Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:46:13 -0700
Stella Nemeth wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> It's my last morning online, so I guess that this is the last word
> from me on this subject on this round.
snip
> My "local gurus" are online. They just don't have as much patience as
> I do with this nonsense. Periodically one of them will show up,
> explain the math or engineering behind what actually got done and then
> go away again. Round about the third or fourth round, all of this
> gets pretty boring. Can't blame them for not sticking it out for
> weeks on end.
Still, the veil of anonymity covers these famous savants. Quaint..
What can one do to get hold of a guru, nowadays?
> >> >Aren't you a little too demanding?
> >Place, time, motive in tandem would count for naught to Stella,
> >as she would annoy the aliens by periodically trying to pull off
> >their various body parts, thinking they were fake.
> You don't have place, time or motive for aliens. You do have them for
> ordinary, human, earthly people. You've got to explain why those
> ordinary, human, earthly people couldn't have done what we know that
> ordinary, human, earthly people are known to be able to do.
We were debating a What If scenario. But even with all the Ifs in
place, you still say : So What..
> why those ordinary, human, earthly people couldn't have done what
> we know that ordinary, human, earthly people are known to be able
> to do
You are wrong, Stella. I don't have to explain anything. I was not
the one, who stuck the Egyptians with no means of accomplishing
what has been accomplished at Giza (GPOG). It was you!!!, and other
scientists, the historians, etc. You have the Egyptians pegged as
primitives in a relative way, by not attributing much science to them.
In contrast, I have always maintained that some Egyptians had
obviously had important scientific knowledge, which they passed
along to Greeks like Pythagoras, who then passed it on to us.
You (meaning the Science in general, and not you in particular)
have STOLEN this merit from the Egyptians!!!
Do mull on this angle of it, and you will see, how unjustly
you and others accuse me of your Own Sins..
Whenever someone performs feats requiring scientific knowledge in
the midst of people, who lack such knowledge, we have to look for
that someone with the necessary knowledge.
> The easiest explanation is generally the right one. If you aren't
> willing to go with the easiest explanation, which is that the
> Egyptians built the pyramids and the people living in England at the
> time Stonehenge was build, built Stonehenge, then the burden of proof
> is on you.
There is that Stonehenge again. I was not talking about Stonehenge,
because I think that Stonehenge just doesn't present the same degree
of difficulty from conception to execution, at least not physically.
I don't know enough about astronomical and mathematical sophistication
of the Stonehenge people, to discuss it at this time.
But, I do see a likely connection between mathematical knowledge of
the Magdalenians, who had authored Science-Art, and of the Nascans,
who had likewise authored Science-Art, and later technological
mysteries like the Pyramid.
Who exactly were the Magdalenians and the Nascans, I don't know,
but they weren't uneducated. That sole fact is highly pregnant with
fantastic possibilities. Hence you are wrong to laugh the possibility
of past Alien visitations, or of Atlantis off. The advanced Science-
Art is real..
> >> >As usual, you are forgeful of my proof of advanced mathematics from
> >> >the Stone-Age: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
> >> I haven't looked at your home page. If it is about math, I am not
> >> qualified to make a decision about it, so my reading your "article" is
> >> pretty useless all around. So it isn't that I am "forgetful" of your
> >> prood, it is that I don't consider anything you've written here
> >> interesting enough to make me surf the Web and locate your home page.
>
> >Nihilism reigns supreme in thy heart, oh Stella.
> >My webpages are not about math, but about math & life, math and its
> >application in art.
> >How fickle you are in your ways - you just said that you would
> >love to see proof of something extraordinary in our history -
> >I offer you such proof, but now, you won't copy the url into your
> >browser, for magical transport to the Lair of Nasca Monkey:
>
> I've seen pictures of the Nasca Monkey. I've also seen pictures of
> oversized chalk carvings in England. Just because it is big doesn't
> mean someone in a spaceship made it.
Yes, sure, certainly.
