Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

On the Kabbalah. On Esoteric “Secrets.” A Luciferian Perspective. On the Prophet of the New Aeon

page: 21
50
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   


The Romans had a 'modern Western' conception of a year (one revolution of the Sun) in aproxiamtely 700BCE so you are once again, completely wrong. They stopped using the 10 month system, with its unnamed 61 days falling in the winter, after Numa Pompilius installed the one that would be later modified by Julius Caesar. This was also prior to the development of Republican Latin so the word for year in


Where is your source for this, I need date, time with source.



In like manner the Roman calendar--and probably that of the Italians generally--began with an independent development of its own, but subsequently came under the influence of the Greeks. In the division of time the returns of sunrise and sunset, and of the new and full moon, most directly arrest the attention of man; and accordingly the day and the month, determined not by cyclic calculation but by direct observation, were long the exclusive measures of time.




Rome had nothing to do with a ring and was always based on the concept of a solar year. Learn some history before you open your mouth.

It did have to do with the ring
the the notion of the hour tell you something ?


edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Where is your source for this, I need date, time with source.



Numa Pompilius, the second of the seven traditional kings of Rome, reformed the calendar of Romulus by prefixing January and February around 713 BC to the original ten months; thus the names of Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November and December (implying fifth through tenth) no longer agreed with their position in his calendar.

Although Numa wanted to have a lunar year of 354 days, Romans considered odd numbers to be lucky,[4] so Numa added 51 days to the 304 days in the calendar of Romulus and took one day from each of the six 30-day months giving a total of 57 days to share between January and February. January was given 29 days leaving February with the unlucky number of 28 days, suitable for the month of purification. Of the eleven months with an odd number of days, four had 31 days each and seven had 29 days each. source



The Romans borrowed parts of their earliest known calendar from the Greeks. The calendar consisted of 10 months in a year of 304 days. The Romans seem to have ignored the remaining 61 days, which fell in the middle of winter. The 10 months were named Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December. The last six names were taken from the words for five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Romulus, the legendary first ruler of Rome, is supposed to have introduced this calendar in the 700s B.C.E.

According to tradition, the Roman ruler Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar. This made the Roman year 355 days long. To make the calendar correspond approximately to the solar year, Numa also ordered the addition every other year of a month called Mercedinus. Mercedinus was inserted after February 23 or 24, and the last days of February were moved to the end of Mercedinus. In years when it was inserted, Mercedinus added 22 or 23 days to the year. another source



Attributed to Romulus, himself, the Roman calendar originally was determined by the cycles of the moon and the seasons of the agricultural year. Beginning in March in the spring and ending in December with the autumn planting, the year then was ten months long (304 days) and had six months with thirty days and four with thirty-one. Ten successive lunar months would have been about 295 days and, since each began and ended with the new moon, that day would have belonged both to the new month and the old, and must have been counted twice. The remnants of this early calendar still can be recognized in the numbered names for Quinctilis (July), Sextilis (August), September, October, November, and December. The two months of winter, when there was no work in the fields, were not counted. One can see the remnant of this calendar when Cato, for example, speaks of payment for olives being due in ten months (De Agricultura, CXLVI).

According to Livy (I.19), it was Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome (715-673 BC), who divided the year into twelve lunar months. Fifty days, says Censorinus (XX), were added to the calendar and a day taken from each month of thirty days to provide for the two winter months: Januarius (January) and Februarius (February), both of which had twenty-eight days. This was a lunar year of 354 days but, because of the Roman superstition about even numbers, an additional day was added to January to make the calendar 355 days long. Auspiciously, each month now had an odd number of days: Martius (March), Maius (May), Quinctilis (July), and October continued to have thirty-one; the other months, twenty-nine, except for February, which had twenty-eight days. Considered unlucky, it was devoted to rites of purification (februa) and expiation appropriate to the last month of the year. (Although these legendary beginnings attest to the venerability of the lunar calendar of the Roman Republic, its historical origin probably was the publication of a revised calendar by the Decemviri in 450 BC as part of the Twelve Tables, Rome's first code of law.) yet another source


History has proved you wrong once again.


