Hold that hand for a while! Master of deception! The most spectacular find of all Sumerian Akkadian parallel worlds is the name for the hand. It is the most bizarre name in Sumerian because its ideogram is very poorly represented as if there is no relationship between the marker and the marked object. The cognate for [hand] is the ultimate proof that archaic Sumerian was created by a single author. Not only he spoke Akkadian but also all other Semitic tongues that surrounded him. What this author did not predict was the fact that Sumerian mirrors by default Akkadian grammar. Obviously he tried to hide the origin of the cognate [hand] but he never predicted the advent of computers while he manipulated both Sumerian and Akkadian. It is surprising to find out that Sumerian ideogram [šu] functions and sounds the same as Akkadian [ša] (determinative- relative pronoun). Many researchers complained that Sumerian has no clear cut grammar. That is true, Sumerian looks like an agglutinative language but bears the hallmarks of Akkadian grammar. Akkadian: ša (determinative-relative pronoun) who, which, that; and "the one of, of" as a relative pron. Comparison with other Semitic languages : Hebrew : še kiri šu ĝal [ PAY HOMAGE TO ] (48x: Old Babylonian) wr. kiri 3 šu ĝal 2 "to pay homage to" Akk. labānu ša appi (kiri[nose] + šu[hand] + ĝal[be])
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Hold that hand for a while! Master of deception!
The most spectacular find of all Sumerian Akkadian parallel worlds is the name for the hand. It is the most bizarre name in Sumerian because its ideogram is very poorly represented as if there is no relationship between the marker and the marked object. The cognate for [hand] is the ultimate proof that archaic Sumerian was created by a single author. Not only he spoke Akkadian but also all other Semitic tongues that surrounded him. What this author did not predict was the fact that Sumerian mirrors by default Akkadian grammar. Obviously he tried to hide the origin of the cognate [hand] but he never predicted the advent of computers while he manipulated both Sumerian and Akkadian.
It is surprising to find out that Sumerian ideogram [šu] functions and sounds the same as Akkadian [ša] (determinative-relative pronoun).Many researchers complained that Sumerian has no clear cut grammar. That is true, Sumerian looks like an agglutinative language but bears the hallmarks of Akkadian grammar.
Akkadian:
ša (determinative-relative pronoun)
who, which, that; and "the one of, of" as a relative pron.
Comparison with other Semitic languages :
Hebrew : še
kiri šu ĝal [PAY HOMAGE TO] (48x: Old Babylonian) wr. kiri3 šu ĝal2 "to pay homage to" Akk. labānu ša appi
(kiri[nose] + šu[hand] + ĝal[be])
kiri šu tag [PAY HOMAGE TO] (5x: Old Babylonian) wr. kiri3 šu tag "to pay homage to" Akk. labānu ša appi
(kiri[nose] + šu[hand] + tag[touch])
šu gur [PICK] wr. šu gur "to pick grapes" Akk. qatāpu ša karāni
(šu[hand] + gur[turn]) = is an Akkadian abbreviated sentence ša karāni
šu RI [WRING HANDS] wr. šu RI "to wring the hands" Akk. šute'ulu
(šu[hand] + RI[cry])
As we can see Sumerian phrase:[šu RI] is a rebus representation of Akkadian šute'ulu
where r/l are allophones.
See also Akkadian eʾēlu : G. to bind, tie up Gt. to tie all round D = G ; to make binding (contract) Št. to link (hands) N. to be attached ; to infect (illness)
Proto-Semitic: *si(n)t-Meaning: flat hand with wristHebrew: PB *sīt in ha-ssīt 'the distance between the tip of the thumb and that of the index finger when held apart, or between the root of the thumb and the tip of the index finger when the former is leaning against the latter' [Ja 977]. Cf. sēt 'handle; swinging the forefinger' [Ja 972]Syrian Aramaic: sītā 'palmus' [Brock 469]Arabic: sint- 'poignet, os qui joint l'avant-bras a la main' [BK 1 1151]Notes: C. SEM only. Cf. MHR šētǝr 'measure, span between the end of the thumb and the forefinger' [JM 396]; related with -r to be treated as a suffixed element. One also wonders whether this word can be compared to HBR PB str 'to strike sideways, slap' [Ja 973] and JUD str (aph) 'to strike with the flat hand' [Ja 973] to make another SEM root *sVt(V)r- {} *cVt(V)r- 'flat hand, span'.