I did not speak of the bigness of Nasca, I spoke about the geometrical
structure of the Nasca Monkey, showing a level of mathematical savvy,
which you (and other savants) deny falsely!
It is your twisting of my words, and Proudly Professed ignorance of
my findings, which anger me.
> >> And that includes the current bunch of insulting posts.
> >How insulting to speak out for what one perceives as truth..
> There are ways and there are ways. Learn the polite ones if you
> aren't willing to be known as someone who gives offense. I object to
> your opinions. I haven't made comments about your intelligence or
> your ancestors.
You must be jesting! Check Dejanews (under Namon) to see that
I was welcomed into this group like a total idiot. Your own posts
went along with the trend. I despise such arrogance, which is
insulting to anyone's intelligence on just general principles.
Whether you have made direct comments about my intelligence, or
not - so what, you have condemned my work as dumb trash.
In spawning delusions, how could I not be stupid? So, excuse
me, if I take a shortcut through your linguistic ways.
> s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Jiri Mruzek
***********************************
p.s. Your "I know no math excuse" doesn't relate to the image
of a horseman, which I also present on my website. What is your
excuse for not checking out this particular case?
It gets me that you won't do something like: Get Netscape; click
on the address below..
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/ridercut.htm
How many times have I extended invitations to all present here,
to check-out this image, and respond in a scholarly manner?
Many times? Way too many. (check Dejanews)
The response so far is utter silence, which in this case certainly
isn't golden, because it indicates clearly that my would be critics
are shell-shocked.
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 12:36:38 GMT
Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <519lo4$9uo@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >Some Chinese scholars are claiming this.
: >Yuri.
: Can you give a couple of names?
Yes, I will give a "couple of names" in due course of time. Recently I've
been researching plant diffusion, and presenting some unique information
in these newsgroups. I can't do everything at once.
: This, "I read it somewhere but I can't
: give you a reference for you to evaluate it for yourself" is getting
: a bit old.
Well, overspecialized scholars who are supposed to know about these things
but don't -- this is certainly getting old. If you never heard about these
theories, I would expect some humility on your part, Peter, instead of
blaming me -- who is not specialized in this field -- for not having the
references at my fingertips.
: Also Why do think that the biggest names in Maya epigraphy - Houston,
: Stuart, Schele, etc. aren't claiming this?
Recently I've been talking with a specialist in Mayan agriculture here,
who didn't know that peanut was native to the Americas, and that coconut
was present in the Americas before Columbus.
So your "big names" is neither here nor there...
Cheers,
Yuri.
--
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness === W. Allen
Subject: Re: Egyptology: Opening of the mouth.
From: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 12:24:37 GMT
On Sep 15, 1996 11:23:11 in article ,
'stevelowe@enterprise.net (Steve Lowe.)' wrote:
>During a recent tour of the British Museum I noticed in the room with
>the mummies, that on a few of the tomb paintings displayed around the
>top of the room the English title describing what was happening in the
>relief was the ceremony of "Opening of The Mouth". The guide was'nt
>sure what the ceremony involved or what it signified.
>
>Can anyone give me a brief description of what was involved and what
>it signified.
Well, after the deceased had been mummified, it was important to complete
this ceremony by placing (what appears to be) an *iron instrument* (folks:
name of this thing, again??) at the approximate location of the lips of the
deceased, and recite a formulaic phrase that asured that the mummy's mouth
would be *opened* to be able to speak the magic words necessary to do the
following:
- Make the Negative Confession ("Not have I done....")
- Make Obeisance to the Gods
- Speak the Magical Phrases that opened various doors
to the *other world*
- Give an Accounting of Oneself in the Hall of Judgment
and so on. Very important part of the mummification process. The person
who performed the "Opening of the Mouth" was usually a relative, wearing
the robes of a sem-priest (at least, this was the case in Tutankhamen's
tomb), or by a religious priest who completed the mummification process.
