with the pronominal endings the present of the verb.

^{page 360 note 4} I take this occasion to make some remarks on the so-called subject- and object-prefixes of the verb. The Sumerian can say, besides the simple garra ‘he made’ (lit. making soil, was he), also, fuller, ‘him (or it) he made,’ in the order, as it seems: object+subject+verb, e.g. in-nan-gar, in-nab-gar (also without the subject-prefix: in-gar ‘(he) it made,’ We find also imman-gar (out of innan-gar), immigar (out of inni-gar), an-gar and al-gar, ba-gar, ban-gar, ba-nin-gar, ba-nib-gar and other variants. As for the strange mun-gar ‘(he) it made,’ we have here the same law of sound as in Turkish (comp. above, p. 355, note 1, for it is for ban-gar (as in Turkish Munu-ki‘this here,’ mun-da ‘here,’ mun-ga ‘to this,’ for bun-, and this for older ban). It is only with the pronoun of the second person before the verb that we have the order: subj. + obj. + verb, e.g. mu-ran-sum ‘he gives to thee,’ forms, which are apparently of later origin, as is seen from mu (out of mu-n, and this for ba-n), otherwise and originally only for ‘it’ (accusative), but here for ‘he’ (nominative); the same order seems to be in mun-nišin-aggiš ‘he them sent out.’

^{page 362 note 1} The discovery of ban-gar in this sense belongs to Dr. Zimmern.

^{page 363 note 1} Those who interest themselves in this subject will find much additional information with regard to Sumerian grammar and its affinities with that of the Turki languages in the author's paper “Die sumero-akkadische Sprache und ihre Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse,” in the “Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung,” vol. i. (1884), pp. 161–178, 195–221, and 323–342.—Ed.Google Scholar