Talk:ܫܝܫܠܬܐ

@Fay Freak, how is the alternative form ܫܫܠܬܐ‎ vocalized? --Vahag (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan Well the form šišiltā you search would be written exactly like the forms we have here, and even the vocalization signs are not enough to distinguish that far. Speaking with Wikipedia the horizontal dots below the first letter in the plural ܫܸܫ̈ܠܵܬܵܐ can also signify /ɪ/, so we might have, instead of šĕšlāṯā, šɪšəlāṯā, as a letter with no vowel following and a letter with schwa following are vocalized equally too. Is this close enough for your շղթայ (šłtʻay)? It’s like Ottoman, even if it’s vocalized you still don’t know wholly how it is pronounced. Don’t know how much justified it is to call it reconstruction if you write šišiltā. This is like an alternative reading. The Hurrian word often given ḫinzur(i) spawning խնձոր (xnjor) might have been ḫnzor(i) but I don’t call the latter reconstruction. Or maybe I compare things which are not comparable. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Thanks. The plural has the problem of -ā-. None of the forms explains the Armenian perfectly. According to Olsen, not even šišiltā, so she assumes an Iranian mediation. I found a NENA form šišltā which is especially close. --Vahag (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)