PDA

View Full Version : Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?



XipeTotek
28-03-18, 18:19
i see on the web, sumerian and turkic languages have so many similar words

and in the science siberian turkic peoples and native americans are related with q hablogroup (have so many similarities about languages, cultures, life style, grammar and also words)

i did look at about the ziggurats and mayan pyramides are looking similar to me.

if thats all real, sumerian/turkic/native american peoples could be same ancestor(q hablogroup) and they languages are come from common language?

and there is one theory about lost continent mu on the pacific ocean sumerians/mayans have a myth like that ; flood myth

i think sumerians/turkic/native americans come from same ancestors and language



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyRV4LmjaQc


Sumerian - Turkic similar words.

9906


9908

9907

you can see sumerian words and language from that pages ;

http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/Sumerian_Dictionary.pdf

http://history-world.org/sumerianwords2.htm

Ygorcs
28-03-18, 20:28
I really doubt the supposed Sumerian-Turkic cognates are more than random coincidences and wishful thinking. Even if such connection existed, it would've been so, so long ago (considering that the first Sumerian texts are from as early as ~3,000 BC, and it was already a completely distinct and unique language by then) that any directly similar words would be not only extremely rare and unlikely, but also probably an indication that there is nothing but random coincidence, because languages that are really connected on a very distant scale - say, 8,000 years ago - have gone through such profound phonetic and morphological changes that true cognates will never be that obvious that they can be identified by sheer similarity between two words of so distantly related languages.

Also, the Q haplogroup - we don't even know if Sumerians had any appreciable amount of this haplogroup, but honestly I wouldn't bet on it - is at least 17,000 years ago, more probably before 20,000 years ago. It is extremely unlikely, almost 0% chance, that two languages connected just because they share the same haplogroup Q would've still look similar several milennia later (what specific clades of Q by the way, how are those clades related to each other? Do we know that? Native Americans, according to genetic studies, were already separated from other Northeast Asians at least 18,000 years ago in Beringia, and by 15,000 years ago had migrated to Americas with no ticket back home).

Finally, I honestly think it is extremely misguided to derive a whole hypothesis about common source by finding similar roots comparing a language from ~2,300 BC with a language from ~500-1000 CE, with a tremendous gap of more than 3,000 years of phonetic evolution between them. It is not only possible but probable that the ancestor of Common Turkic sounded extremely different when Sumerian was still being spoken.

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 04:04
I really doubt the supposed Sumerian-Turkic cognates are more than random coincidences and wishful thinking. Even if such connection existed, it would've been so, so long ago (considering that the first Sumerian texts are from as early as ~3,000 BC, and it was already a completely distinct and unique language by then) that any directly similar words would be not only extremely rare and unlikely, but also probably an indication that there is nothing but random coincidence, because languages that are really connected on a very distant scale - say, 8,000 years ago - have gone through such profound phonetic and morphological changes that true cognates will never be that obvious that they can be identified by sheer similarity between two words of so distantly related languages. Also, the Q haplogroup - we don't even know if Sumerians had any appreciable amount of this haplogroup, but honestly I wouldn't bet on it - is at least 17,000 years ago, more probably before 20,000 years ago. It is extremely unlikely, almost 0% chance, that two languages connected just because they share the same haplogroup Q would've still look similar several milennia later (what specific clades of Q by the way, how are those clades related to each other? Do we know that? Native Americans, according to genetic studies, were already separated from other Northeast Asians at least 18,000 years ago in Beringia, and by 15,000 years ago had migrated to Americas with no ticket back home). Finally, I honestly think it is extremely misguided to derive a whole hypothesis about common source by finding similar roots comparing a language from ~2,300 BC with a language from ~500-1000 CE, with a tremendous gap of more than 3,000 years of phonetic evolution between them. It is not only possible but probable that the ancestor of Common Turkic sounded extremely different when Sumerian was still being spoken.


Yes there is have more more connection with language.

you can't explain this words with coincidence.
also grammar so similar.

Sumerian - Turkic similar words.

9906


9908

9907

and they all basic important words. Sumerian language is more close to Turkic language now on the earth.

also native american languages connected with similarity to turkic - sumerian languages.

Mark
30-03-18, 04:20
Many of the most interesting discoveries are made when we explore what is perceived as the outrageous. I think it is important to stay grounded until you have a more solid basis. Perhaps Sumerians have some common roots with some of the groups composite of Native Americans, it’s an intriguing notion. I think it’s also important for you to get particular with your subclades, as suggested above by Ygorcs. Also, don’t get bogged down with Q, find common trace haplogroups... you know, when more results on Sumerian Y DNA come out.

BTW, could we get a source for what you copied and pasted here? Nevermind... you edited.

When dealing with language, I’m partial to wave theory versus pure tree theory. Languages near one another with interacting cultures influence each other greatly.

