PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The reading of bu-di as būdi for ‘shoulder(s)’ (See CAD B, 303 s.v. būdu A) warrants discussion. To begin with, the hand copy writes the second sign as KI instead of DI. See also If a City 2 (183, n. 3). The signs KI and DI resemble each other, and it is possible that the modern copyist misread the sign. Collation of the original manuscript would be necessary to confirm the reading, but, in any case, If a City 2 (182, 32.3) also reads the sign as DI.

The pair būdu ‘shoulders’ and pūtu ‘forehead’ are not only similar sounding words, but can also be ambiguous when written in cuneiform. This ambiguity also means, as the CAD B, 305 s.v. būdu A notes, the pair could be read as pūdu 'shoulders' or būtu 'forehead'. See the discussion there, for why būdu and pūtu have been accepted over the latter two. If a City 2 (182, 32.3), however, reads pu-di  and translates (183, 32.3) "forehead".

The problematic between būdu and pūtu also appears in two other similar omens: 32.S.18 and 32.A.20.

• The final sign before the break is somewhat problematic as drawn on the hand copy. It immediately follows ŠUB in the middle of the line so we therefore suggest interpreting it as an enclitic -ma as was also done in If a City 2 (182, 32.3) . This interpretation means the protasis has a missing second part. The hand copy, however, shows a large amount of blank space after the sign and there is only room for a sign or two on the missing right-hand edge. Perhaps the sign is extraneous. Collation of the manuscript would be necessary to be certain.