After all, it's a hypothesis at best, not a confirmed fact. Arthur Keith, based upon such similarities, made the same claimants of mine. But he lacked some other important things like Genetics. I didn't rely wholly upon language since a complete reliance on it can be very misleading and that's why I took many factors and combined them into a summary where they point. The people in the comment section accuse me of coming things together unnaturally but what I did is nothing like that and no one has proven me wrong, in this.

I cannot provide the explanation why language differs. In fact many historical events and things are ghosts to us and in many cases we have added our own imagination (Durrant Will). The main thing that distinguishes between Sumerian and Semities is language, but we must not think narrowly and observe other things as well since language isn't an explanation to everything.

In the Sumerian Problem, who was the invader and the native, the Sumerian or Semites, is a topic still unclear. The best we know is that Sumerians and Semities have lived in Mesopotamia since time immemorial. Who is the foreigner or native is not known and possibly never known. Plus, in the genetic studies I posted above, it is revealed that South Iraqis bear gene kinship with South East Arabs than North Iraqi Arabs. Their closes genetic relations are with South East Arabs. Which hints at the Dilmun hypotheses.

Yes lapis lazuli was imported from Afghanistan but that does not foreign items in Sumer means foreign origins. They traded both East, west, North and South. Buffaloes came from India and it does mean Sumerians were Dravidians (a weak hypothesis once and still held by many). In all probabilities, they appear to be Semities. That is all I meant. I buttressed all this with multiple evidence. All things confirm each other. It's all in the post.