Talk:sāsum

Emphatic form
, some dictionaries have an emphatic alternative form ṣāṣu which you have not listed here. It is needed to explain. Is it not attested? Vahag (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vahagn Petrosyan: Hi! None of the dictionaries I've checked (CAD and CDA) give that transliteration... What dictionaries are you referring to? Are they Akkadian dictionaries? — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 14:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , as opposed to . Vahag (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vahagn Petrosyan: I see. I don't really use that dictionary. The CAD volume that has sāsu(m) was published in 1981, while A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (second, corrected edition) was published in 1999. They would usually give alternative forms, but they both don't have ṣāṣu(m). I guess further studies have determined that such a form didn't exist? I do see why one would transliterate /ṣ/ (the cuneiform sign 𒍝 is usually read /za/ or /ṣa/, but /sa/ is also possible. What reading is the most likely depends on periods, dialects and regions, but my knowledge of those details is extremely superficial. I would stick with what newer, more up-to-date dictionaries have. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Vahag (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)