I will let people like Greg Reeder, Keith Grenville, and others complete
*any areas* they feel pertinent to this question. My commects are just
oversight here.
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
Subject: Re:Early Human occupation of Southern Mesopotamia:
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:11:46 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <51ej0p$g7l@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
...snip...
>>"At the beginning of the 16th century BC the Hittite king
>>Mursilis destroyed Aleppo" and is credited with having brought
>>Hamurabis reign in Babylon to an end; is how Michael Roaf
>>has put it.
>
>>"Mursilis was murdered by his brother in law who seized the throne.
>>very soon internal dissension and Hurrian enchroachment had
>>reduced the Hittites realm to the neighborhood of their capital"
>
>>It seems likely that Babylon, which was on the other side of the
>>Hurrians territory, was destroyed by a strong Hurrian empire not
>>a weak Hittite realm controlling a neighborhood and nothing more.
>
>>[The modern descendents of the Hurrians (Kurds) and of the
>>Hittites (Turks) are still waging battles over the same
>>territory as their ancestors did]
>
>(snip irrelevant material)
>
>Since all you seem interested in is being testy and unpleasant,
>I will simply point out to you that once again you are stating your
>inventions as fact.
Ok, I also enjoy your pleasantries a great deal ...might I
suggest that where we have more interesting areas of discourse
let's both just leave off the non essential commentary
and stick to the facts?
>I fail to see what improvement you are suggesting.
>There is no evidence at all to suggest that a
>Hurrian army destroyed Babylon;
I am amazed that a city (Hattusas)established a mere
fifty five years earlier and barely in control of it's
immediate neighborhood should be in a position to mount
an expedition across hundreds of miles of mountainous terrain
to succesfully attack and destroy one of the largest and most
powerful empires of the ancient world.
The Hurrians, on the other hand, have been associated with the
early transcaucasian culture which bordered the city states of
Isin-Larsa to the north controling the headwaters of the Tigris
and Euphrates as southern Mesopotamia controled their lower reaches.
The controled the land trade route from Anatolian Kanash on the
Kizil Imak which runs north to drain into the Black Sea to Asur
on the Tigris which runs south east to drain into the Persian Gulf.
Mesopotamian Asur played a similar role to Mari as middleman.
The Kurds define their territory as ending with the mountains
and the Hurrians probably had a similar self image. It is likely
that they supplied wood and metal and recieved in return grain
and luxury goods coming up the gulf.
>both a Babylonian chronicle and a Hittite text tell us
Ok, I doubt they said "it was the Hittites under Mursilis"
care to provide the actual cites?
>Indeed, it was the Hittites who had problems with some army
>on their way back from Babylon, which is probably why they
>had to abandon the statues of Marduk (chief god of Babylon)
>and his consort Sarpanitum in Terqa (Hana), modern Tell Ashara,
>on the Euphrates, up from Mari.
The problem is that at a later date when a lot of this was being
transcribed from the original field notes into the versions which
went into the archives, we have the Hurrians allied with the
Hittites in a union of similar cohesion to that of their present
inclusions with Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Azerbajan and Iran.
They may have been called Hittites (Hatur) by Babylonians, but
this may simply have been a reference to the location of their
capital (Hana) on the Hatur river ...
There is some interesting history here. "In Larsa Nur-Adad,
a commoner seized the throne in 1865 BC."
"Excavations in the karum, the merchant suburb outside the
city of Kanesh revealed evidence for trade with Ashur over
a period of three generations, about sixty years, from Erishum
to Punzur-Ashur II c 1880-1820 BC and then contemporaneously with
Shamshi-Adad and Samsuiluna c 1800-1740 BC. More than 10,000
tablets have been recovered from the earlier period but less than
200 from the later."
"When the rulers of Ashur controlled a larger (Hurrian) empire
the seat of power moved to areas of greater wealth in the Habur
plains under Shamshi-Adad I."