The author of Sumerian language has been careful not to include in Akkadian glossary the Semitic root:
*sit-: flat hand with wrist + Akkadian eʾēlu: to bind, tie up = Akk. šute'ulu
I understood that Sumerian cognate [šu] stood for an Akakdian determinative [ša] when suddenly I struck gold:Akkadian
ša-qāti
[Feeding → Cooking]
bowl for washing hands
This cognate meant (of washing hands). Both these parts have become the respective phonetic values of the ideogram that stands for Sumerian and Akkadian.SumerianŠU
šušu [HAND].šu [HANDLE] (ĝeššu).
Akkadian:Also: kat7, qad, qat, qata, sagix(ŠU).
It is one of the most interesting ideograms of Sumerian language because as we shall see in the future the largest phonetic value of an ideogram becomes the basis of word allophones marked by the same ideogram. It is one of the very few, or let’s say one of a kind ideogram
where the determinative becomes part of the phonetic value to create the largest phonetic value of the ideogram. What I mean is that the author added the determiner of the word to the phonetic value of the word to create the consonant link from one phonetic value to another as the largest denominative in the ideogram. Let us see the demonstration:The largest phonetic value of the ideogram is [ĝeššu] where [ĝeš] is the determiner of the word [šu] The phonetic transformations from one cognate to another is represented as the following:KAT7, QAD, QAT, QATA, SAGIX(ŠU) < [ĜEŠŠU] > ŠU where [K/Q], [Š/S] are allophones. Without the help of computers it is impossible to arrive at such a conclusion. How Sumerians achieved such accuracy with mud tablets, where phonetic values were identified as pictograms rather than separate letters, remains a mystery.
But the story does not end there because one of Sumerian pictograms is actually an abbreviation of Semitic cognate for the left hand. As we know the left hand was used to write on a mud tablet. Akkadians used the right hand to write and the left hand to hold the mud brick. What an ingenious idea! Of course, Sumerian gods perceived the left hand as the legitimate hand of their language, the written idiom.
Proto-Semitic: *simaʔl- {} *cimaʔl-Meaning: left (side, hand)Akkadian: šumēlu, šumīlu 'left side, left hand' OB on [CAD š 267], [AHw 1271]. The irregular -ē-/-ī- (instead of the expected *-ā-) may be explained from the change *simaʔl- > *šimiʔl- > šumīl- (*-i- > -u- near -m-)Ugaritic: šmʔal 'die, das Linke' [Aist 307]. To be normalized as ši/umaʔl- Hebrew: sǝmō(ʔ)l 'left side, left' [KB 1332]. Note -ā- in sǝmā(ʔ)lī 'left' (adj.) [ibid. 1333], which is usually explained as a regular reflex of *ā in an unstressed position (versus -ō- in sǝmō(ʔ)l where *ā is stressed). It seems more plausible, however, not to connect this discrepancy with accentual phenomena, but rather to regard the adjective as derived after a different pattern (probably *CaCaCiyy-, сf. yǝmānī 'right' with -a-, which neither can go back directly to its presumed prototype yāmīn 'right side')Judaic Aramaic: sǝmālā 'left side' [Ja 1002]. Orthographically also with both s and (ʔ) ЛУЧШЕ ИХ ПРИВЕСТИ [Ja 1591], [Sok 571]Syrian Aramaic: sǝmālā 'sinistra', adj. 'sinister' [Brock 481]Modern Aramaic: HRT šumala 'links' [J Hert 199] NASS simälä 'left hand, left side' [Tser 0148] MMND smāla 'left' [M MND 509Mandaic Aramaic: smal(a) 'left (hand, arm, side)' [DM 332]. Also asmala, ʕsmala (with the *ʔa- prefix)Arabic: šimāl- 'main gauche' [BK 1 1273], šamāl- 'cote gauche' [ibid.]Mehri: saymǝl 'left, left hand' [JM 380]Jibbali: siyɛl 'left-hand, left (direction)' [JJ 253], sǝmli, sǝmlɛt 'left' [ibid.]Harsusi: semel 'left, left-hand' [JH 120]Soqotri: simhil (semhel, semel) 'gauche' [LS 430] (also [SSL LS 1473; SSL 4 97])Notes: Postulating the succession *-aʔl- in the protoform is the only non-contradictory way to explain ō in HBR. On the possibility of suffixed *-l see Introduction; cf. ARB šaʔmat- 'cote gauche' [BK 1 1179], SAB s2ʔm 'North' [SD 130] and JIB sin (a correct transcription is sin, see [SSL 2 247])
