The preface, analysis, and the word list given by O.Suleymenov in his book are worth their value in gold. I can't tell which is better, the evaluation or the depth and width of the obsrvations. Just to read O.Suleymenov's work is a pure pleasure.

Conventions:

y - after consonant in the middle and in the end of the word, like 'i' in 'sit', with a longer sound, corresponds to Russian ы: 'Bulymer ' for 'Boo-liih-mer', 'Ryshtauly' for 'Riish-tah-oo-liih'.

y - substitutes for 'i' in diphthongs, to indicate sound like Y in New York: 'biysu' for 'Bee-y-soo', instead of 'biisu', yorty for 'Yor-tii'.

j - like 'z' in 'azure'

(you)  + verb stands for imperative mood of the verb: (you) go = imperative, go = indefinite

a) Comparison with the Trkic material can be helpful for restoring the picture of the Sumerian vocalism, inexactly rendered by the ancient Semitic syllabary: the Akkadian script had no signs to render the soft vowels. The Table (i.e. "60 Word Table"- Translator's Note) allows to attend the question about a presence in the Sumerian of the qualitative opposition of sounds: u - ü, a - ä. The dialectal forms tush-shush - to lower confirm our thesis. The consonants t, d are palatalized only before the soft vowels. Compare in the Sumerian тi-шi - life. The presence of the variation "zi" proves the existence of the previous dialectal form - di. The term "zabar" - copper, probably, goes back to däbir, which corresponds to the Türkic - tabir. We envision the scheme of the Sumerian vocalism as follows: a - e, u - ü, i. The back row vowel "a" is always opposed by "e", and occasionally (probably, dialectal) - "ä"; (contrary to the opinion accepted in Türcology that "e" in the Türkic languages appeared much later than "ä"). The vowel u is always opposed by ü, and less often by i. The sounds o - ö in the Sumerianom are not represented, as well as the sounds "y (')" ( last sound in parenthesis represents a glottal stop - Translator's Note).

b) Was the Sumerian word synharmonic is still difficult to state definitely. But a tendency to harmonize a word, if not in quality then at least in voicing, is observed. Sumers tend to "round off" the words, i.e. to sate the consonant structure with a vowel: dingir, sikil, udun, amar, dumu, dirig, eren, zabar, sakar, emek, dili, uzug, uruk, etc. (This process is  similar to the phenomenon in the Türco-Slavic Russian language, where "rounding off" vowels are added to the Slavic consonant streams - Translator's Note). And this process involves, maybe, only the loan words with unclear morphological structure, perceived as monoliths (tuma - dumu, tengir - dingir, tabir - dibir, etc.).

At the same time their own, etymologized formations are not rounded off: enshi, enki, ugken, kena, shutag, ibira, etc. This pattern can indirectly serve as a diagnostic attribute to detect loans (although there are some exceptions when a loanword retains its primary voicing - geshtuk. Maybe, it came to the language late, and did not have time to be rounded off, like the shuba, siba - shepherd). The deviance in the initial voicing (assimilation of the vowels) greatly changes the shape of the Sumerian words, and without comparison with other language material, restoration of the Sumerian praforms is impossible.

c) One more idiosyncrasy that prevents a restoration of the Sumerian pra-form is the loss of the ending sounds. More frequently they are consonants. The written sources belonging to different times allow in rare cases a reconstruction of the the primary forms (uzug-uzu-uz), but in most cases only the last, distorted versions reached us. And then it has to be guessed, what was the lost sound?

The loss of final consonant is innate in some Türkic languages (in particular, Kipchak's). Compare, for example, the relations of the Oguz and Kipchak lexemes: suluk-sulu - clean, beautiful; seruk-seru - weaving loom; tabak-taba - flat dish; burauk-burau - drill bit, drill; tirik-tiri - live.

The Kipchak languages systematically loose a formant "k", because it is displaced by a synonymous suffix -ma, which is forming nouns from the primary verbs. The morphological scheme "infinitive + k = noun", in remote times very productive in all Türkic languages, is replaced with a less complex scheme "imperative + ma = noun".

