Yet more new lists were created. Reciprocal Ea is an interesting example. It can
be seen as a kind of reverse index to Ea. It gathers together signs with homophonous
readings, with groups ordered according to the u-a-i vowel sequence seen above in
the Old Babylonian exercise Tu-ta-ti. By way of illustration, here is the section of
the list dealing with the /tu/ sound:
reading sign translation meaning
tu-u KU = tu 9 ) s.uba ̄ tum ‘garment’
DITTO KAxLI( = tu 6 ) sˇiptum ‘incantation’
DITTO KAM( = tu 7 ) ummarum ‘soup’
DITTO SˇU.NAGA( = tu 5 ) rama ̄ku ‘to bathe’
DITTO HUB 2 (= tu 11 ) hatû ‘to smite’
DITTO HUB( = tu 10 ) DITTO: kama ̄ rum ‘same: to heap
up’
DITTO SˇID( = tu 14 ) maha ̄s.u sˇaS.uba ̄ti ‘to hit, said of
cloth’ (i.e. to
weave)
The list is neither complete nor fully systematic, and some common signs are omitted.
The great innovation of the Neo-Babylonian period is the creation of the com-
mentaries. The Old Babylonian lists were never intended as a self-teaching device.
They were a kind of summary. A teacher with expert knowledge was always required
to provide an oral commentary. While the Middle Babylonian versions became more
explicit, the need for expert assistance cannot have gone away. By the Neo-Babylonian
period, help was needed more than ever. For now not only was the Sumerian difficult
but also some of the Akkadian had become obscure. Hence, we see the creation of
written commentaries and synonym lists.^12 It is clear from commentaries on other
genres of text that lexical lists could act as sources of authority in the interpretation
of difficult passages in those other types of text.
Commentaries do not treat the entirety of a text, but only selected portions. They
typically offer synonyms to explain a word, or sometimes give the infinitive of a
verbal form or a better-known writing of the word in question. Less often a general
explanation such as ‘a disease’ will be given. Quotations from classic texts may be
given by way of illustration. Some commentaries draw on more esoteric knowledge;
these can be particularly difficult for us to understand. Sometimes alternative explana-
tions are offered, marked as ‘secondly’ or ‘thirdly’.
The standard Neo-Babylonian commentary retains a columnar format, simply
adding an extra column as required. An example is HARGUD, a commentary to
Urra. Its first line runs: mur-gud = imrû= ballu(each word meaning ‘fodder’). Here
a Sumerian term (mur-gud) and its Akkadian equivalent (imrû) taken from the first
tablet of the list Urra are explained by adding, in a third column, another Akkadian
term (ballu), a synonym better understood by scribes of the time. The Late Babylonian
format of commentary is slightly different. There we find running text, with elements
separated by special textual marks (known as ‘Glossenkeile’).
— Jon Taylor —