While Alp S. 1991b, 152 reads [k]u-na-an the traces of the first sign visible from photo and 3D model do not quite match with KU. The present reading, proposed by Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 132 (also 380 n. 82) seems likely on the basis of the visible traces.
From photo and 3D model apparently [ḫa]-at-ra-a-⸢u-un⸣ or [ḫa]-at-ra-a-⸢mi⸣.
Plausible on the basis of the visible traces on 3D model, and in context (phraseological katta arḫa ariyami). Differently, Hout Th.P.J. van den 2010b, 398 proposed: [u]t-⸢tar⸣, also possible but the available space is limited. Unlikely [n]a-aš? ( Alp S. 1991b, 152) as lines 12 and 13 cannot be broken, as already pointed out by Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 380 n. 85, who maintained the gap.
e-eš-du written on the obv.
Text: ME-mi, as correctly pointed out by Hout Th.P.J. van den 2010b, 398. The sign is complete, as clearly visible in the 3D model, thus the reading cannot be [t]e-mi ( Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 134). Emendation is necessary (see translation). |
Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 133 suggests ÉRINMEŠ is not to be intended in military sense, but rather to groups of field workers, primarily on the basis of the second part of the letter (obv. 14-15).
Problematic disagreement between apē (NOM.PL.C) and kuiš (NOM.SG.C). The usage can be best explained as an agreement ad sensum between kuiš … kuiš, with generalizing meaning (“one/some” … “one/some (other)”) and the plurality of people referred to (“those”). Differently, Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 133 takes the form apēya as a local adverb (“there”).
The enclitic =an necessarily refers back to kuiš, namely each of the two groups of people mentioned in the previous lines. In order to solve the problematic agreement, Hoffner suggests an emendation of ⸢na⸣-an as EGIR!-an (Hitt. appan).
With Hoffner H.A. 2009a, it is implied that the oracles concern “(whether and how to proceed against him)”. It should be noted that both katta ariye/a- and arḫa ariye/a- have specific meanings in oracular texts, respectively, along the lines of “to make further oracular inquiries” and “to complete oracular inquiries” (in telic sense).
The actual text on the tablet ( me-mi, 2SG.IMP of memai-) would require a double emendation of the previous nam-ma-at-ta in nam-ma-aš!-ši! (as discussed in Hout Th.P.J. van den 2010b, 398-399; “Furthermore, tell him ! as follows: …”). For this reason, emendation of the verb as te!-mi (1SG.PRS of te-) seems necessary. |
