>>44461
Well it's not pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience doesnt mean you are wrong, in fact one can reach a wrong conclusion with scientific method and a correct conclusion with an unscientific method. For example claiming all hungarians are fatsos because some jewish cabbal stated that doesnt mean the hungarian anon can't be fat due to pseudoscientific origins of the info. Being wrong and involving in pseudoscience are unrelated, science can be wrong and revise itself, if it was always right it would be dogma afterall. Anyway I digress..

The reason why these theories are shrugged off because the social sciences are far from being a hard science and they are highly circlejerk places if not political.

I highly assume both of our language Uralic and Turkic language are evolved in siberia unlike mongolian which evolved in east of altai mountains close to present day manchuria.

So despite the fact uralic and turkic is far from being a family there is most likely contacts either direct or undirect such as contacting a third party at the same time without even knowning each other.

Or we emerge from anatolia and due to vastness of asia lost contact and developed isolated language families who knows but this one is too fringe to be properly considered at.


>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.
Actually I think it was made in pre 1950 era I think but eventually it just disregarded without giving a valid reason. Our researches are still continuing as we have good amount of common words most notable teñri which is dingir in sümerian (it's not spelled as ten-gri it's nasal n) but our researches are not enough and too dependent on english translation of others studies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2740574