'gauche' quoted in [LS 64] under ʔimhel (influenced, according to Leslau, by in 'droite', cf. notes to *yamīn~ *yamān-, No. ). See metathesis with a meaning shift in ARB šaʔamal- 'vent du Nord' (also šamʔal- do.) [BK 1 1273] and ESA: SAB h-s2ʔml 'be northward' [SD 130], MIN s2ʔml-s1 'vers le nord' [LM 85] (note s2mʔl-s1 quoted [ibid. 86] as a contextual form). Note BERB *a-zǝlmad 'left', *z- yielding AFRAS *c. With three identical root consonants out of four, though in a metathetic order, and such specific meaning as 'left', the SEM and BERB roots are very likely related; BERB -d in Auslaut, though, remains unexplained (<*a-zǝlmaʔ-t <*-cilmaʔ-t < metathetic *cimʔal-t ). [Holma 3]: AKK, HBR, ARB, SYR; [KB 1332]: HBR, UGR, AKK, ARM, ARB, ESA; [Brock 481]: SYR, ARB, HBR, AKK; [LS 430]: SOQ, MSA, ARB, HBR, SYR, AKK
Now all Sumerian cognates make perfect sense:Sumerian šu; sum5; šu-x "hand" Akk. qātuwhere Sumerian sum5 stands for Semitic root: šumēlu
As we can see after this demonstration the author of Sumerian idiom has been playing with Semitic derivatives in general not just with Akkadian alone. The Sumerian world must fit the Akkadian world like parallel universes.
The truth of the matter is that the Sumerian author is only playing with the reader. Actually Sumerian verbs reveal the partial rebus manifestation of Sumerian into Akkadian, as both cognates complement each other. Let us see the demonstration as sometimes the compekemt is total and sometimes partial just to confuse the reader.
šu bala [CHANGE] (85x: ED IIIb, Lagash II, Old Babylonian) wr. šu bal "to change" Akk. šupêlu
(šu[hand] + bala[turn])
šu dag [ABANDON] wr. šu dag "to cut off, abandon" Akk. batāqu
(šu[hand] + dag[demolish])
[1] šu dag
šu du [COMPLETE] (306x: Old Babylonian) wr. šu du7 "to complete, perfect; to be in working order (of tools)" Akk. šuklulu
It is an ideogram created to complement Sumerian with Akkadian idiom.
šu us [PUSH OPEN] wr. šu us2 "to push open (a door)" Akk. se'û
(šu[hand] + us[lean])
It is obvious that both Sumerian and Akkadian are created by the same author and Sumerian verbs complement Akkadian verbs. Anyway Sumerian does not have a verb pattern which makes it prone to suspicion that might by a trick language.
Sometimes this author loses his grip and shows that the word for hand in Akkadian takes the same ending as the word hand in Sumerian, grammatically they are identical. Remember that the word [šu] in Sumerian derived from Akkadian [ša] meaning [to, from] and it always came after the Akkadian noun qātu [hand]. Because Sumerian words are in fact Akkadian sentences: Akk. qātu [hand] [ša] + object [ša] + object where the subject precedes the object and then it is ommited to erase any doubts that Sumerian is Akkadian in disguise.
Therefore the Sumerian expression:
šu gur [PICK] wr. šu gur "to pick grapes" Akk. qatāpu ša karāni
(šu[hand] + gur[turn]) = is an Akkadian abbreviated sentence ša karāni
This was the design of the secret author who was in a hurry to prove that he was a special person so at the beginning he made some mistakes by copying Akkadian grammar. The initial Sumerian was very much like Akkadian in structure because the author had no time to hide his tracks. Yet, he never told the truth his fellow brothers. He said to them that he was a prophet and he could talk to gods in their language. He had had a foretelling dream and he was taught by gods a very special tongue. Sumerian is the invention of a single man. Other scribes were deeply confused and they tried to identify the cognate of [hand] with other Semitic words for hand through folk etymology.
Semitic scribes decided to link this cognates with another word:
TAG׊U
tibir2
tibir [HAND].
where the ideogram TAG stands for Akkadian qatu ‘hand’ plus the Sum. ideogram ŠU ‘hand’ In order to create:
tibir [HAND] (26x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. tibir; tibir2; tibir4; tibir3 "hand; fist" Akk. qātu; rittu; upnu
See haš tibir rah[slap the thigh].
