PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The above omen’s protasis has been reconstructed from 32.S.9:

If a lizard [jum]ps onto a man from … — that man [will^? receive^? a good^?] m[essage^?].
DIŠ EME.ŠID TA x ana UGU NA [GU₄].UD NA BI I[NIM^? SIG₅^? IGI^?-mar^?]

Though the protasis and apodosis of 32.S.9 are incomplete, both omens are located within sequences of very similar omens. The preceding 32.A.11 appears to be the same omen as 32.S.8 and the subsequent 32.A.13 corresponds to 32.S.10. Both also include the phrase ana UGU NA and the Sultantepe omen partially preserves the verb GU₄.UD ‘to jump’. The two omens are likely similar.

In the above omen, the break in the protasis has space for at least three signs after DIŠ EME.DIR, leaving more than enough room for TA x ‘from …’ to be reconstructed within the break. Nevertheless both If a City 2 (178, *32.73’) and KAL 1 (16-17, Vs. 12 A12) do not reconstruct anything in the break beyond DIŠ EME.DIR. KAL 1 does indicate the gap however. This is likely because If a City 2 does not reconstruct the verb in 32.S.9’s protasis as GU₄.UD, but as [ŠUB]-ut ‘falls’. Given the close parallels between the Assur and Sultantepe recensions and the match between the rest of the signs in the two omens, it is logical to reconcile the two omens.

See the commentary at 32.S.9 for the sign x after TA and Sultantepe protasis’s reconstruction.

• From the photograph of VAT 10167 available on CDLI, the sign UD of GU₄.UD^!-iṭ appears to have too many vertical wedges. If a City 2 (198, *32.73’ C r.12’) notes the sign is written as ṢAB and KAL 1 (16-17, Vs. 12 A12) marks the sign with an exclamation mark.