#pseudolinguistics

I find this to be an interesting belief, but would love to know if it's true from those more familiar with Sumerian language and history.

Thanks in advance

I hesitated to answer this question publicly because this claim is so incredibly wrong and unsupported by any linguistic evidence that I'm loath to even have my regular readers seeing it. Unfortunately archaeolinguistics is filled with misinformation and charlatanry, and the idea that Sumerian is “related” to Ancient Egyptian is just another example of this.

Egyptian was an Afroasiatic language, related (in a demonstrable way supported by credible linguistics) to modern Arabic, Hebrew, Hausa and Amharic, as well as to Akkadian, which coexisted with Sumerian. But Sumerian itself is distinctly not an Afroasiatic language, and has completely unrelated grammar, native vocabulary, etc. Claiming that there is “systematic analysis of the sound meaning correspondences” is completely untrue - as evidenced by the fact this person can give one (false) “example”, and no others at all!

For an example of how this kind of thinking is totally false, I recommend this article by Mark Rosenfelder, which “demonstrates” that Quechua and Semitic languages are “related”, which they obviously are not, using the same “random matching” quoted above (and debunks such an attempt). Maybe when you see this falsehood spread online, you can share a link to the article as well.

And to everyone reading this, please be very careful when anyone “claims” that Sumerian is related to another language. Very often, they are (at best) not sharing truthful materials, or often have ulterior motives - you can find “information” out there that Sumerian is related to any of a vast number of other languages, often from nationalists of those linguistic communities who want to lend credence to some racist or prejudiced historical argument by tying their language to Sumerian. I receive such asks (on this platform and others) often, and have learned to delete them right away rather than lend a moment to such nonsense.

Modern Hebrew is not a pidgin. Nor is Yiddish. Nor is Ladino. Nor is Esperanto, nor Romanian. Words mean things. These languages are a lot of things, but “pidgin” has a precise linguistic meaning: "An amalgamation of two disparate languages, used by two populations having no common language as a lingua franca to communicate with each other, lacking formalized grammar and having a small, utilitarian vocabulary and no native speakers." A creole is a pidgin that starts being taught to younger generations, and this also does not apply to any of the aforementioned languages because they were never pidgins in the first place.