See obv. 10.
Text a-ŠI-an.
Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 180: [LIL?-r]i-ma-kán, but see the different form of RI elsewhere in this tables (e.g. obv. 24, 26, 30).
The expected form is ke-e but here ki-i can only be interpreted as NOM.PL.C, unless we take it as a mistake. For other irregular agreements with pronouns in the Tapikka letters, see the list of forms in Hoffner H.A. 2010c, 134. Note e.g. apē for ACC.PL.C (HKM 89: 15, 18) and kē for ACC.PL.C (HKM 48: 18; edition in CTH 188.1).
Text [na]m-ma-du.
It appears that the scribe forgot to write tar-u, which was written after pariyawan in the residual space and partially above the line of writing.
Mistake for nu-na-aš, in which =naš holds the function of =za with the 1 pl. person. Alp S. 1991b, 206 read: nu mu-la-a-an, as a name of bird, hapax, which is probably a phantom word. |
Lit. “we observed Šiptaši, Pišatenišša …”, with the town names as direct object, thus the implied meaning of aušk(e)- is ‘to make (oracular) observations in’.
See also previous note. This interpretation is suggested by the addition of KUR to the last toponym, thus we assume a D/L (unmarked) form.
Lit. “defeat”.
For this interpretation of the logic of the passage see also Marizza M. 2009a, 109. The change of tense, from preterite ( ušgawen) to present ( tittanuškanzi), implies a temporal sequence, although this is likely a historic present, referring to events prior to the writing of the letter. Note that ḫūllai (obv. 5) is also present tense, but the connection with the previous sentence through nu allows to read it on the same temporal level ad sensum, whereas =ma (obv. 6) suggests a change of topic/focus into a second stage of events. Lit. “push away, reject, repel”. The exact meaning of appa tittanuške- is unclear in context. For this interpretation see Hout Th.P.J. van den 2001c, 429 (“die Vögel setzen uns zurück”); also Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 180: “the birds were refusing to give us an answer”, Marizza M. 2009a, 109 “… continuano a non darci (un responso)”. For an interpretation of ēšta and ḫuīttiat (obv. 9) as 2SG see Hoffner H.A. 2009a, 180 (and infra obv. 14). However, it cannot be ruled out that the two forms are 3SG. In particular, the second verb is a MP voice, thus this is necessarily 3SG.
Lit. “it was confirmed to us”.
Cf. the standard form SIG₅-az (ABL) “from the favorable (side)” in obv. 22 and passim.
Cf. the instrumental in obv. 27; the meaning must be the same.
However, the movement might refer to both birds in sequence: “they (both) came from … and (then flew) from…”
See lo. e. 38.
Usually …=za 〈appa〉 daēr (cf. e.g. rev. 48).
Uncertain syntax: if this is the correct reading, then [aršint]ara would be somehow fronted even before the enclitic chain. There are in fact two cases of double enclitic chain in a sentence shortly after (rev. 50, rev. 51).
Double enclitic chain!
Double enclitic chain (see previous line as well).
Mistake NOM for =an ACC?
Phraseological; the meaning seems to be that the eagle reappears in the spot where it previously escaped from sight.
|
