There are a lot of assumptions being made to say any of these words are agglutinative. Agglutinative languages are made up of modular parts, crucially with one grammatical meaning per morpheme. It is not clear that these forms have grammatical meaning, semantic meaning, or that they are affixing the way predicted by describing them as affixes. Even allowing for all that, they still might be fusional. It's also not clear what precisely constitutes a morpheme here; the
in iin iiin problem rears its head again. I don't think any of these are unreasonable assumptions to explore from, but they can hardly be taken for granted!
Comparisons to Turkish have been You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., and while its not possible to rule out a more sophisticated encoding, any similarity in the word structure is bedeviled by the fact that letter order if fairly rigid. There probably isn't enough information in each of those supposed morphemes to get the whole range of Turkish words because the alphabet is too small. The apparent suffixing may (and I stress
may) be an artifact of the ways in which glyphs are restricted across words rather than a principled grammatical phenomenon