Babyloniaca, études de philologie assyro-babylonienne.

LEXICOGRAPHICAL NOTE 123
vocabulary and p. 4 1. 65i, 14 amrnri is contrasted with la nadati.
There cai{ be no doubt but -that amrati is an abstract pl. from
amirta and is to be derived from the root amni~ru. ZIMMERN, followed by MEISSTNER, SuIppleM., translates amirtu and 'amrati by IIlauteres ","clean ".. The basis of this translation I am unable to
understand. amirta occurs in CT XXII n,0 19, 7 amirtu 9a SE-BAR,
where the word seems to mean I" act of -finding out " and la amirti
in fur7pu II 40 would seem to mean I" what is not found out ", " the
unclearly established "and is rather an abstract noun than a fem. adj.,
so thcat amira HW 90 b has no existence.
The forms ina(0i, cited lby DELITZSCH and Muss-ARNOLT, are present n~ipals from ida in samne sense of "show itself true " etc.,
and despite the writing must be read inaddui.
The adjective formation nadiO (nat L) seems to be a development
from the inf. nada~ just as la amrati from la arn-tra. ta nadai should
mean "~ not being clearly shown, approved or known"; ia nada-ti
"the things not clearly ascertained)", and Surpu II 65 la amrati
lummnudu la naidati.0uhuzu "to learn what is not established,
to teach what has not, been clearly ascertained
The passage cited by IFlW from- Asurn. bita-ti nadati can hardly
mean anything hut" the houses which were found " (or
known).
Despite the persistent writing of ('1 for du it is therefore highly
probable that nala H\V 459 and Muss-ARNOLT 667 is a lexicographical fiction. A derivation from ~1l see "is of course not impossible.
qaladiz-galatu.
DE~,Urzscin and Muss-ABX-NOLT give two roots graladu and gralatu.
DELITZSCH distinguished the two by " become fearful " and! I become
terrified ", meanings which Muss-ARTNOLT seems to have taken over
without further consideration. MEI SSINEB however in his Supplem-ent,
p. 28 gives only one root. The only possible reason that could have
induced the earlier lexicographers -to give two roots is the fact