PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The commentary text[1] K. 1 r. 25 (CCP 3.5.30 - Ālu 30-32 (“27-30”)) possibly refers to the above omen:

• Collation of K 03730+ 41 shows a gap where the manuscript’s two fragments were joined together. The protasis’s verb DU.DU-ak has been reconstructed within this gap. All that is visible on the manuscript is a wedge’s small head after PEŠ₄ and before the break and a vertical wedge before the sign AK. These traces allow for the reading DU.DU-ak, but due to the minimal remains, the reading is speculative. The line is read similarly to above in If a City 2 (194, 32.63’, Ex(1)), but without the break, as if the signs were clearly written on the manuscript.

• At the end of line K 06912+ r. 9’ there traces of a fragmentary sign. We reconstruct PEŠ₄ based on K 03730+ 41. The sign is omitted in If a City 2 (194, 32.63’, Ex(3)). Further, If a City 2’s (172, 32.63’) reconstructed transliteration overlooks the sign read as ina. The edition’s translation (173, 32.63’) is similarly affected.

• In K 09057.2 i 5’ the sign read above as NIT]A^? is omitted in If a City 2 (194, 32.63’, Ex(4)₂). Because of the line’s fragmentary state, there is an element of speculation involved in its placement.