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 04:24
Many of the most interesting discoveries are made when we explore what is perceived as the outrageous. I think it is important to stay grounded until you have a more solid basis. Perhaps Sumerians have some common roots with some of the groups composite of Native Americans, it’s an intriguing notion. I think it’s also important for you to get particular with your subclades, as suggested above by Ygorcs. Also, don’t get bogged down with Q, find common trace haplogroups... you know, when more results on Sumerian Y DNA comes out.

BTW, could we get a source for what you copied and pasted here? Nevermind... you edited.

http://history-world.org/sumerianwords2.htm

http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/Sumerian_Dictionary.pdf

you can see on this pages about sumerian language and words.

i can't believe and explain sumerian language affect to native american languages and cultures. (so far away area) it is not possible.

i but i can explain with they come from same language ancestors and central asia or siberia.

https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2016/02/23/its-official-native-americans-and-siberians-are-cousins_569517

and they are basic words similar to turkish like a father(ata) or god (dingir and tengri)

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 04:43
Native American languages and Turkish similarity

Keçua dili ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerin bazıları (ilk yazan Keçua, ikincisi Türkçe):

* tuka - tükürmek

* paku - bak

* khapao - kaba

* ipa - abla

* ku - koy

* kaşa - kış

* kuli - kül

* kalı - kalın

* karwın - karın

* kasa - kes

* tawga - dağ

* takhıla - dağıl

* khipu - ip

* çur - dur

* as - az

* tak - ta ki

* la - ile

* mi? - mi?

* biri - bir

* tawa - dört (Çuvaş Türkçesi'nde tavat)

* pis - beş

* halta - altı

* khawa - kör

* kiwi - kir

* ata, atea, hataa - ata

* ata cama (https://forum.donanimhaber.com/kizilderili-ve-sumerlerin-turk-iliskisi--130202928#) - ata mezarlığı

*****************************************

Diğer Kuzey Amerika dilleri ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerden bazıları:

Miwok Kızılderilileri'nde "kuççi" - Türkçe'de "küçük"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "kiçeeç" - Türkçe'de "küçük"

Arawak Kızılderilileri'nde "çakira" - Türkçe'de "çakır"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda ; "tos, uçun, yangi, kis" - Türkçe'de "toz, için, yeni, kız"

Maya dilinde "kin" - Türkçe'de "gün" (Eski Türkçe'de kün")

Birçok Kızılderili boyunda "kan" - Türkçe'de "han"

Terrawa Kızılderilileri'nde "ut", Allentiac Kızılderilileri'nde "uya", Lule Kızılderilileri'nde "utara" Aymara Kızılderilileri'nde "utah" - Türkçe'de "otağ, yuva, ev"

Güney Amerika Kızılderili boylarında "kayak" - Türkçe'de "kayık"

Aztek (https://forum.donanimhaber.com/kizilderili-ve-sumerlerin-turk-iliskisi--130202928#)ler'de "kuuş" - Türkçe'de "kuş"

Mayalar'da "ku" - Türkçe'de "kut"

Aztekler'de "it zcu inTL (https://forum.donanimhaber.com/kizilderili-ve-sumerlerin-turk-iliskisi--130202928#)i" - Türkçe'de "it"

Kwaiute Kızılderilileri'nde "ghaz" - Türkçe'de "gez"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "tano" - Türkçe'de "cehennem" (Eski Türkçe'de tamu)

Aztek ve Maya Kızılderilileri'nde "aıtıl" - Türkçe'de "nehir" (Eski Türkçe'de "ıtıl, itil)

Meksika, Guatemala ve Venezuella yörelerindeki Kızılderililer'de "tepe, satsi" - Türkçe'de "tepe, ses"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "yaotl" - Türkçe'de "düşman" (Eski Türkçe'de yağı)

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "atlatl" - Türkçe'de "atılan mızrak"

Sioux Dakota (native american): english: turk language:
icu drink ich, ichmek
Kan blood Kan
baha grandfather Baba
Ik two iki
Baskin attacking baskinci

Maya: english: turks:
Yash new,green yash, yashel
Ich inside ich
Kosh bird kush
Aak white ak
Chachak very nice chichek (flowers)
Bin I ben, men, min
Chalan snake ilan, chalan ilan
Ba fish balik
Tur stop dur
Q'anil blood kan
Yaklel burn Yak
Tas bring tashu (rus. Таскать)
Baldiz The younger sister of his wife - Baldiz
Bil know bil
Boya paint boya

Quechuan languages: english: turks:
Ogri thief ogru
Ucuk tiny kucuk
Acikya explain aciklamaq
Kok sky go (https://forum.donanimhaber.com/kizilderili-ve-sumerlerin-turk-iliskisi--130202928#)k
Tata, tayta father ata
Sunqa beard sukal, sakkal
Na something Ne
As little az
Ari thin ariq
Qo drive out qovmak
Pak look bak
Qhacun daughter-in-law, sister-in-law - xatun

we can see clearly with Turkic/Native Americans connected with genetic and also language but Sumerians? and this is a reality sumerian language more closely to turkish/native american languages. but need more evidence for acceptful.

