Archi A. 1975e, 138: wa-ar-pí da!-a-e-er. Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 632: wa-ar-pí(-)⸢la⸣-a-e-er. However, the photo clearly shows no extra space supposedly dividing the sequence, whereas spaces between words are well visible elsewhere throughout the tablet.
|
Based on the letter’s content, the king is recalling a previous report received from the augurs.
Lit. “taken”, but the meaning of para da- in this context is quite unclear. For a similar interpretation, see Archi A. 1975e, 138, Marizza M. 2009a, 112 “l'avete individuata”. Hagenbuchner A. 1989a, 38 understands a true ‘capture’ of the bird (“Ihr sollt ihn mitnehmen”). Unclear, in my view, the translation of Sakuma Y. 2009b, II, 632: “Ihr … nahmt ihn fort”. Note that the verbs in kola 5-6 may be interpreted either as 2 pl. preterite, or 2 pl. imperative. See next note n. 3 for discussion. zaitten is analysed as imperative in the repertoires (e.g. Kloekhorst A. 2008a, 1025; Hoffner H.A. − Melchert H.C. 2024a, 297), but this form could as well be preterite. An interpretation of this and the previous line with imperatives, however, cannot be excluded. The passage would read: “You shall track it down, and (then) cross the river!”. Among the previous editors, Ünal A. 1973a, 49, Archi A. 1975e, 138 and Sakuma Y. 2009b, II 632 translated preterites, while Hagenbuchner A. 1989a, 38, imperatives.
Although the form dāliešten has been analysed as imp. 2 pl. (e.g. Kloekhorst A. 2008a, 817) - as it is the case for the verbs in the previous lines - the context suggests this is more likely a form of 2 pl. preterite. For warpilāēr ‘to enclose(?)’ see Kloekhorst A. 2008a, 967. Whatever the meaning of this form, which could be context-specific or idiomatic, the interpretation in CHD L-N, 2 seems incorrect: “they released for us the birds in/from the enclosure”. Who let the birds go? Here the subject is clearly the birds, as the front position in the sentence suggests by default. Also, the verb la- does not simply mean ‘let go’ (Hitt. tarna-), but ‘unbind’, from a physical bond (e.g. a rope: ‘untie, unlatch, detach’) or an ideal one (a sorcery, spell: ‘dispel’). In fact, in the few cases of birds set free in oracular context, KUB 18.12+ obv. 18 and perhaps KUB 5.24 II 34-35, the verb employed is tarna-. I would thus exclude that this passage suggests birds are let go for the oracular observation, which is also implausible in context: the augurs are accused of failing the observation of a certain eagle, and explained that the birds did something which interrupted the observation, or forced them to move away from their location. The meaning of the sentence is well conveyed as a rhethorical question (e.g. Marizza M. 2009a, 112), also in consideration of the following lines; likewise, Archi A. 1975e, 138 understood the statement as rhetoric: “Dunque gli auguri agiscono così, e quindi piantano in asso gli uccelli del fiume!”. našma=man=aš, optative/irrealis.
para nannai- ‘drive straight ahead’ vel sim.; idiomatic.
I am not convinced by Sakuma’s interpretation that the verb ‘to go’ here refers to the location where the augurs are to carry out the next observation ( Sakuma Y. 2009b II, 634). The sentence is clearly connected to the previous: para nanništen … para lē iyatteni (note the usage of lē + PRS tense as prohibitive). The king intimates to the augurs to “straighten their path”, adding that they will not “keep going forward” (i.e. in this manner). The usage of =at must also be understood as phraseological. The sentence is euphemistic, lit. “you will go (to) leave from your own heads”.
Compare with the verbal figure uwat duwaddu (rev. 35´, 37´), briefly discussed in Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 62-63. This is primarily attested in letters from Tapikka and used in contexts where “the speaker wishes hasty compliance with his wishes” (ibid. 63). The form uwat might be an IMP of we- ‘come’ (= uwat〈ten〉?). Otherwise, the usage as INTJ is clear both from its repetition as well as the usage infra (rev. 35´). |