"When Nur-Adad seized the throne, Sin-Kashid, the king of Uruk,
(who was married to the daughter of Summa-la-el, king of Babylon,
and had remained independent of Larsa,) blocked direct passage up
the Euphrates from Larsa to Nippur" (having some effect, one might
imagine, on the flow of trade goods up the Tigris)
During this period Kudur-Maburk, the ruler of Emutbal
(The region of the Tigris between Eshunna and Elam)
suddenly begins an ambitious program of restoring temples
and apoints his som Warad-sin 1834-1823 BC, king of Larsa.
His son "Rim Sin 1822-1763 BC defeated a coalition army of
men from Uruk, Isin, Babylon, and Rapiqum and of Sutu nomads
ending the independence of Uruk."
Shamsi-Adad, meanwhile, continues his rule up to 1740 BC.
The route from Kanesh to Timekiya to Mamma to Urshum to Carchemish
to Badna to Harran intersects the Habur between Mari and Shubat-Enlil
then procedes to Ashur on the Tigris. This is the heart of a well
interconnected trade network with links to the Black Sea, Troy,
Crete, Anatolia, Cyprus, Aleppo, Ugarit, Ebla, Quatna, and Byblos.
"Excavating the Karum of Kanesh has revealed much about the people
with whom the Assyrians did business. There were Hattians, Hurrians
and Indo Europeans, amnong whom were Hittites who spoke a dialect later
called neshili (perhaps derived from the city of Kanesh) and Luwians,
whose language called luili by the Hittites was written in a Hieroglyphic
script."
"The Anatolian cities were ruled by princes whose names were normally
Indo-European."
"The earlier city and karum of Kanesh were destroyed by fire in
about 1820. An unusual Hittite text written about 500 years later
(1320 BC) describes how Pitkhana, king of Kussara, with his son
Anitta conquered the city of nesa which was perhaps Kanesh and
adopted it as his capital."
"He also defeated Zalpa, Puruskhanda, Shalatuwar and Hatti
(perhaps Hattusas the later Hittite capital) Both Pitkhana
and Anitta were possibly responsible for destroying the karum
at level II as both were mentioned in tablets from the later
period. (level Ib) and a daggar inscribed "Anitta, the prince"
was found at Kanesh."
"Between the time of Anitta and the Hittite kings little is known
of the situation in Anatolia. The Hittite rulers trace their
descent back to Labarnas I, king of Kussara (c 1650 BC)."
"His son who was also called Labarnas moved the capital from
Kussara to Hattusas and himself took the name Hattusilis."
Michael Roaf CAM
As to the Hittite inscription, Mursilis led a raid against Aleppo.
Did he also "lead a Hittite army through the Tauras mountains along
the route trodden by the Assyrian donkey caravans 300 years earlier
to destroy the remnants of Hammurabis once Great Kingdom of Babylon"?
Why would he have wanted to?
The Hurrians would have been continuing a struggle over water rights
and trade which went back to the days of Shemsi-Adad more than a
century earlier. The Hittites had no interest in the region.
How would he have mustered sufficient logistical support?
The Hurrians would have been fighting in adjacency to their
own turf, the Hittites have no base of operations in the region.
Who would he have turned to as allies?
The Hurrians?
Might not his allies (The Hurrians) have waged their own campaigns?
Could Mursilis have taken credit for the campaigns of his allies?
Does any of this lead you to suspect the Hittites might have
marched through the Hurrians territory unmolested to strike
an enemy they had no connection with and nothing to gain
from fighting? Can you explain this to me?
>There is now inscriptional evidence from Terqa itself that
>makes reference to the problems that the Hittites had.
Why are the inscriptions at Terqua
(Harran- a center of the Hurrian empire)
interperted as reffering to Hittities
when they could just as easily be refering
to Hanna on the Hatur river?
> Apparently there is mention of a defeat of Ha-at-tu-um
>(and other spellings), which has to be the Hittites.
