It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

baphomet

page: 23
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



Understanding them does not equal agreeing with you.


Well, dear Pepsi, it's not just my professional opinion, but also the professional opinion of Samuel Kramer and Ephraim Speiser, without whom we wouldn't even be discussing these tablets today.


I am not mixing it up, the abzu is the watery abyss, under the abbys is located the udnerworld
Enki go's into the abzu, he is a fish.


Enki goes into his TEMPLE Abzu.
His TEMPLE Abzu, which is not the same as the Deity/place Abzu.


Because entering the abzu was done thru a temple, a door.
Here is Enki exiting the abzu


His TEMPLE Abzu.
TEMPLE.

Temple
Deity/place
freshwaters on land
different
get it?


She is the dragon, she is depicted as a snake, this before any summerian culture existed.
She is passed on from pre sumerian cultures into sumeria, as the sumerians seems they god some of their deities from somewhere else, specialy the ones that they start out with.
There are two waters the salty waters and the sweet waters, the salty waters are depicted as a dragon, Tiamat, not the Abzu.


What EXACTLY are you referring to here? You are aware that there were more than one Sumerian serpent deity, aren't you?
Ningishzidda for one and:
Abzu/Asag/Kur for another.
Neither of these are Nammu, and both of these are serpents/dragons.



It does because Babylon is next in history after Akkadians but the babylonians took the story and inflated things, mixed characters, added other characters, invented them. But the epic of creation is not influenced, it's a whole different thing with Marduk making humans out of tiamat's flesh.


I already know the Babylonian epic of creation.
This is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about the evolving mythologies of converging cultures.
As I pointed out to you - it's not just my professional opinion, it is also the professional opinion of Kramer and Speiser, without whom you'd have no translated tablets to misunderstand.




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   


Enki goes into his TEMPLE Abzu.
His TEMPLE Abzu, which is not the same as the Deity/place Abzu.




www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
His temple abzu is the same as the abzu, the temple is the entrence into the abzu.
According to biblical texts, there's a hidden door to the "Abyss" and "Bottomless Pit" in the vicinity of the Euphrates river, a star gate of sorts. It has been there, buried under the ruins of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Eridu, for thousands of years


The Abzu or Engur, is further described as a doorway from which Enki-Ea arrived on the Earth and over which he built the Temple of E.ABZU at Eridu, to facilitate its usage.

It is The temple of Enki., the temple is just an entrence to the abzu, he built the temple on top of the entrence.
This is according to the Stargate show, the movie series. It's where they god the idea for the show, with a gate deep down in the secure facility.

I rather not say but the Abzu is not what you say, it's a place of something else. You fall asleep in the Abzu.




His TEMPLE Abzu.
TEMPLE.

Temple
Deity/place
freshwaters on land
different
get it?

Now it refers to something else, when night comes you go into the abzu. The whole thing is a metaphor.



What EXACTLY are you referring to here? You are aware that there were more than one Sumerian serpent deity, aren't you?

They main serpent deity is nammu.




Abzu/Asag/Kur for another.

No that is you making up, the abzu is not a serpent.



Neither of these are Nammu, and both of these are serpents/dragons.

If you state the abzu was a serpent then you can back it up with evidence, or with a sclupture, carving dating from sumeria.

Like this one.
Nammu




I already know the Babylonian epic of creation.
This is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about the evolving mythologies of converging cultures.
As I pointed out to you - it's not just my professional opinion, it is also the professional opinion of Kramer and Speiser, without whom you'd have no translated tablets to misunderstand.

You know I don't agree with you, you don't seem to understand the notion of Babylon.

edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Latin has 3 mods, masculin, feminine and neuntral. I don't see where I lack what you say.


They are not called 'mods', they are called 'cases or genders'. You would have known this if you understood Latin. They also do not have to have similar OR disimilar suffixes. It is dependant on the situation in question, this you would also have known.


I don';t see how it does, neutral can be masculine as in a man. It is not a retarted theory.


It most certainly is retarded, very retarded. It contravenes how Latin is actually spoken and written. Neutral means neutral and gender is not infered by the other words in the sentence.


Lus does not change the gender, you have the documentation on the wiki, it only makes the noun diminuative look younger.