Mark
30-03-18, 04:59
Sumerian is that “up for grabs” isolate... I have heard it being connected to Basque, Etruscan, Uralic etc. Languages change with interaction due to the trade of tools/products/ideas, with these exchanges genetic material most certainly. I have no doubt that Sumerians and some Native American ancestor groups have some common ancestry regardless of any further discoveries since Native Americans were a composite of a sequence of migrations from Central Eurasia. I’m afraid you would need to connect Sumerian directly to a Native American language because Turkic (or some proto-Turkic or other precursor) could theoretically inform some Native American words and some Sumerian words with no other direct connection.

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 05:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOql5nUU8ro

you can also write to youtube for other sumerian songs

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 05:07
Sumerian is that “up for grabs” isolate... I have heard it being connected to Basque, Etruscan, Uralic etc. Languages change with interaction due to the trade of tools/products/ideas, with these exchanges genetic material most certainly. I have no doubt that Sumerians and some Native American ancestor groups have some common ancestry regardless of any further discoveries since Native Americans were a composite of a sequence of migrations from Central Eurasia. I’m afraid you would need to connect Sumerian directly to a Native American language because Turkic (or some proto-Turkic or other precursor) could theoretically inform some Native American words and some Sumerian words with no other direct connection.

yes Mr Mark i know about sumerian language have similarity with Basque, Etruscan, Uralic languages. also we believe etruscan peoples come from central asia and turkic peoples. (have so much similiarity about myths like a romulus myth and ergenekon myth ) and some scientists are accept sumerian language for the altaic or turkic language family. (but someones dont accept for not enough evidence.)

and there is a reality sumerian language more connected to turkic languages than all languages of the world. you can search about it.

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37380

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/viewFile/4107/pdf_31

https://www.quora.com/What-currently-spoken-language-has-adopted-most-Sumerian-roots-or-is-most-closely-related-to-Sumerian

Mark
30-03-18, 05:12
It’s certainly likely Sumerian informed words in Turkic/proto-Turkic languages but, like I said, I reject the pure tree linguistic model with influences for a wave model with trees following invasions.

Ygorcs
30-03-18, 05:20
Frankly, why the hell do you create topics asking questions if you already think you know all the answers and are already sure about the things that you asked? This is a waste of time for us and an illogical reaction on your part, since you seem to be angry just because people didn't answer exactly what you wanted.

Mark
30-03-18, 05:21
I think you should look into the Nostratic theory for a larger language family:

https://archive.org/details/BomhardAComprehensiveIntroductionToNostraticCompar ativeLinguistics

http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/dlgsynth.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MT-31.htm

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 05:21
It’s certainly likely Sumerian informed words in Turkic/proto-Turkic languages but, like I said, I reject the pure tree linguistic model with influences for a wave model with trees following invasions.

there is must be a big wave for effect to america from messopotamia :)

Mark
30-03-18, 05:25
there is must be a big wave for effect to america from messopotamia :)

HAHAH yeah, that would be an impressive wave, yes. The kind of wave invasion events are made of.

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 05:31
Frankly, why the hell do you create topics asking questions if you already think you know all the answers and are already sure about the things that you asked? This is a waste of time for us and an illogical reaction on your part, since you seem to be angry just because people didn't answer exactly what you wanted.

i wanna a explain for basic sumerian words some with turkish and native american languages.

i explain with this turkic/native americans/sumerians come from same ancestors and proto languages clearly.

but you guys says me cultural or waving effects. but you cant explain with waving language effect to native american,turkic and sumerian language similarity. they go to america 15.000 years ago.

and yes maybe central asia/siberia is a bridge from iraq to america with nomadic turks

i believe in the soon turkic/altaic language family have added new cousins sumerians/native americans

Ygorcs
30-03-18, 10:43
It would be interesting to know the exact translation of the Sumerian word and of the Turkic word side by side in order to make any assessment of this hypothesis. Withou that it only looks like a bunch of words that sound more or less similar and were compiled. We can say nothing based on that, especially if those words end up not being part of the core basic lexicon or if the languages that are being compared are several thousands of years apart from each other and geographically distant from each other, but still the words sound way too similar for their really ancient connection to be definitely true.

Comparing Sumerian with modern Turkic languages would be more or less like comparing Proto-Indo-European and English. There will be a sizeable number of similar words, but the vast majority of the REAL - not false - cognates will sound extremely different from each other, because of the milennia of linguistic change separating those languages, and it is anachronistic to compare the two languages and expect, if they are truly connected, to find very similar words. For example, "hill" is connected to reconstructed PIE *kolhn- or possibly *kolhnis, not exactly a very similar word, and in fact you should not expect to find similarities between English and PIE (or Turkic and Sumerian) by finding some word in PIE that looks roughly like *hil-. That's not the right way to deduce the true connections (or lack thereof) between two totally distinct languages that, even worse, were spoken in completely different timeframes. And in the Sumerian-Turkic case that kind of comparison-by-similarity would even more futile, because English at least descends from PIE, while the proposal here is just that Sumerian and Turkic both descend from a common source even earlier, that is, the relationship between them is indirect, not immediate (and Sumerian is already very old, 5,000 years old!).

