Valid point, while cognatic kinship can be clearly established through afro-asiatic linguistics, that doesn't say anything about actual pronunciation. My comment wasn't meant as an absolute statement, but merely reflects the scientific consensus on the matter, i.e. how an assyriologist would read those characters in a transliterated text out loud. With cuneiform languages we're talking millennia, so of course there has been considerable variety (space) and change (time) in pronunciation, some of it reflected in writing, cf. Assyrian vs Babylonian dialects. I could imagine that ṣ pronounced as "ts" may have been inferred/validated for specific timeframes through variant "spelling", or maybe indirectly via e.g. Hittite or Old Persian, but that's just a wild guess.

That is a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the tables of patriarchs in Genesis.

A more orthodox interpretation is that Cain's line is the urban, civilization-creating line, you have metallurgy, music, cities, trade, all coming from that line. This is because Cain represented agriculture, whereas Abel represented cattle herding, thus nomadic, not rooted lifestyles.

After Cain killed Abel (e.g. sedentary agriculture replaced nomadism in most places), it was natural for Cain to build a city as he was not nomadic. It was not for "protection" from his fellow man, but merely the continuation of his choice to be a tiller of the soil rather than a wandering nomad. God's demand for Cain to be a "wanderer" in the land of "nod" ("literally 'land of wandering' in Hebrew") is thus the opposite of what Cain did -- he settled down and built a city. This creates a nice picture: Cain choose not to be a wanderer (nomadic cattle herder) but to be a farmer (settle in one place). God told him "You will be a wanderer" but then it says that Cain built a city. So is the message -- those who are rooted in one place on earth are spiritual wanderers, and those who wander are the rooted ones?

Of course everyone is free to read Genesis and get all sorts of meanings out of it, it is ultimately a personal exercise according to your own conscience, but when you say that your reading is the correct one and other people are "mistaken", then you better be able to back it up with some kind of consensus view.

FYI, more modern scholarship has noticed that the seven generations of Cain line up with the 7 "sages" in Sumerian accounts, these were the sages that came from the deep and taught the Sumerians agriculture, metallurgy, etc, and people have been exploring associations between the names of these sages and the names in the line of Cain.

Another interesting area of the study is that the lines of Shem are basically the same names as that of Cain, but Shem has three more figures. That certainly isn't an accident - the documentary hypothesis people say it is the same line, just copied over from different places, but that is an old view and I think a minority one. There are all sorts of discussions about that similarity.