If in the texts of the Orhono-Yenisei inscriptions triumphs the formant "k" (the only example of other scheme, apparently, is batma - bog, from bat - sink), in the modern Kipchak languages -ma already suppresses k. The last almost is not discerned as a formant. In the Sumerian the final consonant is discarded, probably, for the reasons other than grammatical and phonetical, and more likely for structural causes. Even though a comparison shows, that the same sound - k/g is lost the most: dili - tilik; uzug - uzu - uz - yuzuk; esh - eshik; eme - emek; udu - uduk, yduk; diri - dirig; ur - uruk; ugu - uguk. But there also are other, though late examples:

кi - кip, suba - suban, e - esh, a - ad, etc.

g) The alternation of the vowels u/i also deforms the appearance of the word. The trend is especially noticeable when exist both dialect forms: shuba-sipa - shepherd; sur-sir - to weave. This is an example of a mechanical alternation. But at times the duplicate entered the common Sumerian as an independent word with a close meaning. Thus, not by an accident, seems to me, coexist kur - mountain, kir - earth (both words were expressed by the same sign), ugu - temple of the head, igi - eye. A mechanical alternation u/i can also be noted in proto-words. Silik - clean comes from suluk - clean. The borrow an already "ready" form and metathesize it sikil - clean. Another example is: tirik - 1) alive, 2)  life comes from turuk - alive, life. Sumers generate tir - life. (Ethymology of this word is: turu - to be born, live + k - formant of a noun).

d) Systematic phonetic divergences.

Sumerian sonorous, as a rule, correspond to Türkic voiceless consonants:

Though in the Sumerian are forms with non-voiced consonants - tu, tuma, tir, tush, kur, kir, uruk, gestuk, emek, ken, but their number is much smaller.

The language preserves examples of the primary (voiceless) and secondary (sonorous) words, like tuma - dumu, but their dialectal forms had time to diverge their meanings. But the ti-di - life, are like shi-zi - life. They are dialectal forms.

e) It is possible to state that the phonetic differences between the Sumerian and Türkic languages are not significant enough to seriously talk about systematic divergences. In comparison of these languages more important are the convergences. Even the fluctuations are synchronous: u/i, alternation b/k, g at the end of words, the appearance of the "Semitic" pharyngeal prosthesis (kur, kir) is not synchronous only in one case: geshtuk.

f) The table shows, that the live Türkic languages retain without changes the proto-Sumerian forms, which in the Sumerian have already developed and  partly destructed. If the Sumerian language lived up to present, the decomposition process could progress to such a degree that the comparison of its dictionary with the Türkic dictionary would already be really impossible.

The Türkic words retain their youthfulness, and the Sumerian would look an ancient old man. Already in the 1st millenium BC the Sumerian was externally older than its father.

a) From the Sumerian materials possible to assess the antiquity of the Türkic word-formation scheme " infinitive + k = noun".

uru - build; uruk - city;

yüzü - swim; yüzük - water bird;

eshtu - listen; geshtuk - ear;

turu - live, be born; turuk (tirik) - alive.

The Sumers were borrowing matured terms without realizing their morphological structure. The postfix in the Sumerian is not significant. The word-formation is done with prefixes. And consequently the final sounds are easily lost.

b) Is retained the example of the Türkic scheme "imperative + ma = noun": tu - give birth, tuma - offsprings.

c) Is already effective the scheme "imperative + en (an) = past participle": er - follow, eren - follower, layman

d) The noun could also be non-complex. The main form of a verb (imperative) also acted as a noun. The remains of this phenomenon exist in live languages. For example, in Kazakh:

toy - 1) sated, 2) a feast.

üy - 1) erect, heap up, 2) house (compare English examples: bark, feast, aim, mix).

Later the nouns were formed by suffixes:

üyu - to heap up, üyük - a heap, a pile.