Listen Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, '-lus' is only one gender and singular/plural example of the same suffix, i.e. '-lus' is equal to '-lum', '-la', '-lae', '-los', '-lis', '-las' and '-lorum' and they are all equal to each other. They all mean a smaller/younger version of something else and in some instances the same suffix is used for all three cases, even if it has the letters 'el' (which you claim are masculine). That is why your theory about '-el' being masculine is retarded, they all use the letters 'el' when the alternate version of '-lus', '-ellus', is used. There are also FIVE additional versions that alter the word in the same way, '-cullus', '-illus', '-olus', '-ullus' and '-ulus' (all with their own cases and declinations). They can all mean a smaller/younger version of something else and NONE of them have the letters 'el' in them. Got it? Good.


So let me help you with lum


I am not in need of Latin help Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster. You saying that is like the guy who failed remedial math trying to teach calculus. Stick with your ABC's.


Same as:

-la


Now you can look up '-ellum' and '-ellis' which are used in multiple cases and by all genders. Get back to everyone on what you learned from that.


The original form is LUS, from the male, then the other suffixes come after LUS

Seems you have your head in the clouds, it's a copy of lus.
What does it say ?
1. nominative neuter singular of -lus
Meaning the root word EL is masculine


'El' is not a root word otherwise we would have seen a real dictionary entry stating such, not just your Ficto-Latin opinion.


Now say after me EL-LUS original, second LA, third LUM.
LUS represents the root word ? I presume, not changing it's gender ?


This is another one of your problems Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, the rules on Latin suffixes are not always fixed, particularly when dealing with proper nouns. Gender can not always be infered from the suffix, it many cases all three cases are identical.


Say after me first there was adamskiel, god riped a part from adamski and created adamskiela.
First was adamskiel then adamskiela not the other way around, first LUS then the others.


Fairy tales in other languages do not help you with real Latin. Maybe it will in Ficto-Latin where all things are permissable, you can even cite Star Trek.


That is your view, I view is as the root plus the suffix. The root word is EL.


You can view it anyway you want. The sad part is your view will never agree with any Latin dictionary or lexicon as you can not look up pretend words in them. Goo-goo lus, goo-goo anus.



It's not ficto latin at all, Ille =EL ille = masculine, wake up.
EL is the root word from the suffix, remember it's EL+SUFFIX


Sorry, there is not Latin suffix '-el', it does not exist except in your deluded head, that is why we must refer to it as Ficto-Latin. I did get a good laugh when you said that a 'porcel' was a 'pig' in Latin. Sometimes you do amuse me when you fumble and stumble about trying to pretend you can understand Latin.


Well yes there are 3 geners, just like in the case of EL, I don't see how this proves your point.


Because your alleged masculine pronoun, 'el', appears IN ALL OF THEM. It can not imply masculinity when the word is feminine, they are different genders. I know you are confused about language but do we need to teach Pepsella about the Birds and the Bees too?


Lus does not make modifications to the gender of the root word, it only makes the root younger as in a child and that is about it. LUM makes modification to the gender making it neutral, but only it some terms.


Wrong. '-Lus' indicates a small/young masculine 'something'. That something can be a person, place or thing. The choice of what suffix to use is based on the gender of the noun, not the suffix. This again shows your complete and total lack of understanding on how Latin works. This is pure buffoonery by now. How much more crap are you going to pretend to know?


For this you need to take a look at EL-LUS.


The only thing that needs to be looked at is some lessons in Latin....for you.


...I don't like insulting people.


Then why did you insult everyone's intelligence by pretending to know Latin?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
It is The temple of Enki., the temple is just an entrence to the abzu, he built the temple on top of the entrence.
This is according to the Stargate show, the movie series. It's where they god the idea for the show, with a gate deep down in the secure facility.


Ahahaha.

Poor Cody. This is what he does with me when he cites as evidence Star Wars and Star Trek during a debate.

For your rebuttal you should call on the Tooth Fairy.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

What you posted comes from lus, lum and la are representatives of lus, making lus first the main.
Lus is masculine because of it's root. Lum is a representation of Lus modified.
The word is EL-LUS as in a child boy. El being a he , a man. Other suffixes came after this and are based on the original LUS.

ille=EL we know that ille is masculine.
You may keep your version, I don't really mind what you think.
I do have an idea about Latin.
edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   


Ahahaha.

Poor Cody. This is what he does with me when he cites as evidence Star Wars and Star Trek during a debate.

For your rebuttal you should call on the Tooth Fairy.


