More Amurru

These are the five examples we're given, laid out in tabular form:

ti-nam me-e la-a-i-de-ni	ten mayim al yadenu	Give water on our hands
ia-a-a-nam si-qí-ni-a-ti	yeinam šiqiniti	Pour us wine
si-ḫa šu-ul-ḫa-nam	habe et haš-šulhan	Fetch the table
la-aḫ-ma-am bi-lam na-a-NAM	habe lehem eleinu	Bring us bread
bi-ik-ra-ti-ia za-ba-a-ḫa a-na DI ĜIR-ia la-am-[ti]-in	et zebah bikurai lo eten le’eli	I will make a sacrifice to my GOD

Some Sumerograms are here: ĜIR stands for El. But not many.

As for the ḫ character that's a known problem in cuneiform on account Sumerian was not good for distinguishing all the "H" stops, and on account Akkadian may have given up trying. Consider that even in English we reserve the chi for Scottish and Welsh loanwords. Same goes for the long -am in "la-aḫ-ma-am"; it's not long, the script forced the length after the absent vowel in la-aḫ-m*.

Clearly we have a Semitic language given the object-suffixes and possessive-suffixes. And it's not Aramaic: the s and the š were already joined to the shin character in the Imperial script. But might it be protoAramaic?

If these five sentences belong together then we have here an altar for a table - an impromptu blessing as the Babylonian emissary arrives at the Amorite court. On that topic Hebrew yeïn is a major rabbithole in rabbinics. Setám yeïnam means "their wine" and is generally forbidden for fear someone like me will be born nine months after one of Them should drink it with one of Us. It gets worse with Yeïn Nesech, poured out precisely for such Sumerian ĜIRîm. The word for wine is hamar in Biblical-Aramaic and ḫamr in Qâric-Arabic.

la-a-i-de-ni probably goes to la-îdenî; me-e, mê. Looks halfway between the "Canaanite shift" and... Arabic. Pre-Qâric Arabic would I think have these as li-yadinâ and mâ', with hamza.

lehém is Aramaic for bread as well although, in Amurru, the accent fell on the first syllable. Aramaic sacrifice is debáh so... how did this first syllable get aspirated? I do not read "la-îzenî". Emphatics?

There is gender in laḫmam and yânam and šúlḫanam all masculine. mê would be feminine if she's accusative. I guess in Hebrew the -iat preserved the old Semitic -t unlike most feminines, became -ith as Judith and Shulamith.

I detect i'rab! The dative, if you will, is expressed in la-îdenî; accusative in all that -am.

As with North Arabian and ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic I see no definite-article. si-ḫa could be si ḫa- but I doubt it. Unless šulḫ-an is in that emphatic-state of South Arabian and, perhaps, of Aramaic. Except that šulhan appears some seventy times in our Bible.

We might have (?habe) a problem in the article's transcription. In particular Give water on our hands makes little sense. I call shens that tinam means imperative "give". I mean, sure: yu'tî in Arabic. But the -am points to an accusative noun; such are placed at the start of the sentence elsewhere. This could be "he waters tin for our hands", whatever tin be (clay?).

I deduce siḫa and siqíniati as imperative verbs. So: yânam siqíniati and siḫa šúlḫanam has "us" in the former but just "the" in the latter. Is -iati the object-suffix for "us"? I'd expect -iani. And for this to be oblique with a la- in there. Is zabáḫa a noun or a verb? Can't tell without looking at the published article.