It's actually the opposite according to professional linguists: if the languages are supposed to be only very distantly related, with a genetic connection thousands of years ago (in the case of haplogroup Q, more than 20,000 years ago!), then the fact that the apparently cognate words sound too similar to each other is not an evidence for that hypothesis, but actually an evidence against it and a sign that something must be wrong. True cognates, when languages are milennia apart, are usually very distinct due to successive phonetic and morphological changes, and we only notice they are cognates because after analyzing dozens or hundreds of words we start to notice similar patterns of change and are able to deduce, therefore, some sound rules.

That's not what these Sumerian-Turkic mass comparisons do. They just look for words that sound virtually the same, and that is not just not helpful, but even a drawback to this hypothesis, because it is extremely unlikely that Sumerian and Turkic would be descended from a common source more than 10,000 years ago and still be extremely similar to each other. Just look at how different English, Armenian and Russian sound, and they've been diverging from their common source for "merely" 4,500-5,000 years. I don't think it is impossible that Sumerians and Turks had at least partially a common origin (because both peoples have mixed a lot with other ethnic groups along the milennia), but I really doubt their languages would still be anywhere close to "similar" when they had been diverging from their common source since before the Neolithic era. Not even languages dating to the Bronze Age remain so similar.

Ygorcs
30-03-18, 10:55
Ata and ama for father and mother respectively, or some similar form, is an extremely common and almost universal pattern everywhere, so I wouldn't think too much about that. Even in PIE language, certainly not related to Turkic or Sumerian, there seemed to have been an affectionate, more informal term for father and mother more or less like ata and ama. The [t] and [m] or [n] sounds are associated with fathers and mothers across completely unrelated languages in all the continents, so it seems to have some onomatopoeic connection with the usual "baby-talk" that mothers and fathers have with their small children. That's the best explanation for why languages that have nothing to do with each other in almost any word, grammar or morphology, often have some variation of ma- or am- and at- or ta-.

XipeTotek
30-03-18, 11:27
Ata and ama for father and mother respectively, or some similar form, is an extremely common and almost universal pattern everywhere, so I wouldn't think too much about that. Even in PIE language, certainly not related to Turkic or Sumerian, there seemed to have been an affectionate, more informal term for father and mother more or less like ata and ama. The [t] and [m] or [n] sounds are associated with fathers and mothers across completely unrelated languages in all the continents, so it seems to have some onomatopoeic connection with the usual "baby-talk" that mothers and fathers have with their small children. That's the best explanation for why languages that have nothing to do with each other in almost any word, grammar or morphology, often have some variation of ma- or am- and at- or ta-.

you can see other words from this page
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/42TurkicAndSumer/EnglishSumerTurkDictionaryRu.htm

not only few words. clearly 160 words are similar and some are common meaning and they are basic words. (most important main words.)

and sumerians say for themself KİENGIR kengir is a old turkic tribe with same name.

there is a common words for basic important for me.

Firstly i can find a common similar word with sumerian / turkic / native american languages this is

Sumerian, Turkish, Native American(Quechuan) Common Words

Ada, Ata, Ata (father)

Suhur, Sig - Sukal, Sakal, Kıl - Sunga (beard)

and there is a word meaning God in the sumerian word ilu, also ilu in native americans have a big spirit that name is ulu manitu ( also ulu meaning is same with turkish is big, ulu manitu is great spirit or god)

Sumerian, Turkish

men (ben) (I)
zae (sen) sen (YOU)
di (konuşmak) ti- (demek) (SAY)
dingir (tanrı) tengri (tanrı) (GOD)
Ada = ata (Father)
Ama = Ana (Mother)
Ere = Er (Man)
Shuba,Shupan = Chupan (Sheepman)
Av = Ev (House)
Tak = Tak (Put)

dug (dökmek) tök- (dökmek)
iduga
(parfüm)
yıdıg (koku)
kur (ülke) kuru (kara
kur (koruma) parçası, ykeorn)- (korumak)
nig (şey) neng (şey)
sag (iyi) sag (sağ,
tibira (metal) sağlam, ityemi) ir (demir)
ud (zaman) öd (zaman)
udi- (uyuma) udı- (uyumak)
uş (iş) ış/iş (iş)
zag (sağ taraf) sag (sağ taraf)
dib (bağ) yip/ip (ip)
tar (kesmek,
kırmak)
yar- (yarmak)
tir (ülke) yir (yer)
36 Ahmet B. ERCİLASUN
gaz (ezmek) ez- (ezmek)
gig (hasta olmak) ig (hastalık)
gud (öküz) ud (öküz)
giş (orman, ağaç) yış (orman)
gişig (kapı) eşik (kapı)
sig (iyi) yig (yeğ, iyi)
şeg (yağmur) yag- (yağmak)
şurim (yarım) yarım (yarım)
sag (küçük çocuk) çağa (çocuk)
sipad (çoban) çopan (çoban)