I was refering where they got the idea for the show and that is it.
The temple is a entrence into the abzu.
Satanists backing eachother, interesting, not that I want to judge, you may beilive in who ever you want.
You are pissed of you are wrong about our ELLUS, BEBELUS.


edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
What you posted comes from lus, lum and la are representatives of lus, making lus first the main.
Lus is masculine because of it's root. Lum is a representation of Lus modified.
The word is EL-LUS as in a child boy. El being a he , a man. Other suffixes came after this and are based on the original LUS.


No Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster. The suffixes are based on the noun, not the other way around.

Why did you ever pretend to understand Latin?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Satanists backing eachother, interesting, not that I want to judge, you may beilive in who ever you want.


What does Cody's spirituality have to do with you not understanding subjects? Biased much?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
What you posted comes from lus, lum and la are representatives of lus, making lus first the main.
Lus is masculine because of it's root. Lum is a representation of Lus modified.
The word is EL-LUS as in a child boy. El being a he , a man. Other suffixes came after this and are based on the original LUS.


No Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster. The suffixes are based on the noun, not the other way around.

Why did you ever pretend to understand Latin?


The suffixs come from LUS , Lus being the original. Lus in turn represents the the root giving it a younger tone, others modify the gender.

This means that the other suffixs came from lus, and that lus is the main suffix



en.wiktionary.org...
-lum

1. nominative neuter singular of -lus
2. accusative masculine singular of -lus
3. accusative neuter singular of -lus
4. vocative neuter singular of -lus


As for my ficto-latin remember it's EL-LUS
I don;'t pretend to know Latin, I have a very good idea of Latin.
edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
Satanists backing eachother, interesting, not that I want to judge, you may beilive in who ever you want.


What does Cody's spirituality have to do with you not understanding subjects? Biased much?


Nothing at all, I told him if he wants to be a real satanist to join the masons, it's the real deal. Not that I advice anyone to do that, Satanism in my opinion is consuming, but that is just my opinion.

It was just a remark satanists covering for eachother.


edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
The suffixs come from LUS , Lus being the original. Lus in turn represents the the root giving it a younger tone, others modify the gender.


No, the suffix is based on the noun. Sorry, you just do not understand Latin and it is now glaringly obvious. I would have thought you would have made an effort by now to at least learn the basics but you keep pretending to know what you are talking about.


This means that the other suffixs came from lus, and that lus is the main suffix


There is 'no main' suffix. Adjectives in Latin have gender-specific forms because their forms are determined by the gender, case, and number of the nouns they modify. Nouns almost always have a single gender except for male and female animals, or the occasional noun with gender identity issues. There are first declension nouns that terminate in '-a' which you, with your limited knowledge, would believe to be feminine when they are indeed masculine. Latin could have been your friend but you abused it and now it makes you look foolish.


As for my ficto-latin remember it's EL-LUS


By the way, what you're doing when you look at prefixes, suffixes, and roots of words is called immediate constituent analysis. Each part you look at is not a word, but a morpheme. Stems are often free morphemes, i. e., they can be words on their own, but prefixes and suffixes are usually bound morphemes, i. e., they can't exist outside of a whole word. So when you run around claiming '-ellus' is a word you are making an even bigger ass out of yourself then before. Unless you preface it by saying you are refering to Ficto-Latin.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Nothing at all, I told him if he wants to be a real satanist to join the masons, it's the real deal.


If you say so. You probably read about it in Star Wars, right Darth Ceauşescu?



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   


No, the suffix is based on the noun. Sorry, you just do not understand Latin and it is now glaringly obvious. I would have thought you would have made an effort by now to at least learn the basics but you keep pretending to know what you are talking about.

The suffix is not based on the noun, only Lus is based on the noun representing it but makes it younger.
Others are based on the modifier of the gender. Lus is the main suffix, the male.



There is 'no main' suffix. Adjectives in Latin have gender-specific forms because their forms are determined by the gender, case, and number of the nouns they modify. Nouns almost always have a single gender except for male and female animals, or the occasional noun with gender identity issues. There are first declension nouns that terminate in '-a' which you, with your limited knowledge, would believe to be feminine when they are indeed masculine. Latin could have been your friend but you abused it and now it makes you look foolish.

Not what it is stated.



en.wiktionary.org...
-lum

1. nominative neuter singular of -lus
2. accusative masculine singular of -lus
3. accusative neuter singular of -lus
4. vocative neuter singular of -lus


Here I'll select it for you:
1. nominative neuter singular of -lus
Translation: Nominative=naming neuter of the singular=one unit of "atention read" : LUS

Another thing:
ille=EL ille= Masculine.


edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


"It is Ficto-Latin because you made it up. If you did not make it up you would have posted a dictionary entry that was ultra clear by saying, 'the definition of 'el' in Latin means 'him''. But since you did not we can all infer that you invented the whole premise. Ficto-Latin from an intellectual fraud.

