H145 LH xa 66 É-sú OV – The possessive pronominal suffix is written with the sign SU
in J.
J 1 ii 2 É-su
H146 LH xa 68 J in-na-ad-di-iš-šum OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-nunciation. (^431)
1 ii 3 in-na-ad-di-in-šum
H147 LH xia 1 J iṣ-ṣa-ab-tu-ma SV(2) – Additional pronominal suffix in J. (^432)
1 ii 4 i ṣ-ṣa-ab-tu-šu
H148 LH xia 1 iṣ-ṣa-ab-tu-ma SV(1) – J lacks the enclitic particle
J 1 ii 4 i ṣ-ṣa-ab-tu-šu “-ma.”
H149 LH xia 3 it-ta-al-ku OV(l) – J has the wrong vowel for
J 1 ii 6 it-ta-al-ka the inflected verbal ending. 433
H150 LH xia 4 i-il-la-ak OV – J has defective orthography for the I/1 present future form of
J 1 ii 7 i-la-ak √alāku, “to go.”
(^) H151 LH xia 6 (^) iš-ti-a-at-ma (^) OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-
J 1 ii 9 iš-te-a-at-at nunciation. 434
H152 LH xia 6 J iš-ti-a-at-ma SV(1“-ma.”) – J lacks the enclitic particle (^435)
1 ii 9 iš-te-a-at-at
H153 LH xia 9 ù OV – The conjunction is written
(^431) The stele reflects the phonological change /n/+C > CC, not reflected in the Neo-Assyrian manuscript J.
According to J. Hämeen-Anttila, Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 20, “n is rarely assimilated to a pronominal suf-
fix.”
(^432) The sign in J may be a poorly executed MA (∠) rather than ŠU (⋗), but in light of Rule 1 the form in J
should be read as an anaphoric pronominal suffix referring to eqelu, “field,” kīrû, “orchard,” or bītu,
“house.” The variant is thus read as expanding or clarifying the text of the stele. 433
Cf. A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 441. This may be a case of vowel harmony in J on analogy with /u/ > /a/
when a stressed long penultimate vowel /ā/ assimilates the short ultimate vowel /u/ (see M. Luukko, Neo-
Assyrian 434 , 90).
J reflects the shift [i] > [e] in I weak roots. See the references in note above.
(^435) The form in J is difficult, and perhaps the last sign AT (“) is best taken as an erroneous writing of the
sign MA (∠).