Kapkagak = Kapkaçak (water container)
Gadun ———— Hatun
Assinu ———– Asena
Gig-Anu ———- Göktanrı (Gök ana)
Tammuzi ——— Temmuz
Domuzi ———- Domız
Ginç ——— Genç
Auşk ——– — Aşk
Tar- kus-u ——– Talih kuşu
Ungar ———- Uygar
Altun ———– Altın
Anu ———- Ana
Tengiz———- Deniz
Gozam-Ozam —— Ozan
En-gur-ra ——— Ankara
Tamga ——— Damga
Me-en ———- Men-Ben
Agıl ———– Akıl
Bar ———– Var
Er-Eş ———— Erkek-Kadın
Rakibu ——- Rakip
Aga ————— Ağa
Balag-ba ——– Balaban
Kes-da ———— Kesmek
Bira ————- Bira
Tagga ———— Takke
Ge —————– Gel
ilig ———- ilik
Et —————– Et
Mum ————- Mum
Huma-kus-a ———– huma Kuşu
Sin ————- Sin(e)
Karra ———— Kara
Batu ———– Batı
Sar ———— Sar(ı)
Heak———- Hak
Mesu ———- Meşe
Engin ———– Engin
L-elvan-ı ————- Elvan
Nun ———— Un
Apa ———— Apa(ağabey)
Ambar———– Ambar
Gaazi ————- Gazi
Gid-de ———— Git-gide
Amelu ———— Amele
Zindan ————- Zindan
isum ———— Işık
iş-ti ———— işitmek
Uri ———— Arı
Kaskadu ———– Kaskatı
Arpu ———– Arpa
U-ru ——— Uyruk
U-ku ——— Uyku
Murad ——– Murat
Nusa ——– Neşe

and we have common proverbs

you can see with turkic and native language similar words

Keçua dili ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerin bazıları (ilk yazan Keçua, ikincisi Türkçe):

* tuka - tükürmek

* paku - bak

* khapao - kaba

* ipa - abla

* ku - koy

* kaşa - kış

* kuli - kül

* kalı - kalın

* karwın - karın

* kasa - kes

* tawga - dağ

* takhıla - dağıl

* khipu - ip

* çur - dur

* as - az

* tak - ta ki

* la - ile

* mi? - mi?

* biri - bir

* tawa - dört (Çuvaş Türkçesi'nde tavat)

* pis - beş

* halta - altı

* khawa - kör

* kiwi - kir

* ata, atea, hataa - ata

* ata cama - ata mezarlığı

*****************************************

Diğer Kuzey Amerika dilleri ile Türkçe arasındaki benzerliklerden bazıları:

Miwok Kızılderilileri'nde "kuççi" - Türkçe'de "küçük"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "kiçeeç" - Türkçe'de "küçük"

Arawak Kızılderilileri'nde "çakira" - Türkçe'de "çakır"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda ; "tos, uçun, yangi, kis" - Türkçe'de "toz, için, yeni, kız"

Maya dilinde "kin" - Türkçe'de "gün" (Eski Türkçe'de kün")

Birçok Kızılderili boyunda "kan" - Türkçe'de "han"

Terrawa Kızılderilileri'nde "ut", Allentiac Kızılderilileri'nde "uya", Lule Kızılderilileri'nde "utara" Aymara Kızılderilileri'nde "utah" - Türkçe'de "otağ, yuva, ev"

Güney Amerika Kızılderili boylarında "kayak" - Türkçe'de "kayık"

Aztekler'de "kuuş" - Türkçe'de "kuş"

Mayalar'da "ku" - Türkçe'de "kut"

Aztekler'de "it zcu inTLi" - Türkçe'de "it"

Kwaiute Kızılderilileri'nde "ghaz" - Türkçe'de "gez"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "tano" - Türkçe'de "cehennem" (Eski Türkçe'de tamu)

Aztek ve Maya Kızılderilileri'nde "aıtıl" - Türkçe'de "nehir" (Eski Türkçe'de "ıtıl, itil)

Meksika, Guatemala ve Venezuella yörelerindeki Kızılderililer'de "tepe, satsi" - Türkçe'de "tepe, ses"

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "yaotl" - Türkçe'de "düşman" (Eski Türkçe'de yağı)

Bir başka Kızılderili boyunda "atlatl" - Türkçe'de "atılan mızrak"

Sioux Dakota (native american): english: turk language:
icu drink ich, ichmek
Kan blood Kan
baha grandfather Baba
Ik two iki
Baskin attacking baskinci

