First, the term “yalman” is used wrongly by todays Westerners, as Ariel called them. "Yalman" in Turkish means the cutting or penetrating part of a cutting or penetrating weapon. Hence, for example, lances also have "yalman"s. To put it correctly, we can say “kilics have a double-edged yalman”. Similarly, shamshirs have a single-edged yalman. There is no specific word in Turkish language addressing the false edge (?) of a kilic.
It seems that the reason why Westerners specified that kilic should be a proper name for this variety was because it is how it was called in its original culture. It is true that kilic literally means sword in Turkish. So, they simply called what they originally use a “sword”. After they met to different types, they named them accordingly; with a reference either to its shape (“flaming sword”) or to its origin (persian sword).
(One related note: Historical accounts talk about the "yatagan bicagi (= yatagan knife)"; it is not just "yatagan" as we use it today. The same thing we see here: It is a variety of knife, and had its proper name either from its shape ("laid down") or from its origin (the village of Yatagan). Another inference of this note: Yatagan is a knife, not a sword!
)
Erlikhan, with all my respect, Ariel is right here: A “pala” is a shorter and wider (= stubbier) version of a “kilic”. It generally has an iron T-spine in the back. There is no “long” or “short” pala; I regret to say that but the local collectors and dealers are lacking of the necessary knowledge.