== Some edits, Nov 18 2006 == 

 I have made a few changes.  I have capitalized  ethnic and language names whether nouns or adjectives, as this is the norm in English.  I wrote "Indo-European" in the form used in its own article, and added links to it and to "Kurdish" and "Tocharian". 

 I have added the word "linguistically" to the phrase on "related", to emphasize that the point here is relations of languages. "Related" in some other, perhaps genetic, sense would be meaningless under such simplistic terms when relating groups spread out over thousands of years in this mixed and turbulent region. 

 I changed "were long gone" to "would be long gone" to make it clearer that it is a custom, and "by the time" to better evoke the situation. 

 I changed "Guti's", which would mean "of a single Guti", to Guti, one of two interchangeable plurals used in the article. (The other is "Gutians" I suggest being systematic in the use of these two termswhat's the difference?) 

 The paragraph on the relations of the words "Guti", "Kurd", and "Hurrian" is garbled.  On what basis do you call an association of words "impossible"?  And if it is impossible, how does changing the direction of change make it likely? And why are you arguing against a claim that you don't cite? The phrase "it sounds more logical" is far too subjective.  For now I have changed "logical" (truth derived from premises) to "plausible", (an evaluation of possible reality), and tried to soften the opinion language.  Likewise on the evaluation of an opinion as "nationalistic".  I assume more tweaking would be good here. 

 Patience please, I am a newbie, Sukkoth