Maya: english: turks:
Yash new,green yash, yashel
Ich inside ich
Kosh bird kush
Aak white ak
Chachak very nice chichek (flowers)
Bin I ben, men, min
Chalan snake ilan, chalan ilan
Ba fish balik
Tur stop dur
Q'anil blood kan
Yaklel burn Yak
Tas bring tashu (rus. Таскать)
Baldiz The younger sister of his wife - Baldiz
Bil know bil
Boya paint boya

Quechuan languages: english: turks:
Ogri thief ogru
Ucuk tiny kucuk
Acikya explain aciklamaq
Kok sky gok
Tata, tayta father ata
Sunqa beard sukal, sakkal
Na something Ne
As little az
Ari thin ariq
Qo drive out qovmak
Pak look bak
Qhacun daughter-in-law, sister-in-law - xatun


and after all i can say native american similar words for turkic more than sumerian languages. native american migration 15.000 ago sumerians are 5.000 years ago. must be more similar words for turkic languages than native americans i agree. (and you know about turkish language, they are very different from to azerbaycan turkish. and i cant understand so many turkic central asian languages today.)

and sumerians mixed and relationship with other peoples and speakers. this is another factor

i think must be compare with native american languages and sumerians words(also grammar)

that could be open result for me

Ygorcs
30-03-18, 20:59
I refer back to my previous answer. Mass comparison of words - including some that frankly aren't core vocabulary of languages (e.g. paint, attack, beard) - based on sheer similarity, without regular sound rules, is simply inadequate especially when you're dealing with language families that are distinct and, even if their connection is true, have been separate from each other for many thousands of years. It is absolutely unlikely that after some 10,000 years the Sumerians and Turks would still name "man" or "I" almost exactly the same way.

Also, even if that happened, it should be first demonstrated that there is a consistent and repeating pattern in the sound rules of vowels, consonants and syllables that explain why those words remained to similar to each other and how and if those same patterns are repeated in several other words. For example, it should be explained why the [d] in "dur" corresponds to a [ç] in Quechua "çur", whereas the same [d] corresponds instead to a [t] in other Quechuan words (e.g. dag vs. tawga). Another issue is that initial [b] in Turkic corresponds to [b] in some Quechua words (biri, bir) and to [p] in others (e.g. pish, besh). And why final -in disappeared in Quechua "kali" (corresponding to Turkic "kalin"), but it is still there in "karwin" (corresponding to Turkic "karin")? Maybe those words aren't as similar in their overall phonetic evolution, thousands of years ago, as they look now.

Why that lack of systematic correspondences? That's a problem. Reconstructing relationships between two language families is not a simple search for words that are almost identical. Sometimes, as I said, the real proof of an actual connection comes when you find very different words that follow a consistent correspondence demonstrating their divergent evolution from one same source, for example English "heart" and Italian "cuore", both systematically going back to PIE *k'erd-.

Otherwise, yes, despite being all very intriguing and curious, we may be seeing just some random coincidences here. If we take any two languages in the world, we're bound to find at least 50 or 100 words that look fairly similar to each other even if they belong to completely different languages.

For example, "bad" in English means exactly the same as "bad" in Persian, but it has already been demonstrated that the two words have no relationship at all with each other, they just came from different origins and, due to the particular phonetic evolution of English and, separately, of Persian, those two words ended up sounding identical.

Yes, that happens between two languages more often than most people usually think. If we only mass-compare words and take those words that look similar, but completely ignore those that do not look similar, then of course it will seem like those languages are closely related. But still we didn't explain at all why those e.g. 100 words are almost identical to each other, suggesting two languages that are still recently linked to each other, yet other 2,000 or 3,000 words are totally unrelated, suggesting that there is no close link after all. That's a really problematic incongruence.

Overall, I think that, genetically and geographically, though not necessarily linguistically, there is a much higher probability of a very distant, virtually unreconstructible, connection between Turkic and Native American languages (not all, we aren't sure that the first Americans even spoke just one language). That would make sense, but still I really doubt there would be so closely related (similar) connections in the vocabulary of Turkic and Native American languages when they had split from each other at least 15,000 years ago. Even 5,000 years is enough to make languages diverge very much from each other, let alone 15,000. So, unless there is a coherent demonstration of sound correspondences and probable sound rule for the evolution of both language families, I think the striking similarities are more due to sheer coincidence or convergent evolution, not a proof of their common roots, especially if those connections are found in only 50-150 words but totally absent in other thousands and thousands of words.

MOESAN
30-03-18, 23:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOql5nUU8ro

you can also write to youtube for other sumerian songs

hOW DID THEY DECIPHER THE SUMERIANS MUSIC (tunes, not words)? some clue?

