H228 LH xxiiib 60 im-la-ma OV(l) – Difference in grammatical
e 1 obv. i 9 im-ta-la forms. 468
H229 LH xxiiib 60 im-la-ma e SV(1) is lacking in e. – The enclitic particle “-ma”
1 obv. i 9 im-ta-la
H230 LH xxiiib 63 na-di-na-ni-šu e SV(2) – e lacks the pronominal object suffix. (^469)
1 obv. i 12 na-di-na-ni-ma
H231 LH xxiiib 63 na-di-na-ni-šu SV(1) – e has an additional enclitic
e 1 obv. i 12 na-di-na-ni-ma particle “-ma.”
H232 LH xxiiib 63 ú-ta-ar-ma SV(1) – e lacks an additional en-
e 1 obv. i 13 [ ]-ta-ar clitic particle.
H233 LH xxiiib 66 i-le-qé e OV(l) nunciation.– Possible difference in pro- (^470)
1 obv. i 15 i-la-qé
H234 LH xxiiib 68 ÌR OV – The noun is written with the compound √wardu, “slave,”
logogram in e.
e 2 obv. i 4 SAG.ÌR
H235 LH xxiiib 68 GEMÉ OV – The noun girl,” is written with the compound √amtu, “slave
logogram in e.
e 2 obv. i 4 SAG.GE[MÉ]
(^) H236 LH xxiiib 71 ba-aq-ri (^) SV(2) – e has an additional pos-
e 2 obv. i 8 ba-aq-ri-šu sessive pronominal suffix. 471
(^468) The stele has the I/1 preterite of √ (^) malû, “to be complete,” against the I/1 perfect (or I/2 preterite) form in
manuscript e. 469
470 See note above.
In the stele the I/1 present future of III weak √leqû, “to take,” reflects vowel harmonisation where ilaqqe
471 ileqqe.
The possessive pronominal suffix in e clarifies that, in the sale of a slave, any existing legal claims made
against the slave remain the responsibility of the seller. Manuscript e reads: nādinānšu baqrīšu îppal, “his
(the slave’s) seller will be liable (for) his claims.” Whether the pronominal suffix appended to
√baqru/paqru, “a (legal) claim,” refers to the slave or the slave’s seller is unclear. Regardless of this, the
effect is to clarify the text as it stands in the stele.