G153 C iii 36 šim-ma SV(1) – Difference in gender of the dative
J W 1 iii 40 i-pa-áš-šum-ma pronominal suffix.^594
c 3 iii 16’^2 iii 5’ i-[ ]pa-DA-aš-˹pa-áš-šum?-ma˹šum˺ ˺-ma
G154 C iii 37a J ša]r OV(l) – The stem vowel of send,” is different in J. 595 √wašāru, “to
W^1 iii 41a ú-maš-šìr
2 iii 6a’ ú-maš-š[ar
G155 C iii 37b i-pi-ra-a[m SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^596
J W 1 iii 41b i-tu-ram-m[a]
2 iii 6b’ i-pi ˺-r[a
G156 C iii 38 J man-za-z[u OV(l) – Possible difference in pronuncia-tion. (^597)
W^1 iii 42 2 iii 7’ man-za-zu ]-su
G157 C iii 38 J ši]m-ma SV(1) – Difference in gender of the dative pronominal suffix. (^598)
1 iii 42 i-pa-áš-šam-ma
G158 C iii 39 J b]a OV(l) – J has the wrong case vowel for the accusative singular. (^599)
W^1 iii 43 2 iii 8a’ a-ri-bi ]ri-ba
G159 J W 1 iii 46 ni-qa-a OV(l) – W has the wrong case vowel for the accusative singular. (^600)
4 iii 1’ n]i-qs C seems to read TU.MUŠEN as (^) summatu, “dove,” a feminine noun if we are to read the dative pro-
nominal suffix “-šimma” as correct. All other sources have this noun as masculine, thus reading
TU.MUŠEN as 595 summu, cf. A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 889.
Both complete sources reflect the consonantal shift /w/ > /m/ (cf. J. Huehnergard, Grammar, 259 and
597). The form in J is II/1 preterite umaššir, “I released,” while C has the II/1 durative umaššar, “I was
releasing.” W, though broken, ostensibly follows C. 596
597 See above, G151.
See J. Hämeen-Anttila, Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 9-10, on the contact of sibilants, voiced and unvoiced,
in Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian. In particular, the Babylonian voiced phoneme /z/ is theorised to have a
voiceless allophone [s] in Neo-Assyrian. 598
599 See above, G152.
600 Cf. A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 439.
The sign in W is very difficult to see in the drawing in A.R. George, Gilgamesh, pl. 136, however the
exclusion of the sign QA as a possible reading seems certain. The writing of /u/ for accusative singular, cf.
A.R. George, Gilgamesh, 441, seems the most likely reading.