It did have to do with the ring
the the notion of the hour tell you something ?


'Hour' and 'year' are two different words in Latin and neither has anything to do with a ring. It is pathetic to keep insisiting it to be so when overwhelming evidence to the contrary has been submitted. You may now revert back to calling it your 'opinion' again.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
...Rome did not have the notion of a year, but a cycle of 9 months that they thought in a form of a ring because the ring is like a cycle, AN-O .

This is known with the notion of ringing into new year.


idioms.thefreedictionary.com...
ring in the new year
Fig. to celebrate the beginning of the new year at midnight on December 31.

It may very well be from the time when the ring was the cycle later to become an year.


Uh, no.

Lord Tennyson gives pepsi a poetic smackdown:


: It is that time of year...we are all ready to "ring in the New Year." So what is the origin of that phrase? It seems it's probably church bell related, but does any know for sure?

Yes. It used to be customary in England to "ring out" the Old Year at midnight on New Year's Eve by tolling the church bells as though for a person who had died, and "ring in" the new year with a cheerful peal. There is a wellknown poem by Tennyson, written in 1850, that refers to this custom. This is the first verse:
Ring out the old, ring in the new,
Ring, happy bells, across the snow;
The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true. source


There was a guy who posted on the forum
and everyone knew they should ignore him
He insisted that 'an' equaled 'ring'
but in Latin he knew nothing
The chance of him winning the debate are quite dim


edit on 11-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


That does not prove anything, before an Latin year there was the notion of 10 months (imported from the Greeks also) You are giving the Roman empire way too much credit, there is really little authenticity from the Romans, the calendar, the year, the cycle the gods all came from asimilating other cultures.

So before your year, there was the ring, the notion of the cycle. From AN-O Latin Anus, then got transformed into Annus. I'm not going to say more, you are not worth the evidence. I'll let you be the way you are.

This is from your own source.


The Romans borrowed parts of their earliest known calendar from the Greeks. The calendar consisted of 10 months in a year of 304 days. The Romans seem to have ignored the remaining 61 days, which fell in the middle of winter. The 10 months were named Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December. The last six names were taken from the words for five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Romulus, the legendary first ruler of Rome, is supposed to have introduced this calendar in the 700s B.C.E.


Meaning that before the year it was the cycle, I was right.
edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
That does not prove anything, before an Latin year there was the notion of 10 months (imported from the Greeks also)


Good boy. You keep ignoring multiple sources that site historic evidence that the Romans used a 12-month calendar long before you claim they employed such a device.


You are giving the Roman empire way too much credit, there is really little authenticity from the Romans, the calendar, the year, the cycle the gods all came from asimilating other cultures.


For what it is worth this calendar was instituted long before the Republic, let alone the Empire. Learn some history before you open your gob.


So before your year, there was the ring, the notion of the cycle. From AN-O Latin Anus, then got transformed into Annus.


Nope. First there was *atnos, then there was annus. From Proto Indo European to Italo-Celtic to Latin there is a clear and traceable historic timeline which you have been repeatably unable to disprove.


I'm not going to say more, you are not worth the evidence. I'll let you be the way you are.


Awwwww. Are you quitting the debate again? Well, at least you have your 'opinion'.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   


Good boy. You keep ignoring multiple sources that site historic evidence that the Romans used a 12-month calendar long before you claim they employed such a device.

Your source states that it came from the greeks.



For what it is worth this calendar was instituted long before the Republic, let alone the Empire. Learn some history before you open your gob.

They got it from the greeks.



Nope. First there was *atnos, then there was annus. From Proto Indo European to Italo-Celtic to Latin there is a clear and traceable historic timeline which you have been repeatably unable to disprove.

Not that was latter and it came after the year has formed with the 12 months, before that there was no atnos as atnos means year in Latin. An year has 12 months.




