PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The above omen and 32.N.6 are combined into one omen in If a City 2 (166-67 and 190, *32.5'). Such a reconstruction, however, implies that a second protasis repeating the phrase šá 2 KUN^II … IGI ‘with two tails … is seen’ is added after the (broken) apodosis in line K 06912+ 11. Comparing line K 06912+ 12 to lines 7 and 9 (32.N.3 and 32.N.4), the signs šá 2 KUN.[MEŠ …] of line 12 align with the same signs in lines 7 and 9. This might indicate that the illegible traces at the beginning of K 06912+ 12 introduce a new omen (32.N.6). Nevertheless due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts, such an interpretation remains uncertain.
• Collation shows that in line K 06912+ 11, after KUN ‘tail’, there are traces along the join between the manuscript’s two fragments. The traces suggest the reading -šá and have been read so above. We reconstruct the dual marker ^II after KUN as there is not enough room for the plural marker MEŠ. Neither Ebeling’s hand copy of K 06912+ (CT 38 40) nor If a City 2’s (190, *32.5’, Ex(3)) reading of K 06912+ 11 indicates that there is a broken sign between KUN and ina.
• Though the apodosis is incomplete, it is likely to be negative just as in 32.N.15, which has a similar protasis.