Does it really? Are the vowels implicit or implied?
I understand they are considered syllabic, but don't
some signs have more than one phoenetic value and
aren't some sounds represented by more than one sign?
which matches better Httum = Hatti or Httum = Hatur?
>The texts are not yet fully published, but have been mentioned by
>O. Rouault, "Cultures locales et influences exterieures: le cas de Terqa,"
>Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 30 (1992) 247-56.
>Once again you have invented a whole scenario without any evidence.
Ah yes,... you have a single ambiguous unpublished textual
reference with no archaeological or historical context to
put it in and I am theone who is inventing theories
out of whole cloth.
>Finally (sigh), the Turks are not the descendants of the Hittites,
>as the Turcic tribes arrived in Anatolia from Central Asia about
>2000 years after the fall of the Hittite state, and the Kurds are
>hardly descendants of the Hurrians.
That is interesting. You consider the Turkish people as being of
one homogeneous ethnicity. I suppose the Turkish Kurds are not
really Turkish and that there is some reason why their villages
would have been spared to remain of Kurdish ethnicity while
the villages interspersed around them would have had their
populations replaced by Central Asians?
Do you see that at the village level not much ever really changes?
People go on with their lives no matter who is in power in bahgdad?
>The kind of information you posted here from the net is simply
>nationalistic propaganda which, like religion, cannot be discussed.
Not discussing a genocidal situation where people are being
systematically exterminated as a state policy is the sort
of thing that a government might advocate, but why do you
consider quietly sitting back and watching the extermination
of the Kurdish people without a word of protest to be a good
policy? Why would you want to pretend it isn't happening?
>The Kurdish language has nothing whatsoever to do with Hurrian
>or the related Urartean language, and Turkish is hardly Indoeuropean.
Once again, you consider Turkey to be of homogeneous ethnicity and
language? You think the Kurds are a homogeneous people of a single
culture and language despite having been arbitrarily divided up into
territories which are still today ruled by half a dozen different
governments and have been in the past ruled by as many more?
>Please check your facts once again.
Yes, perhaps you may wish to do the same?
>May I suggest that you look at the actual information that people
>use to make general statements in popular atlases rather than base
>fictitious historical reconstructions on such popularizations.
I think that is an excellent idea. Much of the most recent research
is going up on the web and is available to anyone who cares to search
for it.
I don't think it hurts to make occasional reference to an
Atlas or collection of papers or any other research tool to get
the larger picture, and I might even suggest you would profit
by a visit to the many sites in southern Mesopotamia, Dilmun and
Makkan which I have found it interesting to observe and taken
the trouble to tell you of.
steve
Subject: Re: Conjectures about cultural contact
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:25:44 GMT
Randal Allison (rallison@mail.myriad.net) wrote:
: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >The Olmecs, with their impetus for building large public projects and
: >monuments, appeared seemingly out of nowhere as a sudden burst of very
: >rich cultural influences unprecedented on the continent before them. The
: >hypothesis that they carried influences from Asia and Oceania seems like
: >a very valid one.
: Given your hypothesis that the Olmec, a glorious, original civilization in
: the Yucatan from 1500--600 BCE represent some form of Asian or Oceanic
: culture in the Americas, what cities laid out in an axial pattern in Asia
: and Oceania did the Olmec draw from in the creation of San Lorenzo around
: 900 BCE and later in La Venta?
I don't know. (Haven't looked into that.) Are you claiming that San
Lorenzo was the first such city in the world? This would be quite a
claim...
: What similar forms of carvings are
: represented in Asia and Oceania from this time period,
Joseph Campbell's volumes (MYTHIC IMAGE, ATLAS OF WORLD MYTHOLOGY) have
not only the necessary references, but actual high-quality illustrations
of such very similar art-work from Asia and from the Americas, Randy.
: and what forms of
: city-states existed in Asia and Oceania during this period?
Many forms, I would say.
