a connection with Akk. nīnû is likely, but as Watson himself admits (2007:70), there is no need to postulate an Akkadian loanword in Ugaritic (cf. Pardee 1985:60 for related terms in other Semitic languages) (Kogan 2015: 365)
semantically very uncertain, neither Akk. nappītu ‘sieve’, nor Akk. nūptu ‘additional payment’ can be considered a reliable source of borrowing (Kogan 2015: 365).
The vocalic shape of the Ugr. term (˹na˺-[š]u-˹ma˺, Huehnergard 1987: 155) is identical to the Semitic-based logogram NA.SE₁₁ ‘men’ attested in VE 900 and elsewhere in the Ebla texts (Krebernik 1985: 54).