The analysis of Deutsch and Heltzer goes astray here. They read this clause as zy dsûrn’ and render the final part as “at the Sharon (plain or area),” explaining d– as “the particle expressing in this case the relation to the place” (p. 83). This is puzzling, but I’m afraid they are thinking of later Aramaic d-, which can have such a meaning. But this would be phonologically incompatible with the preceding zy (the older form, from which d– developed!) and therefore impossible. Moreover, the photograph shows that the sign in question has a clearly curved stem; it is not dalet but bet. Hence, the clause is zy bsûrn’, which clearly and elegantly means “who is/are in the Sharon.”
