PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• As mentioned in the commentary to 32.A.5, the above omen, 32.A.7, is similar to  32.S.4, which reads as follows:

         [If] a lizard f[al]ls in front of a man — [his] legal adversary will be conquered.
         [DIŠ] EME.˹ŠID˺ ˹ana˺ IGI NA Š[UB]-˹ut˺ KUR-ad EN INIM-[šu]

Reconstructing the above omen's protasis from 32.S.4, however, would result in identical protases in 32.A.5 and 32.A.7 (as occurs in 32.S.4 and 32.S.5).

While the apodoses of 32.A.7 and 32.S.4 are essentially the same, the word order differs. We therefore leave 32.A.7’s as it appears on the manuscript and do not reconstruct on the basis of the Sultantepe omen. KAL 1 (68, 16-17 Vs. 7 A7) also does not reconstruct the omen’s protasis.

The earlier edition If a City 2 (178, *32.68’), however, does use 32.S.4 to reconstruct 32.A.7’s protasis. This results in a reconstructed transliteration that reads as follows:

         [DIŠ EME.DIR ana IGI NA] ŠUB-ut EN KA-šu KUR-ad

If a City 2 (178, n. 66’,68’) mentions that the repeated protases “may be a scribal error”.