Part-3 Turkish-Sumerian Kinship: Sumerian "NITAH KALAG-GA and a short list of other words
Part-3 Turkish-Sumerian Kinship: Sumerian
"NITAH KALAG-GA and a short
list of other words
By POLAT KAYA
In his book John L. Hayes writes regarding the Sumerian expression
"NITAH KALAG-GA" meaning "mighty man".  In this ~Sumerian
expression, "NITAH is said to be one of several Sumerian words meaning
approximately "man". And about the word KALAG-GA he writes:
"KALAG The Akkadian equivalent verb, "DANANU", is translated by CAD
as: "to become massive, fortified, steady, loud, 2) legitimate,
binding, reliable, 3) strong, powerful, mighty, great, 4) fierce,
savage, difficult, dangerous, serious, grave, obstinate, bad,
tyrannical, harsh, pressing, urgent, essential, imperative".
First of all, the supposedly Akkadian word "DANANU" is very related to
the Turkish verb "donanmak" meaning "to deck oneself, to be decked
out, illuminated, ornamented, equipped, rigged", and verb "donatmak"
meaning "1. to deck out, to ornament; to equip; to dress. 2. to abuse,
to insult. 3. archaic to dress, to clothe, array".  Thus this
"Akkadian" word is very much Turkish in origin.
Furthermore, this definition of the Sumerian word "KALAG" is very much
the same as the Turkish words KALA and KALAG which are words derived
from verb "galamak or kalamak" meaning "to build up like a castle";
"to pile up things". "KALAG" (kalanmis, kale gibi yükselmis) means
"that which has been built up like a castle"; and, KALA" (kale)
meaning "castle, fortress, citadel, stronghold, palace, wall around a
fortress".  Thus Turkish KALAG means "high, dressed up,
fortified, made strong and mighty". Even the Turkish word "KULE"
meaning "tower" which rises up towards the sky also comes from the
same source. Thus when these Turkish terms are used to describe a man
of stature, it is understood as meaning "mighty man, great man,
In Turkish there is the expression "KALA KIMI ADAM" (kale gibi adam)
meaning "man who is strong like a castle", that is, "great, mighty or
towering man in many respects."
The Turkish term "KALAG" is used in Eastern Anatolian and Azerbaijan
dialect of Turkish extensively. These geographical areas are just
north of ancient Sumer land and have always been Tur/Turk peoples'
habitat since ancient times contrary to the false "history" related to
Thus the Sumerian word "NITAH KALAG-GA" meaning "mighty man" is very
much Turkish in origin.
Regarding the Sumerian language and its nature, John L. Hayes also
"Sumerian is often described as an "agglutinative" language. Sumerian
is similar to Turkish. The verbal phrase, for example, consists of a
string of prefixes, followed by the verbal root, and then a smaller
string of suffixes. Each affix expresses one morpheme, and each affix
is (basically) invariant."
Thus there are many evidences that Sumerian is a Turkish-like
language, and probably, or even more accurately, Sumerian is an
ancient dialect of the Turanian Tur/Turk (Oguz) language - contrary to
all the sophistry about it being a language with no known kin.
Now let us turn to the so-called "Sumerian" word "NITAH" meaning
"man". John L. Hayes writes the following: 
"NITAH The basic meaning appears to be "male"; it can often be loosely
translated as "man". The Akkadian equivalent is ZIKARU, glossed by
the CAD as: "1. male (human and animal), 2. man, 3. ram".
This explanation about NITAH is most enlightening. Just like the
English word SEX is usurped from Turkish "SIKIS', so is the Akkadian
ZIKERU is stolen from Turkish expression "SIKER-O" meaning "it
copulates" which is a definition phrase in Turkish describing the
function of the "male organ" in creating the new generation. All male
organs, (human or animal) have the same function and action. Thus the
Akkadian ZIKERU has its origin in Turkish.
The Arabic version of the word ZIKERU is ZEKER meaning "male organ,
man, masculine" which is again from Turkish word "SIKER" meaning "it
copulates". Thus it is clear that all these so-called "Semitic" words
are in fact anagrammatized Turkish words and phrases about which
linguists either do not know or know but are keeping mum. Another word
in Turkish for ZEKER is the word "HUNI" meaning "funnel". "Male" organ
of humans and animals is like a "funnel" in doing its natural
functions. Hence, the so-called Sumerian "NITAH" must be an anagram
of Turkish word "HUNITI" meaning "it is a funnel" or more correctly,
"it is male organ". Of course, the male organ is a representation of
manhood or masculinity, or bullness or ramness.