Nope. First there was *atnos, then there was annus.

No, I don't see how.

edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Your source states that it came from the greeks.


We are not debating where it came from. Only that you said that they did not use that type of calendar when they did. Sorry, try to remember what you posted.


They got it from the greeks.


See above.


Not that was latter and it came after the year has formed with the 12 months, before that there was no atnos as atnos means year in Latin. An year has 12 months.


The fact that they had two unnamed months does not mean that they did not recognize one transit of the sun as a year. Read it again SLOWLY. They could have had 4 months and it still would have been a year if it still constituted the same amount of time. Your arrogance does not allow you to see that other cultures worked fine bofore you were lucky enough to grace the planet with your prescence and your coneceptions may not have been their conceptions.

What a weak and pathetic arguement that was.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   


We are not debating where it came from. Only that you said that they did not use that type of calendar when they did. Sorry, try to remember what you posted.

We are,


www.consultsos.com...
ANO ANUS
AN~O YEAR as in
CYCLE or RING OF SEASONS

It was AN-O


See above.

Aha see above.



The fact that they had two unnamed months does not mean that they did not recognize one transit of the sun as a year. Read it again SLOWLY. They could have had 4 months and it still would have been a year if it still constituted the same amount of time. Your arrogance does not allow you to see that other cultures worked fine bofore you were lucky enough to grace the planet with your prescence and your coneceptions may not have been their conceptions.

The concept of what you say came after in Rome, they first got it from the Greeks, from the notion of the Greek ring, so they named it AN-O/ANUS at first then it became Annus.

It's all from the Greek and proto IE ana ano an the cycle up, down, again, meaning the cycle.



What does your source state ?


The Romans borrowed parts of their earliest known calendar from the Greeks. The calendar consisted of 10 months in a year of 304 days.

Meaning that the earliest is from he greeks, it's where they got it from, it was the notion of the Ring.
This is from your own source.
edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
We are,


You said:


Originally posted by pepsi78
...Rome did not have the notion of a year, but a cycle of 9 months...


Experts say:


Although Numa wanted to have a lunar year of 354 days, Romans considered odd numbers to be lucky,[4] so Numa added 51 days to the 304 days in the calendar of Romulus and took one day from each of the six 30-day months giving a total of 57 days to share between January and February. January was given 29 days leaving February with the unlucky number of 28 days, suitable for the month of purification. Of the eleven months with an odd number of days, four had 31 days each and seven had 29 days each.


One YEAR of 355 days (originally 10 months by the way, not 9 as you claimed).

Experts say:


According to tradition, the Roman ruler Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar. This made the Roman year 355 days long. To make the calendar correspond approximately to the solar year, Numa also ordered the addition every other year of a month called Mercedinus. Mercedinus was inserted after February 23 or 24, and the last days of February were moved to the end of Mercedinus. In years when it was inserted, Mercedinus added 22 or 23 days to the year.


Same thing, a 355 day-long YEAR ( originally10 months by the way, not 9 as you claimed).



The concept of what you say came after in Rome, they first got it from the Greeks, from the notion of the Greek ring, so they named it AN-O/ANUS at first then it became Annus.


If the Greek version worked so well then why did the Romans alter it by adding the two months and changing the number of days in all months?

There is no mention of a ring anywhere in those sources. You are again affixing your 'opinion' onto accurate historical records and trying to make them fit your failed theory.


It's all from the Greek and proto IE ana ano an the cycle up, down, again, meaning the cycle.



Meaning that the earliest is from he greeks, it's where they got it from, it was the notion of the Ring.


Since you obviously have a hard time remembering pertinent facts I will relink the language chart that demonstrates that you are once again incorrect as the Proto Indo Language was the only direct influence on Celto-Italo languages which included Latin. Hence, *atnos leads directly to annus. As opposed to a theory which comes directly from someone's anus.

