Other orthographic variants are less common. It is possible that D preserves a variant
spelling of tibnu in the first line. This is far from certain, but even so, reading an ortho-
graphic variant here seems to be the most conservative way to deal with the problem.
Orthographic (linguistic) Variants
Two variants in the sources may perhaps be considered linguistic variants, although in
both cases simple orthographic variation is also a possible explanation of the forms. V2
reflects the possible use of the Sumerian abstract prefix. V18 reflects a possible addition
of a post-position genitive marker.^199 In the latter case we would expect eponymous ma-
terial to resist variation above the orthographic level.
Stylistic Variants (Type 2)
All of the instances of this variant type in the sources are expansive. In two cases a re-
sumptive pronoun is present in one source and absent in another (V22 and V37). In a fur-
ther two cases a source features Wiederholungszeichen where the full text is given in a
parallel source (V11 and V16).^200
(^199) See also M210 and P20.
(^200) For the term and references to the literature for this type of variation see note above. At V11 B has
KI.MIN, lacking in A and J. At V16 D has KI.MIN standing for the repetition of the complete apodosis in
the line above, written out fully in C. In the second instance the text abbreviated by Wiederholungszeichen
is clear but this is not so for the first instance. According to Langdon, the Wiederholungszeichen refer to
part of the apodosis of the preceding omen on line 13 of B. If this is correct, then the apodosis in B would
read ḫušaḫḫi še˺i u tibni ina māti ibašši, ebūr māti iššir, ubbuta iššakkan, “there will be a shortage of grain
and straw in the land, the harvest of the land will prosper, famine will be present.” If indeed KI.MIN in B
was intended to stand for the phrase ebūr māti iššir, such an addition would appear to contradict the pri-
mary sense of the apodosis, which seems to be to forecast a lack of food throughout the region. By adding a
phrase that speaks of the prosperity of the harvest, B undermines the prediction of calamity in the parallel
sources A and J. Such a variation may arguably be categorised as a hermeneutic variant, in that it ostensibly
changes the meaning of the text. However, given that the apodosis in B continues with the same words as
the parallel sources after this variant, ubbuta iššakkan, it should be considered to be an expansion on the
text rather than a change in meaning. This consideration is also in keeping with the opinion of Langdon,
apparent in his treatment of the text.