Even with all this explanation, I do not believe that this word NITAH
is Sumerian. It has all the indications that it was a manufactured
replacement for the actual Sumerian word, whatever that was, by the
Semitic readers of "Sumerian" texts. In other words, the word "NITAH",
as portrayed to be the Sumerian word for "manhood", must be a
concocted word loosely meaning "man" but describing the male organ.
It was concocted because, most likely, the Sumerian word for this
concept was the same as the Turkish word (i.e., SIK) but the
readers/decoders of the Sumerian texts, most likely knowing Turkish,
did not want to name the Turkish word for this Sumerian sign.
Instead, they used a replacement that does not look Turkish. Who would
know the difference? Who would even suspect? After all, do linguists
admit that the present, and so widely used, Endlish word SEX is
sourced from Turkish SIKISh meaning "copulation"?
In view of all this background information, it is clear that the
Sumerian "NITAH KALAG-GA" meaning "mighty man" was from a Turkish
expression contrary to all kinds of verbal embellishments.
Incidently, this English word EMBELLISH (embellishment) and its
related kins such as "adornment" and "ornament" are also restructured
and disguised Turkish phrases. Allow me to demonstrate:
The word EMBELLISH, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "EL-ISHLEMB",
with d/b change, that is, the letter "b" is a horizantal flip of the
letter d in anagram tricks, and read phonetically as in Turkish, is
the restructured and disguised Turkish expression "EL ISHLEMeDi"
meaning "it is hand-made adornment or beautification". The word
"EMBELLISHMENT", from EMBELLISH, means "decoration, adornment,
garnish and/or ornament" which are all skilfull hand-made work of
The word ADORNMENT, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "NAREN-TMDO",
is the restructured and disguised Turkish expression "NARIN ETMEDU"
(narin etmedi) meaning "making beautiful".
Similarly the word ORNAMENT, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"NAREN-TM-O", is the restructured and disguised Turkish expression
"NARIN ETME O" meaning "it is making beautiful".
Thus it is clear that anagramatizing Turkish words and phrases has
been a habit of certain peoples since the time of the so-called
"Akkadians". In other words, it was not only the "Akkadians" who made
words from Sumero-Turkish linguistic source, but a whole spectrum of
other peoples also did the same.
Regarding the Sumerian word KALAG-GA, John L. Hayes writes and asks a
"The entire problem is not easy to resolve. Several obvious questions
come to mind: How can one know, for instance, the sign (Sumerian sign)
can, in fact, be read as KAL, or KALA, or KALAG, or KALAGA or KALGA?
To what extent are readings "manufactured", to make the
transliteration more closely approximate the transcription? How valid
is the general rule of Sumerian orthography presented above?"
This question by John L. Hayes is a very valid question directed at
the Sumerologists. And I agree wholeheartedly with him. Implied in
John L. Hayes' question is the meaning that "transcription" is made
first and then "transliteration" of the Sumerian sign is worked out.
To this, I will add similar questions with respect to the following
"Sumerian" and Turkish words. Are they truly "Sumerian" - or
anagrammatized "Turkish" words / phrases attributed to Sumerian?
Below I have given a short list of Sumerian words with meanings in
English and corresponding Turkish words with meaning in English. As
can be seen the Sumerian and Turkish words are extremely related with
minor differences. Because of these similarities, I also included
questions related to some of them. The source for them is the book
entitled "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts" by John L. Hayes.
Sumerian (SU.) - Turkish (TR.)
1) Sumerian ADDA meaning "father" vs. Turkish ATA (ADA, DADA, DEDE)
meaning "father" and/or "grandfather". Now, the obvious question here
is: How did the Sumerologists who decoded the Sumerian signs know that
the Sumerian sign was pronounced ADDA but not ATA or DEDE or DADA as
in Turkish? After all, signs on a tablet are completely silent. They
did not come out and say "I am pronounced as ADDA". The implication
is that the decoding Sumerologists must have known something about the
signs to start with. This was so because the Semitic Akkadians and
the later Babylonians used the ancient Sumero-Turkish language of the
Middle East as a source for fabricating their languages. Hence they
had the advantage of knowing the ancient Sumerian signs. After all,
the Akkadian writing systen was modified Sumerian.
