Or ú-[er].
See KUB 18.12+, KUB 5.4+ (several instances).
Or: u[n?.
The expected sequence -WI-NI- is not clearly legible, possibly due to the fact that the text overwrites an erasure, or due to a mistake of the scribe. The sign WI is unusually long, and its final part might be understood as the missing 〈NI〉.
According to Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 406, this U sign should be emended as: nu!-〈kán〉. However, given the exceptional character of this passage, with a second set of observations within the same section, one wonders whether the sign is used as a Glossenkeil to mark the beginning of this 'special' section. |
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 403: ḪUL-lu Ú-U[L ku-it-ki ḪUŠ-u-e-ni nu MUŠENḪI.A ar-ḫa pé-eš-ši-ia-an-du]. Our edition includes only restorations that are likely within the context; for additional tentative restorations of the gaps in this text, see Sakuma’s edition.
Tentative. Although the word order is unusual, with the verb at the beginning of the sentence, the absence of a conjuntion after the verb is also problematic; see also Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 403: “Wir müssen nich [ts (…) fürchten (…) ]”. For this interpretation see also the content of kolon 2. For a similar content, see the oracular questions in KUB 18.12+ (e.g. obv. 1-7); ed. in CTH 564.
See infra kola 45 and 65.
For this sentence, see e.g. the parallel in CTH 563.1, k. 100 (for a discussion see the notes in the text edition). The sentence means that what follows in the conditional clause is to be ignored.
Apparently, based on the previous observation alone, it was not yet possible to determine whether the outcome was positive or negative, perhaps because the ‘favorable’ and ‘unfavorable’ movements were even (see the ‘majority rule’ as expressed in Sakuma Y. 2009b, I, 471, “Regel 2”). Therefore, another observation was conducted before proceeding to the observation “behind the road”. Mistake for aramnant- bird? A bird name aramnam(i)- is not attested in other bird oracles.
The exact reason for using this abstract form (* šiuniyatar) instead of the more common DINGIR-LIM(-) cannot be determined. For the possibility that this form is not necessarily plural, see the remark in CHD Š 508 (§3). |