In the Sumerian are represented both cases: ur - city, uruk - city. The affinity of the verb ru - to build allows to assume, that the infinitive was - uru, and the imperative - ur.

d) Therefore some Türkic and Sumerian lexemes have different grammatical shell:

e) Sumerian word has a structure "prefixes + root", Türkic word is constructed by a different plan "root + suffixes". And consequently, the constructs made from bricks only differ:

In Türkic niki is a formant without independent lexical meaning. In Sumerian niki acts as a separate lexeme with the meaning "thing", and as formant of belonging.

f) The syntax structure of the model should repeat the lexical structure. In ancient languages the word was composed as a sentence; and it was, really, a sentence.

In their borrowings, the Türks borrow the syntactic model "definition + determined" (i.e. "service word + root"), and in the Sumerian dictionary we find proto-Türkic model "determined + definition" (i.e. "root + service word"). Compare: "ug - ken" - people's assembly ("tribe - wide") is a proto-Türkic structure retained in the Sumerian. And on the contrary "ken - ug" (also "wide - tribe") is a Sumerian structure in Türkic. Or: kir - sikil - "girl pure", silik kyz - "pure girl".

g) Constructs "root + suffix" in the Sumerian are accidental.

Some of the Sumerian case inflexions can be compared with Türkic. For example, a dative case - "ra". In the texts of the Orhon-Yenisei monuments the "ra" is still productive.

A majority of the case indicators in the Sumerian are obliterated and were not firmly identified by the researchers. So, a formant of the directional case is considered to be "da", and distantive - "tan". In territorially and time neighboring language (Hurrian) are found many traits touching with the Sumerian. In restoration of the shape of the Sumerian formants the indications of the interacting languages are important. In the Hurrian "da" is the local case, "dan" is distantive (i.e. anti-local). These two cases are also the most ancient in the Altai languages' system. Compare: "da" - local (common Türkic), "dan" - distantive (common Türkic).

 Not all comparisons may appear convincing; a further research, probably, would prove that some concurrences are accidental, but in my opinion, the material fundamentally confirms the hypothesis of the cultural relationship of the Sumerian and proto-Türkic languages. They have a common layer of the cult lexicon.

The main objective which we wanted to achieve is that these samples of the first, unsteady steps would bring the focus of more comprehensive comparative study of the Türkic and Sumerian languages. This task is important for Türcology, which had yet not found any ancient source for comparison, and it is not searching for it, because it sacredly trusts the assurances of its teachers asserting the impossibility of those ancient sources.

1. Before commencing a comparison of the dictionaries, the syllable formulas of these languages must be made clear. These systems are "vowel - consonant" (closed syllable), and "consonant - vowel" (open). Conditionally, mark them "VC" and "CV".

2. The linguistic inertia tends to rebuild the structure of a borrowed foreign syllable. In Türkic languages is strong a tendency to close a syllable. In the Sumerian there is a tendency to open a syllable.

3. The mechanics of process of the rebuilding process of the alien's structure is manifested as follows.

One-syllable word

The operation of transforming a closed syllable into open results in the following:

a) Appears a prosthetic consonant before a vowel. The formula VC turns into CVC.

The appearance of prosthesis is caused by structural, and not by the phonetical reasons.

b) Further, the formula CVC tends to convert into CV, with dropping the final, base consonant. So, the prosthesis becomes a root consonant. This scheme explains a secret of dropping the final consonants in the Sumerian word.

Compare: the Türkic "ud" - bull is borrowed by the Sumers and transformed into "gud" - bull. In the late-Sumerian it turns into - "gu". (If the monuments did not preserve the intermediate stage, the comparison of "ud" и "gu" would give little). This metamorphosis could not be explained by the phonetical reasons. For such a final reorganization of the syllable needed millennia. In most cases the languages accomplish the first stage, equipping the words with prosthesis.

v) A closed syllable also opens in another way:

The structure VC turns into universal, symmetrical - VCV, i.e. appears a prosthetic vowel sound.

In the Sumerian this was more active than the previous scheme. Some words: ama, ada, uku, ushu, udu, uzu, iri, ugu could evolve this ways.

g) And, at last, a closed syllable in an one-syllable word could open fully eroding, for example: "e" - house, "a" - father. But these examples are few.

d) The Sumerian language contains a quantity of words with closed syllable: "en" - supreme, "an" - sky, "ud" - sun, which survived, probably, due to a religious tradition. The cult terms are more steadfast.