2) Su. AMA meaning "mother" vs. Tr. ANA (AMA, MAMA, MEME) meaning
"mother". Again, my question is: How did they know that the Sumerian
sign was AMA but not ANA?
3) Su. AMAR meaning YOUNG vs. Tr. EMER meaning "he who suckles" or "young".
4) Su. AN meaning "heaven" vs. Tr. AN or TAN meaning "sky"
5) Su. BILGAMESH (GILGAMESH) vs. Tr. BILGEMISH meaning 'he who
has matured with knowledge / wisdom". The obvious question here is:
Why was the original Sumero-Turkish name BILGAMESH changed to GILGAMESH?
6) Su. DAM meaning "wife or consort" vs. Tr. ADAMA (feminized
version of Tr. ADAM meaning "man") meaning "woman". This means that
the so-called Sumerian DAM is a replacement anagram derived from Tr.
ADAMA meaning "woman". Curiously, even the French use a similar word
7) Su. DUMU meaning "son" vs. Tr. UMUD meaning "hope". This term is
used to describe the "male child" in Turkish as "hope" in future for parents.
8) Su. E meaning "house" vs. Tr. EV or ÖY meaning "house".
Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was E but not EV
as in Turkish?
9) Su. EN maning "lord" vs. Tr. HAN meaning "lord". Question:
How did they know that the Sumerian sign was EN but not HAN or KHAN as
in Turkish and all meaning "lord"?
10) Su. EN-KI meaning "earth" vs. Tr. HAN KaYa (DAG HAN) meaning
"lord rock" or "lord mountain".
11) Su. EN-LIL meaning "Lord Wind" vs. Tr. HAN-YIL (HAN YEL)
meaning "Lord Wind". Question: How did they know that the Sumerian
sign was EN-LIL but not HAN-YEL or HAN-YIL?
12) Su. GU-ZA-LA meaning "kind of official" vs. Tr. OGUZ OLA
(ULA) meaning "OGUZ man".
13) Su. GISH meaning "wood" vs. Tr. AGASh (agach) meaning
"wood" or "tree". Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign
was GISH but not AGASH - as in Turkish?
14) Su. I (IA) meaning"oil or fat" vs. Tr. IAG (YAG) meaning "oil
or fat". Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was I
but not YAG where the G is silent? This sign is said to be
transliterated as IA initially. Why did they change it to I ? Was it
because IA was very much like the Turkic YAG meaning "oil, fat"?
15) Su. INANNA meaning "Lady of Sky" vs. Tr. HAN ANNA (Han-anne,
AN-ANNA, gök-anne) meaning "Goddess Mother". Question: Why was this
Sumerian sign read as INANNA and not ENANNA or HANANNA? Turkish ANNA,
ANNE and ANA all mean "mother".
16) Su. KUR meaning "to enter" vs. Tr. GIR (Kir) meaning "to
enter". Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was KUR
but not GIR?
17) Su. LAL meaning "honey" vs. Tr. BAL meaning "honey".
Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was LAL but not
BAL? Also another question comes to mind: Is it possible that somehow
they knew from previous sources that the Sumerian sign meant "honey",
and "honey" was known by the name "BAL", but they could not
transliterate the sign as "BAL" which would make it same as Turkish,
instead they manufactured "LAL" to make the transliteration fit the
transcription? After all European words MELI, MIEL, MEL meaning
"honey" have also been manufactured from Turkish "BAL" meaning
"honey". This is very much like the English word "LULL" meaning "mute,
silence, quiet, stillness" versus Turkish "LAL" (dilsiz, sessiz)
meaning "speechless, mute, silence". This same question is also valid
for other words mentioned in this list.
18) Su. LIL meaning "wind or air" vs. Tr. YEL or YIL meaning
"wind or air current". Question: How did they know that the
Sumerian sign was LIL but not YIL?
19) Su. MUNUS meaning "woman" vs. Tr. AMSUN meaning "you are
woman". The Sumerian sign is a representation of "womanhood".
20) Su. MAH meaning "splendid or magnificent" vs. Tr. MAH, MA
(AY'in baska adi) meaning "moon or magnificent".
