The present paper continues the series begun xvith the writers' study of EA1 82 in this Journal.2 In dealing +rith that letter, the rvriters were fortunate in being able to folloxv Knudtzon's readings throughout in a virtually intact document. The radical changes in interpretation were invariably due to the tremendous improvement in our knowledge of Northwest-Semitic dialects of the Late Bronze Age during the past twenty years. The letter +srith svhich +re are dealing here, EA 89, is not so complete, the last lines of both obverse and reverse being badly damaged. Where the breaks are relatively minor, as in lines 7-9, it is possible, by exhaustive use of parallels, to fill them. The real difficulty lies in the inability of previous students to grasp the peculiar hybrid Accadian-Canaanite idiom of the letters from Phoenicia and Palestine. For example, by neglecting the fact that alu, in accordance +rith Canaanite treatment of rvords for toun, is regularly construed as feminine in these letters, Knudtzon entirely missed the true interpretation of lines 40-41. Inability to understand lines 14, 18, 47, etc., spoiled his interpretation of the folloxving passages having to do with the relations between Byblos and Tyre. Yet it is only by reckoning at all times both rrith the Canaanite usage of that age and with the peculiarities of the Byblos and related letters that progress in interpretation becomes possible. Our advance in understanding this letter, which has hitherto remained so obscure, is derived almost entirely from these two chief sources. Thanks to our revised translation of lines 7 ff. and 36 ff., the historical situation of the letter becomes very much clearer, as will become evident on comparing Webe1 's discussion of this