[1] tibir
[2] tibir2
[3] tibir4
[4] tibir3
Therefore the cognate for hand has passed the formal test during which the Akkadian cognate has been represented with a pictogram that has homonymy with the prime Sumerian pictogram:
Hence
Sum. TAG׊U = Sum ŠU = Akk. qatu ‘hand’
The best way to avoid being lost in the Sumerian labyrinth is to compare word clusters:
Akk.
šumēlu gab [LEFT] wr. gab2-bu; gab2 "left (hand)" Akk. šumēlu
It is clear that the words šumēlu / šumeritum / šumerû are allophones, which means that Sumerian was the language written on the left hand which was holding the tablet and the word hand in Sumerian means left hand in Akkadian. Sumerian language liked chopping down Akkadian words and create from them new cognates. Hence Sum. šu; sum5; šu-x are rebus representation of Akk. šumēlu / šumeritum / šumerû.
However the Akkadian scribe offers another explanation for the phonetic value of the word hand. We must remember that Sumerian was a puzzle that offered several options to the same question. A Sumerian diagram works in that way that you can approach a solution from different angles. It is an artificial language and functioned as such.
The apparent seal of the Sumerian scribe was the phonetic value SAGI from which the phonetic value SU was obtained. If a scribe offers this explanation than it must be true because Sumerian language does not offer a logical etymology of a word. It is an artificial language and the decision for creation phonetic values for words is completely arbitrary. Therefore we must take the explanation of a scribe at face value.
What is the relationship between the word horn or finger and the word street? It is not rocket science to solve this puzzle. A street branches out the same as a horn or a finger. The name street in Sumerian sila was a pun of the words si-la [finger-hang].
si [HORN] (262x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, unknown) wr. si "horn; finger; fret" Akk. qarnu; ubānu
See si e[sprout], si gu rah[blow the horn], si mu[sprout], si sa[straighten], šu si sa[put in order].
[1]
la [HANG] (1399x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. la2; la; lal2 "to supervise, check; to weigh, weigh (out), pay; to hang, balance, suspend, be suspended; to show, display; to bind; binding, (yoke-)team; to press, throttle; to winnow (grain); to carry" Akk. alālu; hanāqu; hiāţu; kamû; kasû; şimittu; kullumu; šaqālu; šuqalulu; zarû
See a la[bind], gu la[embrace], ĝeš la[listen], ĝeš la[silent], ĝeštug la[deaf], HI la[cover], igi la[watch], igi tum la[spy], ki la[dig], ki la[fall to the ground], sa la[bind], sa la[sweep], šu la[defile], šu la[paralyze], šu la2[to entrust], taka la[open], umbin la[scratch].
[1] la2
[2] la
[3] lal2
The diagram la = hang is of a later date than the diagram finger. Clearly the
pictogram < .
Clearly the phonetic value of Sumerian la "to weigh, pay, hang" < Akkadian šaqālu "to weigh, pay"; The only way of weighing the goods in ancient times was by hanging and then weighing them at the same time.LA
lala [HANG].lala [PLENTY].lalamu [BUTTOCKS].
šikašika [SHERD].
Akkadian:Also: šikx(LA).
Clearly the Sumerian cognates šika, la derived from Akkadian šaqālu "to weigh, pay". Obviously the scribe chopped down the Akkadian word to form Sumerian phonetic values.
We can also note that Sumerian pictogram < Sumerian pictogram just like < . Clearly the Sumerian scribe wanted to make a logical conncection between the name street and the name finger.
si-la [STREET] Akk. sūqu
la [HANG] Akk. alālu; kasû; šaqālu = šikx(LA).
ŠU
šušu [HAND].šu [HANDLE] (ĝeššu).
Akkadian:Also: kat7, qad, qat, qata, sagix(ŠU).
According to Semitic scribes the phonetic value sagix was abbreviated into ŠU. The sign [ x ] according to my research means applied phonetic value. Why did the ideogram for hand get this particular value? The answer as usual comes from the name of a compound. The initial name for hand was Akk. qātu.
Where did the value [sagi] come from?sagi = SILA3.ŠU.GABAsagix = SILA3.GABAsagix = ŠU
It apparantly comes from si-la [STREET] Akk. sūqu
The Akkadian value sūqu [street] was transferred the name of Akk. qātu [hand] by means of association, an arbitrary decision of a Semitic scribe who left clear fingerprints of his enterprise and his intentions. The relations between street and finger is the manner a street branches out and the association of the street and hand is by the means the word street was formed in the first place.
