See rev. III 7.
GÁN-tar-ši-uš.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 114 heavily restores: [nu? IGI-an-da la-aḫ-la-aḫ-ḫi-ma-aš MUŠENḪI.A N]I-MUR, but this formulation is not very frequent, and cannot be considered certain in this passage. The same restoration is also suggested in rev. III 18, but we have no certainty on the exact size of the gap. Another possibility is a different formula, eventually shortened: [IGI-an-da ( SAG.KI- an-za DAB- an-na-aš) MUŠENḪI.A N]I-MUR, vel sim.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 114 emends 〈nu〉, but the sign is actually present on the tablet; the error likely stems from the handcopy by Archi (KUB 49), where the sign was not copied.
Alternatively, a bird name in the -a stem before the enclitic chain.
Certainly expected according to the standard formulary, before the bird name. See also Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 114.
Text: ZAG-aš-na. Cf. KUB 50.35, rev.19′.
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 115 is probably correct with this restoration proposal, based on the limited available space in the gap. The alternative formulation, arḫa peššiyandu, and the name of the bird, might not fit. The positive outcome of the brief report, which would be in agreement with the formulated question, might also be considered in support of this choice.
Or: ŠA-NI-I?
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 116: (rev. III 12) [EGIR UGU?] (rev. III 13) [SIG₅-za? ú-et].
Cf. previous obv. II 16 for a tentative restoration.
|
Note the incongruence between the plural subjects and singular participle.
No outcome of this inquiry seems to be recorded.
|
