I’ve never heard the term Transeurasian languages before, but it seems to be a rebranding of the Altaic languages[0]. The hypothesis that these form a real language family is viewed with extreme suspicion by modern historical linguists because the sound correspondences are not very convincing.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages</a>
A Sprachbund (extensive borrowing) is not remotely the same as being from a common root.<p>Interesting about millet though, I think theories about the origin of the Dravidian language family depend on words for different kinds of millet too.
Strangest borrowing claim I heard was that Germanic strong verbs (hence English) came from Semitic language verb forms. Columbia linguist McWhorter claims this his Story of English book.
> They focused on what Robbeets calls “culture-free” vocabulary, including words for basic items such as “field,” “pig,” and “house.”<p>Words for such material goods often jump languages. These aren’t the terms one should be focusing on if one is actually seriously trying to prove the existence of a language family. There is nothing in this research to suggest a change to the consensus view that the Altaic languages don’t constitute a language family.
There are a few threads in r/linguistics about this. Basically, there's no new evidence here proving Altaic (what she now wants to call transeurasian).