MOESAN
30-03-18, 23:57
Not only linguistic but... Here under a compilation of diverses opinions of diverse times, showing the question is not as clear as source water:
A. Wierciñski, contrarywise to the earlier authors, found a far more complicated anthropological structure in the Mesopotamian population, which made the previous search for “Sumerian race” pointless. In his opinion the area of Tibet (or generally Central Asia) may be considered as the Sumerians’ place of origin. The discussion about the “Sumerian race” has been curtailed by the sober Georges Roux’s remark that the iconographical representations were conventionalised and thus their comparison with the osteological data gives no valuable information (Roux 1969:136). However, some remnants of the racial argument continued to be in use also in later discussions. Fifteen years ago H. Crawford referred to the old speculation that the Sumerians were round-headed and the Semites were long-headed and noticed after C.S. Coon (1949) the great tooth size of early inhabitants of Mesopotamia, which used to be taken as the evidence of their affinities with the Indians (Crawford 1991:9). * * * Frankfort’s first theory, placing the coming of the Sumerians in the beginning of Uruk period, was supported in 1930s by the German scholars, chie‚y E. Speiser (1930) and A. Ungnad (1936:10). In Speiser’s opinion the names of many most ancient cities of Sumer were Elamite in origin and the Elamites, related by him to the mountain peoples of Lullubeans and Kassites, inhabited the Mesopotamia
Physical anthropology and the “Sumerian problem” 149
before the Sumerians (1930:40,46). The Sumerians were thought to invade Mesopotamia from the south, coming through the Persian Gulf from the east. Speiser suggested that they may have been related to the Dravidians (1930:83). In later publications (1951; 1969) Speiser has maintained his theory and added some new arguments. He has argued that the diversity of cultural tradition in Late Neolithic Mesopotamia was a re‚ection of ethnical differences and all archaeological cultures defined by modern scholars – Hassuna, Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk – were developed by different ethnic groups (1969:99). In his opinion the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia relatively late, in the last phase of the Ubaid period, and initially settled only in the head of the Persian Gulf. During the Uruk period they moved northward and eventually lost their racial distinctiveness. Such a vision was accepted also by Anton Moortgat and Beno Landsberger (cf. Speiser 1951:345–353; 1969:99–103; Potts 1997:46). Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]

ThirdTerm
31-03-18, 02:26
http://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-288/MediaObjects/12862_2011_Article_1910_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2
Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.

Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)



Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of Marsh Arabs: (i) they could be aboriginal inhabitants of Mesopotamia, correlated to the old Sumerians; (ii) they could be foreign people of unknown origin. Although the origin of Sumerians has yet to be clarified [5], the two main scenarios, autochthonous vs foreign ancestry, may have produced different genetic outcomes with Marsh Arabs being genetically closer to Middle Eastern groups or other populations, for instance those of the Indian sub-continent. Thus, in order to shed some light on this question Marsh Arab population was investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome markers. Due to their characteristics (uniparental transmission and absence of recombination) and their wide datasets, they are, at present, among the best genetic systems for detecting signs of ancient migration events and to evaluate socio-cultural behaviours [35, 36].

When the two J1-M267 sub-clades, J1-M267* and J1-Page08 are considered (Figure 6), differential frequency trends emerge. The less represented J1-M267* primarily diffuses towards North East Mesopotamia and shows its highest incidence in the Assyrians of northern Iraq, and Turkey. By contrast, J1-Page08 accounts for the great majority of the J1 distribution in South Western Mesopotamia, reaching its highest value (74.1%) in the marsh area. By considering the STR haplotypes associated with the two branches, the highest values of variance are localized in northern Mesopotamia (North Iraq/South East Turkey) (Figure 6, Additional files 7, 8 and 9). For the J1-Page08 lineage, high variance values were also observed in Ethiopia, Oman and South Eastern Italy (Table 2). Although present data are not adequate to define the homeland of the J1-Page08 sub-clade, some useful information can be obtained from the haplotype network analysis (Figure 4). Thus, the pheripheric position of the Ethiopian and South Eastern Italian (European) haplotypes suggests that the high values of variance registered in these regions likely reflect the stratification of different migratory events, some of which occurred before the expansion and diffusion of the lineage outside the Middle Eastern area. As previously reported [31, 41], also the value of variance in the Omani is affected by the concomitant presence of both pheripheric and centrally expanded haplotypes. In this context, the low variance (0.118) observed in the Marsh Arabs underlines a recent expansion involving few haplotypes, all of which occupying a central position in the J1-Page08 network (Figure 4). In the less frequent J1-M267* clade, only marginally affected by events of expansion, Marsh Arabs shared haplotypes with other Iraqi and Assyrian samples, supporting a common local background (Figure 4).

In conclusion, our data show that the modern Marsh Arabs of Iraq harbour mtDNAs and Y chromosomes that are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, certain cultural features of the area such as water buffalo breeding and rice farming, which were most likely introduced from the Indian sub-continent, only marginally affected the gene pool of the autochthonous people of the region. Moreover, a Middle Eastern ancestral origin of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that, if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also Sumerians were not of Indian or Southern Asian ancestry.

Ygorcs
31-03-18, 03:53
Speiser’s theory has been further developed by Jan Braun who has gathered many similarities between Sumerian and Tibetan languages and argued on that base that the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia on ships from northern India and in spite of their small number dominated the local population due to their much more sophisticated culture...]