You need to do more then just state your 'opinion' (although we are all used to having only this from you) if you expect people to determine that you are correct. Start using actual facts and evidence to disprove the expert-supplied historical information that demolishes your 'opinion'-based theory.



edit on 11-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   


...Rome did not have the notion of a year, but a cycle of 9 months...

10 months my correction.





According to tradition, the Roman ruler Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar. This made the Roman year 355 days long. To make the calendar correspond approximately to the solar year, Numa also ordered the addition every other year of a month called Mercedinus. Mercedinus was inserted after February 23 or 24, and the last days of February were moved to the end of Mercedinus. In years when it was inserted, Mercedinus added 22 or 23 days to the year.


Same thing, a 355 day-long YEAR ( originally10 months by the way, not 9 as you claimed).

After the addition it was that, not before, it's not the same thing.



If the Greek version worked so well then why did the Romans alter it by adding the two months and changing the number of days in all months?

What they did after is irelevant, what matters is what was before not after.



There is no mention of a ring anywhere in those sources. You are again affixing your 'opinion' onto accurate historical records and trying to make them fit your failed theory.

Of course there is, I posted numeros sources with Latin writers and other relevan sources that state it was a ring, all you have to do is research the last pages.



Since you obviously have a hard time remembering pertinent facts I will relink the

language chart that demonstrates that you are once again incorrect as the Proto Indo Language was the only direct influence on Celto-Italo languages which included Latin. Hence, *atnos leads directly to annus. As oppsed to a theory which comes directly from someone's anus.

No, the proto IE makes my case, atnos came later, the first notion was of a cycle ANO.
Atnos is very close to AN from proto IE it means ON TO. AN-O means ON TO, the ring season cycle.
Before a latin year there was a cycle, the notion of an year is 12 months.
edit on 11-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
After the addition it was that, not before, it's not the same thing.


They still had the concept of a year prior to that. They had 10 months plus two additional unnamed months that constituted a year. Stop trying to change the facts. It is written above for everyone to read.


What they did after is irelevant, what matters is what was before not after.


See above. A year is a year no matter how you break it down.


Of course there is, I posted numeros sources with Latin writers and other relevan sources that state it was a ring, all you have to do is research the last pages.


There is no mention in any of the sources I linked concerning a Roman year being refered to or derived from a ring or the concept of a ring. Read what I post CAREFULLY.


No, the proto IE makes my case, atnos came later, the first notion was of a cycle ANO.
Atnos is very close to AN from proto IE it means ON TO. AN-O means ON TO, the ring season cycle.
Before a latin year there was a cycle, the notion of an year is 12 months.


*atnos is the Proto Indo European root word. How can it come after any word you mention if it is the progenitor word? Use the chart I supplied earlier that proves the relations between words. You will see that the Indo European word *atnos leads directly to annus with no deviations or influence from other languages. Notice there is also the Proto Indo European word 'anos' that leads directly to the word 'anus' denoting that 'annus/*atnos' and 'anus/anos' are two DIFFERENT words. You are wrong once again in spectacular fashion.

Who is right? Language experts who put together the Indo European Lexicon and the Language Tree or you? My money is on the people who actually studied this topic and do not base things on their 'opinion'. Get a clue.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   


*atnos is the Proto Indo European root word. How can it come after any word you mention if it is the progenitor word? Use the chart I supplied earlier that proves the relations between words. You will see that the Indo European word *atnos leads directly to annus with no deviations or influence from other languages. Notice there is also the Proto Indo European word 'anos' that leads directly to the word 'anus' denoting that 'annus/*atnos' and 'anus/anos' are two DIFFERENT words. You are wrong once again in spectacular fashion.

It's simple from one IE word to another, at that time they were using proto IE words, Latin was just forming.
Anus and Annus are close in concept, "antos" and "an" or an-o are close also.

There was no annus at the begining, it was a ring. The Romans got it from the Greeks and the Greeks had the ring.

