Camel (t�ve / teve) is called as "deve" here.

Theories based on lingual findings can be illusive. Clans that had lower culture have always been affected by the others. Further, tradesmen or group of warriors inhabited in far lands for specific aims change the culture, language and technology in the area, as well. Further, there can be backwards improvements. Therefore, the relations must be based on archeological foundings and scripts on concrete materials that relate to each other.

Theories in Turkey that relate Sumerian and Turkish culture have been invalidated in recent decades. I don't know what their bases were. Nor do I know how they were invalidaded. I may post here when I find anything. But it is certain that to many people, claiming Sumerians as their achestors is very "exciting" (I refer to those here in Turkey). I hardly believe in it since Sumerian social formation is nothing similar to those of Turkish.

Now, all the signs, icons, scripts and writings in lands stretching from the Pacifics to Portugal are being reinvestigated and they are found fitting to something similar, as the group scientists who do this effort argue. Especially those that could not be translated by the XIX. century historians are interesting. The more interesting thing is that the XIX. century translations that produce no logical meaning are being retranslated in accordance with "deep-Turkish lingual common culture" (I cannot find any term to express this) by Turkish archeologists from various countries and they make sense anymore. They make sense when they are based on and/or derived from the archeological and climatic discoveries. But they say a mass of information and foundings in the XX. century are kept secret by Russians, and no mention about the Chinese.

Therefore, everything we know can prove wrong in a near future.

Regards