In order to grasp the depth of deception perpetrated by Semitic scribes in the heart of Akkadian empire we must understand that the fraud was committed in a grand scale. Let me demonstrate the phonetic switches from one group of Akkadian words to another in order to create wide spread semantic destruction. Akkadian scribes worked switching not just words alone but entire sentences from Akkadian to Sumerian.
šu [HAND] (2785x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Ebla, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, 1st millennium, unknown) wr. šu; sum5; šu-x "hand" Akk. qātu
~ n bala[turn] šu 2(diš) bal šu 3(diš) bal ~ n giĝ[ax] šu 2(aš) gin2 šu 1(aš) gin2 ~ u a-ni šu a-[x]-dub šu x šu x-ga šu saĝ-[x] šu x-x šu [x] šu x [...]bal [x-x-x] šu-na [x] kisalšu [...] x šu x [x] [x-x-x] šu-na šu HU [...] šu x [x]-ki šu x [...] šu ba-ti-[x] [x] gu2 šu-na 4(aš@c) nig2 šu x [...] im-e tak4-a šu-ka [...] 1(diš) udu x* šu* x* šu-mu [...] udu BU šu x [...] šu šu im-mi-[...] [...] šu x [...] BI šu 4(u) 3(ban2) e2 šu [...] [x] x šu [...][x] šu BAD [x] 1(diš) šu x [...] giri3 [...] šu [...] siskur2 šu [...] [x] KA šu xDU e2 šu [x] dšara2 [x] šu-nir šu [...] šu [...] 1(diš) na
4ur5 [...] šu HA [...] [...] šu [...] [...]geškiri6 dx-[...] šu x [...] x [...] šu [x] ga2-da nu-me-ašu-na x šu ha-ba-ši-[...]
x x šu [x] x x [x] šu x nig2 x tur šu x [...][...] šu [...] šu in-na-an-bar-x-ma šu x [...] 1(iku@c) GAN2 3(aš@c) 2(barig@c) lugal šu KA AB šu [...] ur šu [...] ur šu [x] šu x-x-tag4 [...]šu ur-[...]-ma sag-bi šu AB bi2-ra šu si-[...] ziz2-bi 1(geš2) 2(diš) a-ša3
geškiri6 šu x [...] 1(u) 7(diš) 1/2(diš) [...] šu [...] DU [...] ki [...]uš2 [...] gal2 [...] 1(diš)-še3 [...] 2(u) 4(diš) uduniga šu šu2-x na
4ur5 šu x x šu [... x-d]en-lil2-la2 xa2 šu x-x-x d[šara2]-kam šu [...] ŠU+LAGAB 1(diš) šu [...] šu UN [...] ga2-da [...] šu ha-[...] 1(diš)geš GAN2 ur3 šu [...]
~ ak[do] šu-a ak šu aklu2 šu-a ak = mu-ša-li-lum 1(aš) gu2 gešasal2 šu ak 1(aš) gu2 gešasal2 šu ak2(aš) gu2 gešasal2 šu nu-ak abgal-le šu bi-ak 1(diš) udu šu ak lugal
~ bad[open] šu bad 2(aš@c)2(barig@c) šu-ku6
* sa* šu bad-ra2 gur šu be-a-am6 šu-ku6 sa šu bad-ra2-me sašu bad-me šu-ku6 sa šu bad-ra2-me
~ bala[turn] sag šu bala ak-bi šu balaak-de3 2(u) u8 sila4 ga šu bala ak u45(diš) ma2 ba-al-la u3 šu bala-a 1(u) še muš-a šubala ak šu bala-a šu bala-a [šu] bal
gi šu-a bala-asahar šu bala-a [x] uš-lu šu bala ak 2(aš) še gur ziz2 a šu bala ak gi šu-a bala-a
See: X piriĝ šu du; a šu du tug; a šu n bala; a šu u; a šu an; a šu luh; a šu tag; aba šu u; apin šu; apin šu du; bardul šu ur; bisaĝ šu; bulug šu; bulug šu X; bun šu; bur šu; e bur šu šuš; e šu šum;gumur šu; ĝešhur šu; ĝisal šu; har šu; har šu kugbabbar; har šu kugsig; illar šu lugal; kalam šu du;kaš šu šub; lungak šu du; manu šu ak; masab šu; munus u šu bala; munus šu ak; na šu n; ninda šu; ninda šu u; ninda šu ila; ninda šu ur; nurma pu šu sub; sa šu; sar šu la; siki šu; siki šu kad;šag šu; še šu; še šu ak; šu teĝ šu teĝ; šum sikil šu min gidua; tu šu; tu šu u; tug barsig šu du; tug šu; tukul šu; ud men šu du; udu šu kud; udu šu saĝ duga; ur šu du; uzu šag šu niĝin; zilulu šu hal sil.Akk. qātu "hand".