I see how you completely avoided commenting on how you got the Romans to use modern pronouns. Any word on that one? "

You avoid again what you dont comprehend, yet you feel that your "logic' ,as it may be, is flawless and everyone else is wrong ! .Why cant you dissect this post made by Augustus line by line, then refute each point rather than ignore it? Ignoring commonly accepted facts used by scholars for centuries doesnt make them wrong only because YOU cannot grasp the simple concepts therein.
At the same time, you cannot say "Yes what i say is true because I JUST WROTE IT". That fact of you feebly typing on a forum isn't the arbiter of truth. You are not more reputable than anyone here let alone scholars who have studied this material for thousands of years.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   


I see how you completely avoided commenting on how you got the Romans to use modern pronouns. Any word on that one? "

ille is not a modern pronus.



en.wiktionary.org...
Nominative ille illa illud


Ille = masculine
ille=EL.

In most of the modern Latin based langueges EL=HE and ELA=SHE, it is obvius that EL=HE.
In hebrew it's the same, arabic the same, this comes from the phonician EL.

In Latin it came then it got covered by a mask, it's what the romans did to the words.
The term masculin comes from the suffix Lus, there for the name "mascu-lus,"
After a while they got rid of them, and the roots represented the words.



At the same time, you cannot say "Yes what i say is true because I JUST WROTE IT". That fact of you feebly typing on a forum isn't the arbiter of truth. You are not more reputable than anyone here let alone scholars who have studied this material for thousands of years.

I did not make it up, it's there in Latin EL+SUFFIX.

edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes I did...


No, you did not. You avoided the specifics.

What does 'porcellam' mean?

What does 'porcellis' mean?

Answer the questions.


porcel, porcel is a he pig.


'Porcel' is not how you say 'pig' in Latin. Maybe in Ficto-Latin.


Flaming while loosing, I understand you, it's not easy loosing.after all the insulting things you have said.


The only one who is loosing is the one not answering questions my little Latin imposter. Prove to everyone you know more than Ficto-Latin. Answer the question.

Well pepsi, you are always right, correct? please stand up and answer this ! Defend your intelligence !!




edit on 19-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

Your question has nothing to do with LUS, you are deviating from the subject.
From EL ELA, to other suffixes not used on EL.

Porcelus is relevant because of the lus suffix, making porcel a he pig, just like the EL.

Let me explain to you so you can understand.
Porc"EL" He pork. Porc"EL"LUS baby he pig.

HE=EL.
LUS=Young. LUS only adds a age suffix and represents the original meaning of the root word, it modifies only the age and represents the root gender.

It's not my fault I can uderstand Latin. It's because the language I speak.


Oh, We didnt know you spoke Latin ! The same latin that has been accepted for thousands of years, or your own pseudo/crypto latin that only you yourself understand or created? Please, this can be groundbreaking !



edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by scooterstrats
 


Answer what, I already answered him, the neuter term comes from LUS, it is based on that.
Neuter means striping an animal of it's gender. If you look at the suffix it's also masculine, it's what he complains about, but he can't accept the fact that before these suffixes were , there was LUS since all of the other suffixes are based on LUS, Lus being the representation of the root word.

If that is the case, and it is so, EL-LUS is the main starting point and from there on it becomes something else.
It is clear that the root word is masculine. EL is masculine.

This is shown in all other langueges, non latin langueges included.

Venetian, French, Spanish, Romanian, Langueges from south america, Arabic, Hebrew, Glacian, Catalan.
Mostly all the based latin langueges plus other non Latin based langueges.

In classical latin ille is EL, EL exists encoded with the suffix
ille=masculine.







edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
Nothing at all, I told him if he wants to be a real satanist to join the masons, it's the real deal.


If you say so. You probably read about it in Star Wars, right Darth Ceauşescu?


It is my personal opinion that Masonry is satanic. Others may share it or not share it.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


This is according to the Stargate show, the movie series. It's where they god the idea for the show, with a gate deep down in the secure facility.


hee hee ! So you base your beliefs on sci-fi movies? Ohhh yeah, this just keeps getting better !



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join