occasionally also ‘father-in-law’ and ‘brother-in-law’ Connection with the verbal root ḫtn ‘to circumcise,’ completely isolated in Arabic (Lane 703), is widely accepted (HALOT 364‒365), but difficult to prove (Kogan 2015: 191)
Probably a WS loanword (with Goetze 1947:246‒247). This hypothesis is attractive in view of the fact that Akk. emu was clearly polysemic (“fatherin-law”/“son-in-law”) in OB and OA, whereas ḫatanu is only sparsely attested in early periods (Kogan 2014:104‒105). Also the morphological shape of the Akkadian word (non-syncopated *a in the second syllable) is unusual.