< Akk.
ṣuḫāru
PS
*ṣγr ‘(to be) smalľ is well attested in Ugaritic in its original form. But it remains
unclear why Akk. ḫ and ṣ should have shifted to γ and s (s̀) in Ugaritic. The former correspondence could probably be explained by the speaker’s awareness of the etymological relationship between ṣuḫāru and ṣγr (an etymologically motivated contamination, as in Biblical Aramaic hălāk ‘tribute, tax’ < Akkadian ilku). The latter can only be accounted for by some sort of phonetic difference between Akkadian ṣ and Ugaritic ṣ (affricate vs. non-affricate or glottalized vs. backed?).
(Kogan 2015: 353)