index introductio imagines || partitura exemplar translatio bibliographia e-mail

CTH 811

Citatio: L. Savino (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 811 (TX 23.12.2022, TRen 23.12.2022)

§8
176
--
[DIŠ KI.MIN] x x [x x x x x]
176
A1
Rs. V 30 [DIŠ KI.MIN] x x [x x x x x]
177
--
177
A1
Rs. V 31 na4mu-ṣu is-qú-qú25 [x x x x x]
178
--
178
A1
Rs. V 32 SAḪAR.ZABAR ša ⸢IGI ALAN ša⸣ [DN] Rs. V 33 ú gišMA.NU ina SÍG?26 SILA4 GÌŠ! (Text:UŠ) .NU.ZU Rs. V 34 NÍGIN.NÍGIN-ma
179
--
179
A1
Rs. V 34 ina túgú-li-in-ni ša munus!27ÁŠ.GAR Rs. V 35 GÌŠ.NU.ZU BABBAR u GE6 tàra-kas4-ma28
180
--
180
A1
Rs. V 36 ina GÚ-šá GAR-an-ma
181
--
181
A1
Rs. V 36 TI-uṭ ¬¬¬
§8
176 -- [If ditto] x x [x x x x x]
177 -- mūṣu-stone, isqūqu-flour [x x x x x]
178 -- you wrap “dust” of bronze from the front/face of the statue of [DN], and a ēru-wood (stick) with the hairs (?) of an unmated lamb and
179 -- you bind (them) with a coloured twine of a kid (which is) white and black, and
180 -- you place it on his neck, and
181 -- he will live/get healthy.
25
This is perhaps the syllabic rendering of ZÌ.DU.
26
Meier (1939: 210) reads šārat, as if it were SÍG. The sign is written abnormally, it consits of four horizontals of which the lowest is double, a Winkelhaken, and a vertical. This would be a new variant of SÍG which is not present in HZL No. 65. It also differs from the SÍG in CTH 811.A Vs. I 3ff.
27
This sign looks like the Hittite munus (HZL 297), since the vertical wedge missing.
28
Meier (1939: 210) has tàr-kas₄-ma, but Bácskay (2018: 170) suggests the reading tàra-kas₄-ma, which is consistent with the durative tarakkas-ma in defective writing instead of the gnomic preterite tarkas-ma.

Editio ultima: Textus 23.12.2022; Traductionis 23.12.2022