: Additionally, your hypothesis that a group carried influences from Asia
: and/or Oceania to the lands of the Olmecs--and this has been extended in
: prior posts to cover contact with the maya, Toltec, Quechua and Amarya
: peoples of Peru, *et al*, would necessitate some long-standing contact.
Why not?
: Given the propensity of Native American groups throughout the Americas to
: borrow those things from other groups which they feel are beneficial, and
: this includes new vocabulary, where are the linguistic reminders in the
: Central American groups' languages?
Such linguistic reminders remained. I have to go back to the volumes I
cited already, but they've been pointed out among the names of plants,
and also names of sailing craft. The sailing craft of the West Coast S.
and N. American natives were _remarkably similar_ to the ones of Asia and
Oceania. The linguistic connections are especially clear in the case of
N. American West Coast tribes (Washington State and Brit. Columbia). In
this case, the diffusion is pretty well obvious.
Regards,
Yuri.
--
#% Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto %#
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness === W. Allen
Subject: Re:Early Human occupation of Southern Mesopotamia:
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:02:48 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <51f1fm$4f5@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
writes:
>
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>" There is no archaeological evidence for any human occupation
>>>>>>in southern Mesopotamia before the "Obeid 0" level "
>>
>
>>The issue is whether the Ubaid pottery found at some forty sites
>>along the Gulf coast starting at Faikala and ranging as far south
>>as Quatar and as far inland as Ain Dar, and Hofuf is evidence of
>>settlement or trade. You deny it is evidence of trade and therefore
>>must subscribe to the theory that it is early evidence of settlement
>>which extends the Ubaid territory and southern mesopotamia as far south
>>as any settled part of modern Saudi Arabia.
>>>>>
>
>Look, to put it as simply as possible, the earliest occupation
>that has been found in southern Mesopotamia has been labeled
>Ubaid/Obeiod 0 precisely because it is found in a layer right
>under what had hitherto been considered Ubaid 1.
Perhaps you are confusing "occupation" with "settlement".
Do you deny that their are paleolithic sites at Ur and Eridu
and Kish, which predate the Ubaid levels with their evidence
of "civilization"?
Do you realise that it is a very different thing to claim
as some do that "Civilization first grew upon the alluvial
lands of the Tigris and Euphrates", (Nayeem, PPAP, p 30)
and to insist that is "the earliest occupation that has
been found in southern Mesopotamia"?
"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been inhabited since the lower
Paleolithic. It is rich in remains of the early stone age" IBID
"Cultural evidence of the presence of man in Saudi Arabia begins more
effectively with the Acheulian which is dated approximately 75,000 - 200,000
years ago. Small and large assemblages consisting of typologically
unspecialized artifacts and includding large crudely made hand axes, picks,
choppers, cleavers, and other tools have been found widely distributed and
indicate the presence of other earlier cultural strata. However earlier type
of pebble tools have also been discovered in Saudi Arabia."IBID
>What does the fact that Ubaid pottery had been found in the Gulf have
>to do with the fact that Ubaid 0 is still the earliest known occupation in
>southern Mesopotamia? Do you know of any older? IF so, you are the only
>person that does.
"The Paleolithic sites in Arabia are of several kinds:
(1) habitation sites in the open - the margins of the great deserts nafud in
the north and Rub Al-khali in the south, peripheries of the Rub al-Khali
around the oasis of Yabrin in the plateaus, drainage system of wadis, wadi
terraces in the subkhas, near the coasts etc;
(2) in rock shelters
(3) quarry factory sites where raw material was available;
(4) sites having elements of the first three catagories of sites;
(5) on higher elevations near jebels and dikes, overlooking wadis and the
plains below;
(6)on the lower slopes of jebels, dikes and lava flows;
(7) near the lakes and water falls; on the high deflated lake bed and even
the shore of the lake bed
(8) sites of small assembledge open air but now under debris
(9) sites of derived material in geological strata deposits in lakes wadis
rivers, and
(10) on erosion surfaces.