21) Su. NIN meaning "lady or mistress or lord" vs. Tr. NINE
(nene, ata-ana, ana-ana) meaning "grandmother". Question: How did
they know that the Sumerian sign was NIN but not NINE?
22) Su. SAR meaning "to write" vs. Tr. yaZAR meaning "he who writes".
23) Su. MU suffix for verbal possessive case 1st person singular vs.
Tr. "UM" suffix for verbal possessive case 1st person singular.
Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was MU but not UM?
24) Su. UR meaning "man, warrior, hero" vs. Tr. ER meaning
"man, soldier, hero, husband". Question: How did they know that the
Sumerian sign was UR but not ER?
25) Su. UTU meaning "Sun god" vs. Tr. OT O (OD O, OTO, ODO)
meaning "it is fire" referring to "sun god, fire god".
26) Su. ZU meaning "water" vs. Tr. SU meaning "water".
27) Su. ZU meaning "knowing or wisdom" vs. Tr. US (UZ) meaning
"wisdom". Question: How did they know that the Sumerian sign was ZU
but not UZ or US?
28) Su. ZU-EN (dingir ZU-EN) meaning "God Lord Zu" vs. Tr.
UZ-HAN (Tengir Oguz Han). Question: How did they know that the
Sumerian sign was ZU-EN but not UZ-HAN or OZ-HAN or AZ-HAN or
AS-HAN or OGUZ-HAN?
In view of all these similarities, how can we be sure that those who
initially read these SUMERIAN signs, using so-called "Akkadian" and
other sources, did not intentionally change the transliteration of
these signs so that they could not be recognized as Turkish? How do
we know that they were faithful in their reading? After all, as I
have demonstrated over and over, the European and Semitic languages
have been manufactured from the breakage and restructuring of Turkish
words and phrases, so why would they be expected to be truthful in
this case? In other words, how do we know that we have not been
conned by a few who have already conned the world with respect to
ancient Turanian religion, language and culture? They were the ones
who destroyed the ancient Turanian civilization so why would they be
expected to be truthful in their reading of an ancient Turanian
writing? As it can be seen, I have a lot of questions with respect to
the truthful reading of the so-called "dead-language" of Sumerians.
The "AKKADIAN" that was used as an in-between-translator language is
not a reliable "translator" because it itself has used this same
Sumero-Turkish source to become a language but in doing so, it
disguised the Turkishness of the original language.
Before I close this section about the Turkish - Sumerian kinship, I
wish to bring to the attention of the reader the following extremely
important processes that have taken place with regards to Sumerian.
John L. Hayes writes the following regarding Sumerian: 
"A further complicating problem is that the writing system is to some
degree morpheme-bound. There is direct evidence to show that there
were certain phonological changes which took place in Sumerian, such
as contraction, vowel deletion, etc., but these changes are masked by
the script; the script often reproduces the basic morpheme, without
showing the changes which are assumed to have taken place in the
The meaning of this excerpt in plain terms is that Sumerian language
has been altered by vowel droppings, and contractions in some words,
that is, the Sumerian is not its original self. If Sumerian was
"Turkish" originally, with such alterations, it could not be seen as
Turkish anymore. This indicates some intentional confusion has taken
In this regard we have another disclosure by C. J. Gadd: 
"Dropping of final consonants. By far the greater number of Sumerian
roots are monosyllabic, and may consist of vowel + consonant, or
consonant + vowel; or consonant + vowel + consonant; of these the the
third class is the most numerous. IN BOTH CASES, HOWEVER, WHERE A
CONSONANT CLOSES THE ROOT, ITS TRUE FORM IS OFTEN DISGUISED BY THE
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FINAL CONSONANT. This disappearance is very
characteristic of Sumerian, and, in the case of syllabic roots
sometimes extends back to the vowel preceding the final consonant.
This is, in fact, generally the reason for the existence of the
'phonetic complements mentioned above; so regularly was the final
consonant dropped that it was written in expressly before the
following grammatical element. A striking example is the expression
U(D)-MU HE-SU(D)-SU(D)-UD, 'may my days be long', where the last word
is to be read HUSUSUD. This is definitely phonetic device to ensure
the pronounciation, but in the far more common "KUR-KUR-RA, 'of the
mountains', KALAM-MA, 'of the land', etc., the element actually added
is -A, not -RA, or -MA, and the preceding consonants are inserted to
compensate for the normal loss of the final consonant of the root.