If the loan direction of a multisyllable word happens to be easily traced (following a morphological scheme), with one-syllable words the case is much more difficult. And then only the structure of a syllable can become a defining attribute, revealing the source of a loan. "An", "ey", "ud" are structurally Türkic words.

Two-syllable word

The same mechanism operates with the two-syllable word, with a slight change.

a) VCVC turns into CVCVC with a prosthesis, as though opening the first syllable, and that, frequently, is enough: eshtuk-geshtuk - ear (in Sumerian this is not a productive method).

b) VCVC turns into CVC.

adam - dam - (male) spouse.

c) CVCVC turns into CVCV

emek - eme - language.

uzug - uzu - goose

udug - udu - sacred;

eren - ere - worker, slave.

d) CVCVC - turns into CVCV

dirig - diri - bigger;

dilig - didli - line, unit;

suban - siba - shepherd.

Reconstruction of an open syllable uses a reverse scheme.

a) Is added a prosthesis vowel in the beginning of the word. For example, Indo-European pat - leg turns into apat (ancient Uigur).

b) Is added a consonant prosthesis at the end of the word, or the final vowel is dropped off, exposing a consonant.

The prosthetic consonants are the same consonants that act in Indo-European: labial and guttural, "v" (short) and "g" (k). Therefore if in the Indo-European are differing initial consonants "but - gut", then in the Türkic the same way are differing the final consonants "tav - tag", "bav - bag".

4. Türkic languages were subjected to the influence of languages with open-syllabic structure. Curiously, that the Sumerian preserved a structural Türkism "amar" - offspring, and Türkic acquired the term "mara" composed  "by Sumerian" model.

Perhaps, all languages have such examples,  an evidence of complex, uneven history. But the inertia of the primary structure is nevertheless ineradicable.

5. A reorganization of a syllable after borrowing is a rule that due to a wide spread in languages of different systems gains heavy power of a universal law.

The conflict in the structures of the syllables in the giving and receiving languages is one of the main reasons for deforming a word. This phenomenon is not yet realized by the linguistics, which limits itself to the statement of facts only, without explaining them. So, for example, it is noted that Greek language does not allow consonants at the end of the words (except for v, r, s). Why is that? It is considered to be an enigmatic feature of language. Borrowing the Semitic names of the letters, Greeks equip them with a vowel ending, i.e. prosthetic vowels: alev - alpha, kaf - kappa, etc. If the Semites extended to the first open syllable, recognizing as syllabic the first consonant (frequently prosthesis), the Greeks transform both consonants into syllabic, and opened both syllables

.The opposition of the structures in the Indo-European and Türkic languages is noticeable in the most simple example. The names of the alphabet letters are the models of the syllables in their pure state. The Türkic are called - ab, ag, ad, etc., and the Indo-European alphabet letters are called  ba, ga, da - (be, ge, de). During long contacts of Türkic languages with the Indo-European this insignificant, at first sight, distinction gained a significance outstanding for both dictionaries. The action of the law of syllable reconstitution was deforming the loanwords.

Я предлагаю начинающим лингвистам решить несколько простейших задач, иллюстрирующих закон перестройки слога. В каком отношении находятся:

шумерские: уд - огонь, д - солнце, день;

тюркские: уд (от) - огонь, д ( т) - время, полдень;

иранское: куда - бог;

германское: гут, (гот) - 1) бог, 2) хорошо;

славянское: год - 1) время обращения солнца, 2) хорошо;

индийское: Будда;

шумерское: iд - идти;

тюркские: ут, уд, iт, iд, iз, ет, ёт, ёд, оз - иди, проходи, след;

семитское: от - след;

индоевропейские: пут, путь, пат, пята, под, бедро, пеш, па, уд, фут, бот, пес, бе - нога, дорога, промежность, низ;

тюркские: бут, пут, апат - нога, промежность, бедро;

кут, кет - низ, зад; кет, кеш, каш, кай, кел, кал, кеш, куч, кой - глаголы движения (уходи, приходи, беги, переходи вброд, останься, кочуй

и т. п.).