Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 431, reads [UM-MA MM]a?-ú?-ri. However, the reading MA seems unlikely from the photos, and DIŠ is a better reading: there are no visible traces of the expected horizontals of the supposed MA (as also in the autography by Otten and Rüster).
|
Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 431 (and 710-711) reads [M]auri (also obv. 13´), understanding it as an alternative spelling of the augur’s name mMa-wi₅-ri (KUB 22.45 obv. 30´; KUB 49.56 obv. 12´). However, the reading is epigraphically unlikely, and both attestations are fragmentary.
Either “in front” or “in the back up”. Based on frequency rules, Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 695 considers “in front” more likely.
Either “in front” or “in the back down”. Based on frequency rules, Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 688 considers “in the back down” more likely.
Mistake in the text, which requires 3SG.NOM.C =aš.
For this interpretation of ÉRINMEŠ ŠU-TI (formerly ÉRINMEŠ ŠU-TI) see Melchert H.C. 2024-. A discussion in Introductio.
Or, possibly, with a different analysis: KUR URUPita=ma “but in the land of Pita …”. Either toponyms are hapax (although cf. possibly PÚPita in KuT 60, I 11' ( A. Kryszeń, HiTop).
|