The Romans considered that the day began to midnight. When settling down the year (of annus = ring) they determined a duration to him of 10 months (decimal system), but later, through Greek influence, went to the year of 12 months, with 368 days and ¾ of another one, with months of 30 and 29 days alternatively, and every two years a year with 13 months, adjusting progressively the system suppressing themselves or adding days.



Word for anus, without the double N.


www.babylon.com...
anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produce


Meaning it's where it came from, first anus then annus.
edit on 12-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's simple from one IE word to another, at that time they were using proto IE words, Latin was just forming.
Anus and Annus are close in concept, "antos" and "an" or an-o are close also.


There is clear and distinct historical evidence that shows the development of the Proto Indo European root words into their final Latin definitions. There is no 'close in concept', the both had obviously different definitions which has been accurately established by language experts. Your OPINION does not override their findings.


There was no annus at the begining, it was a ring. The Romans got it from the Greeks and the Greeks had the ring.

The Romans considered that the day began to midnight. When settling down the year (of annus = ring) they determined a duration to him of 10 months (decimal system), but later, through Greek influence, went to the year of 12 months, with 368 days and ¾ of another one, with months of 30 and 29 days alternatively, and every two years a year with 13 months, adjusting progressively the system suppressing themselves or adding days.


That is an UNLINKED source with such poor grammar and syntax it is almost impoosible to read. It also runs counter to the three sources (all with historically proven facts) previously provided. Who wrote this?


Word for anus, without the double N.


www.babylon.com...
anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produce


Meaning it's where it came from, first anus then annus.


Considering the definition from the same site for the word 'anus' is:


anus
n. opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal


I do not think you should be trying to use this to support your arguement.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   


There is clear and distinct historical evidence that shows the development of the Proto Indo European root words into their final Latin definitions. There is no 'close in concept', the both had obviously different definitions which has been accurately established by language experts. Your OPINION does not override their findings.

Proto IE word change for different meanings, it's not forbiten to change one IE word for another.
Your ATNOS is very close to AN AN-O in proto IE.



That is an UNLINKED source with such poor grammar and syntax it is almost impoosible to read. It also runs counter to the three sources (all with historically proven facts) previously provided. Who wrote this?


Source



Considering the definition from the same site for the word 'anus' is:



It's what it states , a cycle year, and yes it's also a hole.


anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produ




I do not think you should be trying to use this to support your arguement.

Sure I can



edit on 13-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Proto IE word change for different meanings, it's not forbiten to change one IE word for another.


The word's menaing did not change as evidenced by the various sources that all corroborate on its definition. Wishing it to be so does not make it so.


Source


Here are the references used by the pages you linked:


Legal aspects of the Roman funeral world
'Tacit C., Dialog on the speakers, 28, 4 - 29, 5.' Text on the education of the children in Old Rome

References↑ popular encyclopedic Dictionary illustrated Salvat (1906-1914): article Tomb
↑ popular encyclopedic Dictionary illustrated Salvat (1906-1914): article Tomb
↑ popular encyclopedic Dictionary illustrated Salvat (1906-1914): article Tomb


The person who wrote this article did not use ANY sources on language to support their point. Stop linking articles with no supporting evidence.



It's what it states , a cycle year, and yes it's also a hole.


anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produ


Wrong. The definition is not what you posted. The text you included is next to a translator site that is obviously incorrect. The definition is further down.


Sure I can


Think again. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Nothing you posted refutes the proven ACADEMIC sources. Your opinion does not count against historical fact.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   


Wrong. The definition is not what you posted. The text you included is next to a translator site that is obviously incorrect. The definition is further down.

It is not incorrect, it's the definition for the word.



Think again. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Nothing you posted refutes the proven ACADEMIC sources. Your opinion does not count against historical fact.


Annus and Anus share the same notion, it may be very well that the word is a mix between the two.


www.consultsos.com...
ANO ANUS
AN~O YEAR as in
CYCLE or RING OF SEASONS


edit on 13-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


No matter if it is one idea outside yourself or another makes little difference, what does make a difference is when all of those outside distractions no longer take hold on you and your life, your reason for living as totally as you can in this life.

