H237 LH xxiiib 71 i-ip-pa-al OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-
e 2 obv. i 8 i-ip-pa-il nunciation. 472
H238 LH xxivb 18 eš-te-i-ši-na-ši[m] OV – The III/2 of search,” is written with full orthog-√še’û, “to
raphy in e.
e 1 obv. ii 23 e-eš-te-i-ši-i-na-ši-in-im
(^) H239 LH xxivb 18 eš-te-i-ši-na-ši[m] (^) OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-
e 1 obv. ii 23 e-eš-te-i-ši-i-na-ši-in-im nunciation. 473
H240 LH xxivb 19 wa-aš- e ṭú-tim OV(l) – e lacks mimation.
1 obv. ii 4 wa-aš- ṭú-ti
H241 LH xxivb 20 u-[p]e-et-ti OV – Different spelling of the II/1 present future of √petû, “to open”
in e.
e 1 obv. ii 15 u-pé-et-ti
H242 LH xxivb 21 e nu-ra-am OV(l) – e lacks mimation.
1 obv. ii 5 nu-ra
H243 LH xxivb 27 e i-ši-ma-am SV(2) – The 1cs dative pronominal suffix is lacking in e. (^474)
1 obv. ii 12 i-ši-ma
H244 LH xxivb 28 le-ú-tim Not Counted – Probable scribal
e 1 obv. ii 13 tu-ú-tim error in e. 475
(^472) G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws (^) , 280, suggest that the final sign “IL” in manuscript e has
only consonantal force, and the reading should therefore be îppal, “he will be liable.” However, in light of
Rule 1, the possibility that a difference in pronunciation underlies the orthography cannot be excluded. 473
The 3fpl dative pronominal suffix, written “-šim” in the stele, appears as “-šinim” in e. The 3fpl dative
suffix in Standard Babylonian is ‘-šināti,’ and ‘-šim’ for the 3fs. In Neo-Assyrian the 3fpl dative suffix is
‘-šina,’ and the 3fs is ‘-(aš)ši’ (see J. Hämeen-Anttila, Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 49, and J. Huehnergard,
Grammar, 600-601). The form in manuscript e may be influenced by either the Standard Babylonian or
Neo-Assyrian forms. 474
The pronominal suffix in the stele refers to the receiver of the allotment of wisdom, clarifying Hammu-
rabi as the beneficiary. The stele reads: ina igigallim ša Ea išimam, “with the wisdom Ea allotted to me.”
(^475) The form in e appears to be a scribal error, where the sign TU (⌅) was mistakenly written for LE
(⇷). Alternatively the form in e may be read as an abstract noun formed from √tû, “incantation” or
“garment.” In the context, though, an abstract noun from √le’u, “to be able,” is most likely, so an error is
read in e. Manuscript e has the correct spelling in e 1 obv. iii 5.