That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia?

If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.

But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.

MOESAN
31-03-18, 12:09
That is interesting, but in my opinion has one major drawback: if they dominated the local Mesopotamian population (which was in fact already developing gradually into pre-urban Neolithic societies well before the Sumerians proper) because they had a much more sophisticated culture, then where are the signs of those much more sophisticated cultures (that is, a level of social and economic complexity arguably much higher than that of the Fertile Crescent) in Tibet or anywhere in Central Asia or even Northern India from the time before the expansion of Sumerian culture in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia?

If they came from that distant region already carrying a much more refined and complex culture, then we should at least see in the archaeological records that Mesopotamia was well behind South Asia, Tibet or Central Asia around 5,000-4,500 BC.

But that is not what we see, actually most of the evidences point exactly to the contrary. Would Sumerians have not only migrated to Mesopotamia, but taken every refinement and cultural/technological superiority with them and away from their homelands? Would everybody who reproduced those more sophisticated cultures just left their homeland and transplanted entirely to Mesopotamia? Very unlikely.

I posted this stuff (of diverse opinions in fact) just to show how the question is badly settled yet - I cannot have any opinion to date! -
the dental traits of someones were supposed to point to India or something North to India, but nothing to confirm it - I red somewhere a legend tells Sumerians were come by sea from South but it was a report, not the scientific source so... the physically foreign persons could have been found among the elites, this does not prove anything concerning the supposed cultural/linguistic imput of this "foreigners" because, as I see it, elites tend to mate with other elites (alliances) withoit it proves the elements come from these other elites took the strong side in the resulting new elite (here Y-haplo's could help) - these new elements could be female mediated as elsewhere - for language, I have seen a lot of linguists play with words of diverse languages and create new theories of surprising common origins based in fact upon a relatively small number of cases; that said, grammar left aside, some common words (or supposed so) can point to trade exchanges over large spaces.
As you (I suppose) we could imagine the most of innovations ran West to East there and not the opposite, but who knows exactly? Agriculture has surely played a big role , a founding role, in the spreading/improvement of culture.

Salento
31-03-18, 14:41
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.

XipeTotek
31-03-18, 15:51
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.
i think they are not sumerians. these pictures get from akkadians. and sumerian civilization so long time years. they are get mixed other native peoples of messopotamia. (think about turkey turks, our origin ancestors are hairless bu we are so hairy now)
and i can find two group pictures on the internet similar with akkadians and hairless bald head peoples with donkeys.
i dont know which is real sumerian pictures but i agree native american and asians are hairless (except for ainus) also these statues dont connected with turkic peoples. only language.
i think we must be focused about language for who are they and where come from. language clearly says they are come from asia. but which area of asia. central asia? south asia? who have more connected with language? tibetans, turkic, uralic, japanese or korean there is no more choice. i think high possibility is turkic or tibetans.
maybe they are lost form of altaic people ancestors language. i have a theory about japanese,korean,uralic peoples effected by tibets and turkic peoples effected by mongolians for languages. (this is a reason why we cant create clear altaic language family today. for me) they are earlier peoples of asia.
i think maybe sumerian peoples speaking isolated proto altaic language.(ancestor of chinese,korean,japanese,uralic,turkic)
because we can see similarities with that all languages.

XipeTotek
18-04-18, 18:16
Just a visual observation. Sumerians are often depicted as been very Hairy with elaborate long Beards (Annunaki).
I know that the Native Americans not having facial hairs is a myth, but they are not as Hairy at all if compared to the Sumerians.

you cant say today turkey turks are not hairy. but their ancestors and original turks are come from central asians and they are hairless.

also sumerians and akkadians have so much mixed in 3000 years. and turkey peoples only in 1000 years mixed with anatolian and arab peoples.

but today we know our languages come from central asia like a sumerians.

and that anunnaki pictures looking like akkadians.

edit : i again answer it sorry lol

XipeTotek
22-05-18, 18:46
language similarity about father/mother words with turkic/native american. also sumerian. http://www.turkishculture.org/literature/language/turkish-language-americans-459.htm

XipeTotek
22-05-18, 18:50
http://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-11-288/MediaObjects/12862_2011_Article_1910_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2
Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in Marsh Arab and Iraqi populations.

Al Zahery et al. (2011) investigated the issue of the origin of Marsh Arabs, who are presumed to be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. Their mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups showed that Marsh Arabs are predominantly of Middle Eastern origin, thus refuting the theory that Marsh Arabs are recent migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Haplogroup Q was found at minor frequencies from 0.7% to 2.1% among Marsh Arabs (Figure 2) and haplogroup Q-M25 (0.7%) and haplogroup Q-M378 (2.1%) are descendant haplogroups of Q-M242, which is a very common Y-DNA haplogroup among Native Americans (92.3% in Navajo.)

i think sumerians are q mixed r hablogroups. later they mixed native peoples. that map show to me.

and their language more close to turkic/native american languages.