Anything which distracts you from discovering your own personal path, your own individual fragrance in this garden, is leading you away from your personal best, your highest potential, your freedom.

To learn all of this is one thing, to be fooled into thinking it is your liberation is another.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
It is not incorrect, it's the definition for the word.


You can be extremely dense sometimes. Bayblon is an internet aggregator and assembles hits from all over the web.

Here is the entire page that you linked. Notice the first part is a thesaurus (and the synonyms have nothing to do with rings).The second one, where you claim to get your 'defintion' is a translator program. This is the only translation program that has this as the definition and is obviously incorrect. The defintion of the word 'anus' is listed further down in several locations and completely contradicts your stance and that of the translator on the same page. This source is severaly flawed.


anus
Found in thesaurus: opening, orifice, porta

JM Latin-English Dictionary Download this dictionary

anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produce

Video results for the word "anus"

The following video provides you with the correct English pronunciation of the word "anus", to help you become a better English speaker.a
click on any clip below to play or stop

Babylon English Download this dictionary

anus
n. opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal

Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia Download this dictionary

Anus
The anus is an opening at the opposite end of an animal's digestive tract from the mouth. Its function is to control the expulsion of feces, unwanted semi-solid matter produced during digestion, which, depending on the type of animal, may be one or more of: matter which the animal cannot digest, such as bones; food material after all the nutrients have been extracted, for example cellulose or lignin; ingested matter which would be toxic if it remained in the digestive tract; and dead or excess gut bacteria and other endosymbionts.

See more at Wikipedia.org...

Anusim
Anusim , plural for anús , means "forced ones." Originally, the word could refer to a person forced to any kind of act against his or her will. In Jewish Law, this is the legal term applied to a Jew who was forced to abandon Judaism against his or her will, but does whatever is in his or her power to continue practicing Judaism under the forced condition. It derives from the Talmudic term aberá be' ones , meaning "a forced transgression." The Hebrew verb concerned originally referred to any case where a Jew has been forced into any act against his or her will. The term anús is used in contradistinction to meshumad , which means a person who has voluntarily abandoned the practice of Jewish Law in whole or part.

See more at Wikipedia.org...

© This article uses material from Wikipedia® and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License
iMedix Download this dictionary

Anus
Anus pl. a´ni the opening of the rectum on the body surface; the distal orifice of the alimentary canal.
 

Anus - Community and Resources

WordNet 2.0 Download this dictionary

anus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun
1. excretory opening at the end of the alimentary canal
(synonym) arse, arsehole, asshole
(hypernym) orifice, opening, porta
(hyponym) imperforate anus
(part-holonym) rectum
(part-meronym) anal sphincter, sphincter ani, musculus sphincter ani



Annus and Anus share the same notion, it may be very well that the word is a mix between the two.


No. The Proto Indo European words are quite distinct and their origins and development can not be discounted by your opinion.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Anus means what you state but it also means the season cycle, the year, it is the main description.


anus
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produce

The rest are derivatives of it.


But let's take another Latin dictionary.

For the main description of the dictionary for the word anus:


www.latin-dictionary.org...
N M
|year (astronomical/civil); age| time of life; year's produce

As you can see it's the main description. Also Identical, thank you

Anus comes in turn from IE: AN-O ANO AN.
Atnos is composed of two elements AT and NOS, AN=AT in IE AN also=ON TO. AN-O = cycle season, it is clear where the name comes from and that atnos is a mix of these since they all bare close resemblence.


edit on 13-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I has to suck being that lame of a blow hard. Do you ever just stop and ask for silence inside yourself.
Every time I come into a new thread and I see your avatar on the side your neck deep in some pointless tit for tat over something nauseatingly obscure and boring. Acting like it matters. Go outside for a bike ride or go volunteer at a homeless shelter. STFU.






top topics



 
50
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join