PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The above omen has many similarities with 32.N.1; see there for further commentary.
• The first word of the apodosis is written as šá-li-mu though the expected form would be sa-li-mu, to form salīmu ‘favorable’. Whereas Babylonian Akkadian differentiates the verbs šalāmu ‘to stay well, to be healthy’(among other definitions) and salāmu ‘to be reconciled, to make peace’ and their derived forms (such as salīmu), forms which merge the two under the roots š-l-m are attested in periphery Akkadian.[1] Though the manuscript’s colophon (see commentary at 32.S.79) indicates the text was copied from a Babylonian manuscript, there were perhaps West Semitic influences on the Sultantepe text.
• The above omen’s apodosis is problematic. It is difficult to reconcile that although the omen is supposedly favorable, the protective spirits lamassu and šedu will not approach the house. The presence of such spirits indicates a favorable outcome and their retreat foretells ill fortune for the place they have left (Konstantopoulos 2015, 57).
• The reconstruction of [ina SU]₇ at the beginning of line r. 19 is from 32.N.1, line K 06912+ 3. There are traces on the hand copy of this sign that are omitted from If a City 2 (186, 32.60).

The sign read as ša2 in If a City 2 (186, 32.60), has been read above as GAR ‘to place’. The signs following it are fragmentary. We suggest reading ˹U₄˺ K[UN^?-s]a^? to form a temporal relative clause. The subsequent sign (preceding É) is drawn on the hand copy as ina, not ana as was read by If a City 2 above.