1The emendation understands dittography of the preceding writing of MEŠ with IR₃, used there as a rebus of the pl. adj. morpheme -ūt- for the abstract suffix.

2The emendation follows the discussion of the passage by Huehnergard (1989: 219).

3For itti with the sense "to" here, see Huehnergard (1989: 188).

4For the phrase ana ša yâši replacing the 1cs dative suffix on verbs, see Huehnergard (1989: 133).

5The traces of the first sign coming out of the break have been the object of discussion, especially given the unusual sense of itti in l. 16. Moran (1992: 119 n. 5) states that "we must read i]a" on the basis of the copy (followed by Huehnergard 1989: 219), while Rainey (2015: 1391) in his note to the line asserts that the copy is wrong and that he saw -[š]u. Cf. also Knudtzon (1915: 314), who read [it-ti-šu-m]a. From collation of the available photo, it seems that a single vertical wedge is preserved, which, of course, does not allow one to distinguish between -[i]a, -[š]u, and-[m]a. We choose the first option because the sense of the preoposition should be parallel to that in l. 16.

6Knudtzon (1915: 314, see 315) reads [y]i-[š]a-al-li-iʾ, but leaves untranslated. Moran (1992: 119 n. 8) objects, noting that the preformative yi- is unknown at Ugarit, and reads x]x ša-a-al le-ʾa, "ask someone able," in which reading he is followed by Huehnergard (1989: 158 n. 174) and Liverani (1998b/I: 286). Rainey (2015: 376-77, 1391) reads [...] ⸢ša-a⸣ al-li-iʾ, translating "which(?)"; the word after the relative pronoun is omitted from his translation. From the available photograph, it is unclear whether the -a after ša- is present on the tablet, and recollation is desirable.