[2000] A. Cavigneaux and F. Alrawi, CM 19 41-43.
See ETCSL: šu=hand.
Until now we have observed the mutual double switch of an Akkadian word to another Akkadian cognate in order to create artificial Sumerian derivatives. So why would a scribe switch the phonetic values of entire Akkadian sentences to Sumerian ones when there is no logical connection between the two groups? The plan was simple. Akkadian scribes didn’t need just Semitic words to create Sumerian respective ones. They needed Akkadian grammar; not necessarily Semitic grammar per se but the Semitic word order even when they placed Semitic words in reverse. They needed language cohesion. They had to borrow the word order, even in reverse as not to lose track of Sumerian language as a whole. That is the reason why they often had to switch phonetic values to words that had no relationship with the original ones semantically. That was a great idea. A scribe could create Sumerian words in bulk. He could create a grammar-worthy system without losing track of the artificial language itself. If a scribe based the Sumerian grammar on the reverse order of Akkadian there was absolute certainty that there would not be any grammar mishaps in the new tongue.
Finally the cognate lef tin Sumerian:
gab [LEFT] (52x: Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian) wr. gab2-bu; gab2 "left (hand)" Akk. šumēlu
[1] gab2-bu
[2] gab2
15 distinct forms attested; click to view forms table.
1. left (hand) (52x/100%)~ LEX/Old Babylonian/Nippur ra-bi-si2-ka3-tum qa2-nu-um a2 gub3-bu OB Nippur Lu
20.LEX/Old Babylonian/Sippar [[gab2]] = = KAB = šu-me-lu-um MSL 14, 122-127 09 805.LEX/Old Babylonian/unknown lu2 a2 gub3-bu = šu-me-lu-u2 OB Lu-Azlag A 387; [lu2] a2
gub3-bu = šu-me-lu-u2 lu2-azlag B and C Seg.7, 16; lu2 a2 gub3 zid-da si3-ke = ri-it-pu-hu lu2-azlag B and C Seg.7, 17. ELA/Ur III/Girsu 1(ban2) zi3 gab2-gab2 dumu nu-banda3 ABTR 13 6; ša3 gab2 tug2-še3 gen-na ABTR 19 9; 1(geš2) 3(u) 2(diš) geš[...]gab2 gid2 1(diš) 1/2(diš) [...]-ta ITT 2, 00892 o v 17. unknown/Ur III/Umma še gab2 la2-aSAT 3, 1772 2.
See: šuba a gab.
Akk. šumēlu "the left".
Observe -um = -u2 are picto-homograms, they have similar pronunciations notably
the vowel U and formally the pictogram -u2 (6 strokes of stylus) is a reduced -um (10 strokes of stylus)
Akkadian: šu -me -lu -um = left hand
Akkadian: šu -me -lu -u2 = left hand
Sumerian šu = hand
Sumerian šu is an abbreviated form of Akkadian šu -me -lu -u2
There is another clue to the Sumerian puzzle, namely the purpose of Sumerian.
a [ARM] (6115x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. a2 "arm; labor; wing; horn; side; strength; wage; power" Akk. ahu; idu
It is obvious that and are picto-homograms of opposite directions. They are actually picto-antonyms, a notion that is foreign to us, people who use letters not pictures to describe ideas.
Why does Sumerian gab [LEFT] point actually to the right side of the scribe, unless Sumerian is the language of the gods to whom their left is the scribe’s right! Sumerian is not the language of humans. It was never spoken by man. Sumerian was the language of the gods whose left was the scribe’s right. This is the ultimate proof that Sumerian people have never existed. Their invention is the conclusion of linguists who cannot fathom the idea that 5 thousand years ago humans were capable of manipulating language to that extent that they could create a completely new medium between humans and gods.