H219 LH xxiib 80 mi-qí-it-ti OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-
c i 8 mi-qí-it nunciation. 463
H220 LH xxiib 81 i-ma c i 10 i-ma-aḫ-ḫḫar-šu -ḫar-ma OV – c has CVC against CV-VC in LH.
(^) H221 LH xxiib 81 i-ma (^) ḫ-ḫar-šu (^) SV(2) – c lacks the pronominal
c i 10 i-ma-aḫ-ḫar-ma object suffix.^464
(^) H222 LH xxiib 81 i-ma (^) ḫ-ḫar-šu (^) SV(1) – c has an additional enclitic
c i 10 i-ma-a ḫ-ḫar-ma particle “-ma.”
H223 LH xxiib 82 c i 11 i-gu-ma e-gi-šu OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-nunciation. (^465)
H224 LH xxiib 82 c i 11 i-gu-ma e-gi-šu SV(2) – c has an additional pro-nominal object suffix. (^466)
(^) H225 LH xxiib 82 (^) i-gu-ma (^) SV(1) – c lacks the enclitic particle
c i 11 e-gi-šu “-ma.”
(^) H226 LH xxiiib 59 GEMÉ (^) OV – The noun √amtu, “slave
e 1 obv. i 7 SAG.GEMÉ girl,” is written with the compound logogram in e.
(^) H227 LH xxiiib 60 la (^) Not Counted – Scribal error or
possible difference in pronuncia-
tion.^467
e 1 obv. i 9 la-am
(^463) The stele appends the short vowel /i/ to the bound form of the (^) nomen regens in the construction miqīti
tarbi 464 ṣim, “an outbreak of the (animal) enclosure.” Cf. H212 above.
Cf. H147 and H148 above, as well as H224 and H225 below. This is conceivably an erroneous writing
of the sign ŠU in c. On this see note above. 465
The verbal preformative for primae aleph √egû, “careless, neglectful,” is [i] in the stele, against [e] in c.
Here the second sign is read GU with R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, 40, against G.R.
Driver and J.C. Miles, 466 Babylonian Laws, 275, who read GE.
467 See note above.
The phrase in the stele is warḫšu la imlāma, literally “(when) the month is not full.” The form in manu-
script e is marked in R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, 41, as an error, presuming parablepsis
where the scribe wrote “la
tinuing. An alternative reading is to consider “la-am” as the conjunction lām(a), “before,” a variant spelling
of which appears in the stele as lā (so CAD L 52b). The reading adopted here is in agreement with Borger.