G302 C vi 28 a-na OV – The preposition is written syllabically in
W 1 vi 13’ ana C.
G303 C vi 28 T ]˹i˺-na-aš-šam-ma the other sources.SV(3) – z has a di 665 fferent syntax compared to
W^1 vi 15 1 vi 13’ m]a e-du-˹ú˺ [ a]š-šam[ ]
j vi 25’ z vi 11’ e-du-ú i-na-aš[ ] ]na-šá-a e-du-ú
(^) G304 C vi 29 (^) ra-a-ṭa (^) OV(l) – W has the wrong case vowel for the
W 1 vi 14’ [r]a-a- ṭu accusative singular. 666
G305 C vi 30 a-a-i-ta OV – The diphthong *ay is written fully in C.
W 1 vi 15’ a-a- ˹ta
G306 C vi 30 W KI-ia OV – The noun syllabically in W. ittu, “mark, sign,” is written
1 vi 15’ it-t[i
G307 C vi 30 W ana KI-ia i[š OV(l) – Possible difference in pronuncia-tion. (^667)
j vi 12’^1 vi 15’ ana it-t[i ša]k-nu
z vi 12’ ]x-du is-si-a ša[k-n]u
(^) G308 C vi 30 (^) ana KI-ia i[š (^) OV(l) – z has a different grammatical form
W j vi 12’ 1 vi 15’ ana it-t[i ša]k-nu compared to the other sources.^668
z vi 12’ ]x-du is-si-a ša[k-n]u
(^665) The syntax of z is reversed. Translated literally z has “rising was the tide,” against “the tide was rising”
in C, T, W and j. In all cases the verb is intransitive and durative, though z appears to lack the ventive and
enclitic particle “-ma” present in the other sources. 666
667 See note above on the blending of the nominative and accusative singular case vowels in Neo-Assyrian.
G307 and G308 may be treated as a single case of textual corruption in z (so A.R. George, Gilgamesh,
723 n. 59). C, W and j are restored: uttâ ayīta ša ana ittia iššaknu, “what things will be placed for my
landmark,” against z: ]x-DU issia šaknu, “... what things are placed for my landmark.” Here z is read as
consisting of two linguistic variants, the first being the shift /tt/ > /ss/, and the second being a grammatical
change of the IV/1 preterite verb iššaknu > 3mpl stative šaknū. In this reading the active stative šaknū (also
called the predicative verbal adjective) in z has a resultative sense (see J. Huehnergard, Grammar, 393-95),
thus the translation “... are placed.” The problem of the initial sign DU following the break in z remains
unresolved, which is perhaps why George prefers to see z as containing a textual corruption rather than an
alternative reading. However, in the light of Rule 1 the text of z is taken as it stands. 668
See note above.