KAI 010

Line 1: On the repetition of "bn" meaning "grandson," see Krahmalkov 2000, 105. Line 3: The particle ˀT is used rather than ˀYT in classical Phoenician when appearing before a noun with a suffixal pronoun (Krahmalkov 2000, 89). Line 4: Gibson prefers reading the nouns in this sequence as being in apposition rather than assigning to them anomolous use of the definite article. He also suggests a semantic distinction between the uses of the demonstrative here and in the following lines. He says that ZN/Z are used to make reference to additions newly constructed by the king, while Z (masc. and fem. both Z) is used for reference to things already there (Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 96-97). Krahmalkov notes in his grammar in §8a that there are some cases where normal genitive construct formations can be broken. There are cases when the governing noun can be determined, specifically "when it is in construct with a noun denoting the material of which it is crafted." (Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 140). His only examples are the three which occur here. We will translate according to this understanding. Krahmalkov defines this as "inscription, engraving." He only cites lines 3 and 5 of this inscription. Gibson sees "gate." This line contains the first of several unusual noun phrases in which the head noun is marked definite and an appositional (unmarked) definite noun and demonstrative follow. Line 5: Gibson sees "btkt" as a plural form of the preposition (Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 97). Line 11: Gibson's restoration, which he notes "is usually explained as related to Syr. [qnūm] 'person, self' with the addition of MY 'who'" (Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 98). "ʿlt" is a variant form of the preposition with excrescent -t (Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary, 374-375).