>>44460
For sure. Thanks.
>Simo Parpola
He might be Finnish.
There are Hungarian researchers - considered pseudoscientific (some sure, others I would rather call "a bit unconventional") - who looked into this, or still have ongoing work. I even have somewhere a photocopied Sumerian dictionary put together by a Hungarian bloke.
Sumerian is an old language, way older than it's first recorded instances. It wasn't indigenous language in Mesopotamia, those people came either from the NW (from Europe) or from the NE (Turanic plains), bringing their language (or even languages) with themselves. But no matter where they came from, "back home" they were in contact with other people with other languages, and even if those languages weren't in the same language family (if we accept the model of language families) these relations they had, had to make mark on both groups of languages. And even this isn't researched by noone. And not one "real" researcher, linguist ever made an effort to compare, and has no experience to really say that Sumerian has no relation to Uralic languages for example.
Hungarian linguists sometimes learn and specializes in Semitic languages, learn Assyrian and such, but Sumerian, no. Those foreigners, who get into Sumerian, do not know Hungarian at all, or Finnish, or any other Uralic language, so they won't even get a sense that it might be related (or were any contact between them), or won't get a random thought to compare them, just for the hoots.