From the traces on the photo, more likely SI than PÉ (p[é-eš-šer).
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 86 (and 94) emends pát-tar-pal-ḫi-uš!. In rev. IV 15 we find the same mistake, with singular and nominative, instead of plural and accusative. While the singular might be used with a plural numeral, the problem remains that the form is expected in the ACC.SG. Remarkably, a parallel sentence with the same kind of inconsistent agreement can be found in another bird oracle, KUB 16.74, 6´: [3 mar-ša-na-aš-š]i-iš tar-li₁₂-an NI-MUR.
See obv. I 11´, 12´, 14´, 17´ and throughout in rev. IV. However, with this restoration we must address the problem discussed in note n. 3. Although an alternative solution would be to consider a different restoration, such as a nominal sentence with pattarpalḫiš as the subject, the parallel case in rev. IV 15 makes this option unlikely.
Hout Th.P.J. van den 1998c, 152 n. 100 proposed a possible restoration [GID]IM. Another possibility is [nu ku-iš ku-i]š (ibid.). Cognetti C. 2021a, 282 n. 860 points out that a sequence ŠA GIDIM DZawalli- is not attested elsewhere, and suggests instead [nu ta-ma-i]š?.
The small gap allows a conjunction nu, or perhaps ma-a-an, but one expects the scribe would rather write it at the beginning of the next line, with the new sentence. It is possible that no text should be restored here.
As in the previous case in obv. I 7´, the form should be emended as ACC.PL (or ACC.SG; see the discussion in note n. 3).
|
