The final part of NI was copied in the handcopy, but is not visible from the photographs.
A nominative form would be expected.
Differently from Sakuma Y. 2009b II, 370 ( la-aḫ-la-aḫ-ḫi-ia? nu x [...], we consider this more likely to be a form of laḫlaḫḫinu, given the absence of the otherwise expected verbal endings. Although one expects GUN- li₁₂-〈an〉 here (thus emended by Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 371), the form is found also in the following line, and parallel abbreviations of tar-li₁₂ are also attested elsewhere (e.g. KUB 16.75 obv. II 6´, KUB 50.117 obv. I 11). Thus, the form might be considered as an abbreviation of the standard form, rather than a mistake. Based on the content of the previous paragraph, line 6´ (kolon 11).
|
Unclear. While laḫlaḫḫima- ‘agitated’ is a descriptor of oracular birds in certain contexts (see e.g. Trameri A. 2025b, 216, 218-220 for a discussion), the verbal form in this instance remains difficult to interpret. Note also the different parsing in Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 370. Unless the two sentences should be read: “We saw an [ura]yanni- bird GUN-li- (and) an eagle GUN-li-”, but this would require the bird’s name in the accusative in the previous sentence.
Restoration according to Sakuma Y. 2009b II, 678, based on the presence of = kan in the introduction chain. |
