G148 C iii 34b J u 4 -ma OV(l) – W and c have the wrong case vowel for the accusative singular.
W^1 iii 38 2 iii 3b’ uu^44 -ma -mu
c 3 iii 13’ u 4 -mu
(^) G149 C iii 34b (^) ina (^) OV – The preposition is written syllabically in
J 1 iii 38 i-na J.
c 3 iii 13’ [i]na
G150 C iii 34b J ka-šá-a-di OV – C writes the long medial vowel in √kašādu, “to arrive.”
1 iii 38 ka-šá-d[i]
G151 C iii 35b J i-pi-ra-am-m[a] SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^592
W^1 iii 39b 2 iii 4b’ i-tu-ram-m[a] i-pi[ ]
c 3 iii 15’ i-t[u ]
(^) G152 J
W^1 iii 40 i-pa-áš-šum-ma OV(l) – Difference in grammatical form.^593
c 3 iii 16’^2 iii 5’ i-[ ]pa-DA-áš-˹pa-áš-šum?˹-mašum˺˺ -ma
(^592) According to A.R. George, Gilgamesh (^) , 889, the obscure verb in C and W, √epēru, “to provide food,” is
exchanged with a more commonly known lexeme, √târu, “to return,” in J and c. The reading of the sign PI
(≿) as TÚ (⌓) might otherwise be the result of scribal error or damage to the Vorlage, but here the form is
read as a lexical exchange. 593
A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 712, marks this variant as a scribal error in W. However, the sign is clearly
seen in the drawing (pl. 136), so the scribe clearly wrote the sign intentionally. If this is not an error then
the meaning of the form in W is uncertain. The reading of the form “i-pa-ta-áš-˹šum˺-ma” as I/2 preterite or
I/1 perfect of √epešu is problematic as one would expect itepuššumma instead of ipataššumma. In this in-
stance a metathesis of the second and third signs would have to be presumed, and the vowels explained. If,
however, the form was read as IV/3 preterite or IV/2(!) present future of √bašû, then a grammatical variant
may be counted. The present study does count this variant as such in the light of Rule 1, though it should be
noted that George’s assumption of scribal error is probably the most likely explanation of this difficult
form.