The final consonants most frequently dropped are D, T, G, K, M, N, and
R. These usually disappear from the end of the roots when the element
immediately following begins with a consonant, but are retained when
followed by a vowel. In cases of apparent doubling of final
consonants, as KALAM-MA, KUR-KUR-RA, the dropping of the first will
not usually be marked in the transliteration of the texts."
This is again most enlightening. Who did the consonants droppings"
Why would Sumerians do such a thing to their own language? Such
consonant droppings taking place in Sumerian texts are bound to cause
irreparable damage to the original nature of the language. Surely, if
the Sumerian language was the same as the Turkish language to start
with, then with such alterations, it would not be easy to recognize
its Turkish nature anymore. Particularly, when words are joined where
they should not have been or vice versa, then neither the Turkish root
words nor the affixes and suffixes are readily recognizable anymore.
By utilizing such "reading techniques", the initial Mesopotamian
Sumerologists who decoded the Sumerian signs would have changed the
original character of the language. In fact it is a form of
anagrammatizing so that the original form is disguised as the above
given excerpt indicates. It is most likely that these alterations were
done by the Babylonians who actually did a lot of alterations to the
Sumerian language in order to come up with a language of their own.
These alterations could not be the work of the Sumerians themselves.
All of these alterations reminds us of the statement in GENESIS 11
indicating how the Babylonians had changed the one language that was
spoken in the ancient world. It says: 
"1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and
of one speech. 2 And it came about that in their journeying
eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in
the land of Shinar, and they took up dwelling there.
3 And they began to say, each one to the other: "come on! let us
make bricks and bake them with a burning process." So brick
served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them.
4 They now said "Come on! let us build ourselves a city and also
a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated
name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the
surface of the earth.
5 And Jehovah proceeded down to see the city and the tower
that the sons of men had built. 6 After that Jehovah said:
"Look! They are one people and there is one language for
them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now
there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that
will be unattainable for them. 7 Come now! Let us go down
and there confuse their language that they may not listen
to one another's language. 8 Accordingly Jehovah scattered
them from there over all the surface of the earth, and
they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why its
name was called Ba'bel, because there Jehovah had confused
the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered
them from there over all the surface of the earth."
It appears that this ancient religious directive, supposedly issued by
Jehova himself, was the main reason for confusing and eliminating the
dialects of the ancient Turanian language, that is, Turkish, during at
least the last 2,500 years or even earlier. It is most likely that
the so-called religious peoples and their messengers were given the
task of fulfilling this confusion process over a long period of time.
This confusion of the ancient Turkic language was done by way of
"anagrammatizing" the Turkic language to generate new languages. This
resulted in many languages such as the so-called Indo-European and
Semitic languages and others. In this "cut, alter and paste" method,
the ancient Turkish language of the world was used as the source data
base. The same technique has also been used by the ancient Greeks and
Latins to create the so-called "Greek" and "Latin" languages from
which supposedly other Indo-European languages sprang.
All of these verify what I have been saying all along. The Sumerian
language has been altered, in its presentation to us, so that it does
not look like Turkish. In other words, what is presented to us as
Sumerian is a mutilated version of Sumerian. In spite all of this,
still there are a lot of commonality between Sumerian and Turkish.
It is clear that Sumerian and Turkish had much more in common than is
being admitted. Sumerian cannot be read or considered in isolation of
Turkish language or culture. And Sumerians are not "dead" people as
we are led to believe. They are alive and part of the Tur/Turk
peoples of the ancient Turanian civilization.
 John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", p. 50
 Türkçe-Ingilizce Redhouse Sözlügü", Redhouse Yayinevi, Istanbul,
1987, p. 309.
 Türkçe-Ingilizce Redhouse Sözlügü", Redhouse Yayinevi, Istanbul,
1987, p. 585.
 John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", p. 10.
 John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", p. 48.
 John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", p. 51
 John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", p. 13.
 C. J. GADD, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", an Assistant in the
Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antquities, the British Museum,
Oxford at Clarendon Press, 1924, p. 15.
 "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" rendered from the
Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee,
1984, p. 18-19.
Best wishes to all,
========== End of Part-3, to be continued in Part-4 ===========
(Copyright © 2005 Polat Kaya)