H197 LH iiib 68 ÌR SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^454
P 1 rev. i 43 SAG[
H198 LH iiib 68 P ù OV – The conjunction is written with the sign Ú in P.
4 rev. ii4 ú
H199 LH iiib 71 P ú-še-te-eq OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-nunciation. (^455)
P^14 rev. i 6 rev. ii 7 ú-še-et-[ ] [ ]ti-iq
H200 LH ivb 15 P a-na SV(1) – Exchange of prepositions.
2 rev. iii 3 i-na
H201 LH ivb 15 P ga-am-ri-im OV(l) – P has the wrong case vowel for the genitive singular. (^456)
2 rev. iii 6 ga-am-ri-am
H202 LH ivb 17 ma-ḫar OV – P has CV-VC against CVC
P 2 rev. iii 6 ma- ḫa-ar in LH.
H203 LH viiib 75 aš-ša-sú OV – The 3ms possessive pro-
W i 12 [ ]-su nominal suffix is written with the sign SU in W.
(^) H204 LH viiib 78 i-iz-zi-ib-ši (^) OV – W has defective orthography
W i 14 i-zi-ib-ši for the I/1 present future of √ezēbu, “abandon, divorce.”
H205 LH xiib 64 Z 4 wa-ar-ka wa-ar Not Counted – Probable scribal error in Z. (^457)
(^454) This variant is properly considered a lexical interchange, though it may in fact be better described as an
orthographic variation due to the fact that both sources employ logograms. The stele has ÌR, wardu, against
SAG.ÌR, 455 rēšu, in P. Both terms can be translated “servant, slave.”
P 1 +P 4 reads “ú-še-et-ti-iq,” the III/1 present future of √etēqu, “to allow to pass, expire.” The form in the
stele is supposed by G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, 208, to be an erroneous writing of the
same form, but here the variant is counted as reflecting [e] for /i/ in P. The defective orthography of the
stele (without the doubled middle radical of the present future) is not counted in light of Rule 3. 456
457 Cf. H189 above. The accusative case is incorrect following the preposition ana.
The form in Z is meaningless as it stands, and therefore, in the light of Rule 1, a scribal error is assumed
where the sign KA was accidently omitted.