Originally posted by torqpoc
Originally posted by Harte
Just linking to the Etcsl doesn't cut it.
A search of their texts for the word "Anunnaki" returns the following:
No hits: 'anunnaki'
Do you not do your research??? LOL
Anunnaki is the Babylonian term. It might be in there, but in a different spelling.
A search using the term "Anuna" results in a return of 155 usages. Anuna (Anunna) is the Sumerian term.
It's a lot better than what most other posters have done. I do my research otherwise i'd not have posted that link, what do you have to offer other
than a cheap swipe? That's right, not much.
In fact, I've offered up quite a bit here at ATS on this very subject. Even very recently. For example, I enlightened you that the word can't be
found at the link you told the poster to look in, didn't I?
I also told you how to find it.
Just thought it was funny you'd link the ETCSL along with that "research" comment, considering it's been pointed out many times here that the word
Anunnaki doesn't appear anywhere in the ETCSL. It just struck me as ironic.
No offense. We agree on the matter that most people here certainly don't know what they're talking about. Well, in this particular section of the
forum, anyway. I don't often peruse the other sections, so I can't speak for what goes on in them.
Probably the same, wouldn't you say? LOL
Originally posted by torqpocThe word "Anunnaki" is not in the Sumerian tablet translations, Anuna is. That's like Americans writing
color, when it should be colour.
Not really. Both of your examples are in the same language. Akkadian and Sumerian are completely different. But the Sumerian language was kept
because it was the only written one at the time the Akkadians took over. I guess they figured it might come in handy.
The language was used for a long time afterward as the priestly language and the language of state as well, IIRC, even though no one spoke it.
Gee, I guess I just "offered" you another bit of information there, didn't I? Maybe you already knew that. I think we can agree that most people
here don't, as you said.
Originally posted by torqpocDid you read what the OP and the others were debating? We're not discussing semantics here (well you might
be because you're also an amerature), so try to stay in context and on topic if you can dear.
Yes, we are "ameratures," aren't we? Of course, what the heck would an Assyriologist be doing here anyay?
Reading the tripe about how the Anunnaki were spacemen?
Originally posted by torqpocI was stating that the OP is correct, the Anunnaki ARE mentioned in the Sumerian tablets, it might be under
the Sumerian spelling of the word but they are mentioned. Is there anything else you'd like to offer which might be of worth this time?
Sure. See above.
Yes, the Anunnaki are mentioned in Babylonian writings. So are a lot of other things that sane individuals wouldn't consider to be real for an
Originally posted by torqpoc "It doesn't cut it"? What are you? My dad? Go forth and multiply. (if you can't work that one out i'd
be glad to explain it to you).
Keep calm and carry on.
It doesn't cut it if you're gonna give the guy a hard time for not "doing research." I mean, you claim it's in there, so what if the guy
followed your link? He wouldn't find it, would he?
See, that doesn't cut it, no matter what your Dad may have to say on the subject.
And I'm calm. Sorry if you were offended.