The factors for the distribution of stone age sites in Arabia
are fossil ecologiocal settings of ancient lacustrine lake beds,
extinct wadi drainage systems and raised terraces.
The entire stone age settlements in Arabia were dependent on
the enviornmental and geomorphalogical process of change
occuring within Arabia since the Pleistocene.
(Zahrins et al, 1980: 13, 1981:15f, 1982:29;
Gilmore et al, 1982:8-12;
Whalen et al 1983:9, 1984:9)"
IBID
steve
Subject: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:25:37 GMT
>>The title malikum used with lugal
>
>>First: The root of Lugal is Lu = man
>
>>Fellow / Lu
>>Human / Lu
>>Human Being / Lu-Lu
>>People / Lu
>>Man / Lu
>>Man / Lu
>>Man / Lu-Lu
>>Man / Lu-U-Lu
>>Man (treacherous) / Lu-Lul
>>Treacherous / Lul-La
>>Treachery / Lul
>
>>Consider the adjective Mah = Great
>
>>Numerous / Mah
>>Great / Mah
>>Other senses of the suffix other than great
>>Boat / Ma (make a boat)
>>Boatman / Ma-La (make a course)
>>Burn (to) / Ma (make a fire)
>
>>Exalted / Mah
>>Exalted / Mah
>
>>Prophet / Lu-Mah
>
>>I think Lugal is composed from
>>Man / Lu
>>and
>>Place (to) / Gal to get
>>Owner / Lugal
>>King / Lugal
>
>>Kingdom / Nam-Lu-Gal
>>Kings / Lugal-Ene
>>Kingship / Nam-Lugal
>
>>King (big man) / Lugal (The owner of the place)
>
>>I think the root of malikum is "Prince"
>
>>modified by Mah= Great
>>and lu = man
>>with
>>Prince / I-Ku
>>Great - Man - Prince = mah-lu-I-ku
>>and perhaps with the adjective; kum = Hot
>>[kum = hot; as in (burn, eat, consume; passionate, a leader)]
>>Hot / Kum (-Ma)
>>Leader / I-Ku
>>Leader / Ku
>>Consume / Ku
>>Food / Ku
>>Judge / Ku
>>Livelihood / Ku
>>Eat (to give) / Ku
>>Eat(to) / Ku
>>Determiner / Ku
>>Treacherous leader or false prohet ku-lul-la, kul-la, killa, killer
>
>>Man (treacherous) / Lu-Lul
>>Treacherous / Lul-La
>>Treachery / Lul
>
>
>>Mah-lu-I-ku-kum = Ma[h]L[u]I-K[u]Kum = malikum
>
>To say that this is all rubbish is an understatement.
Ah, an excellent refutation well documented and full
of facts with which to counter my hypothesis...
>You seem to have no inkling as to comparative Semitics,
I have presented a list of examples from an English/Sumerian
Dictionary. If "Lu" does not mean "Man" in Summerian
and "Gal" does not mean place, then Michael Roaf is
wrong and you should go chide him for giving me the wrong
information. Michael Roaf CAM "The Origins of Writing", p 70
>the structure of Semitic roots, nor do you even know what
>word is from what language!
Hmmm, the word "lugal", this is not used by more than
one language to mean "king", "govenor", "great man"
and generally the more literal "owner of the place"?
>mlk is the root and has nothing to do with kum,
>which is Sumerian,
Well, as I pointed out, I used an English/Summerian
dictionary so I am not too supprised to find that my
roots were Summerian. Now the fact that you think I
am confusing languages because the root you choose comes
from a different language, why doesn't that suprise me?
steve
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:59:12
In article <51h3l1$i0v@shore.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>Subject: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
>Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:25:37 GMT
>Hmmm, the word "lugal", this is not used by more than
>one language to mean "king", "govenor", "great man"
>and generally the more literal "owner of the place"?
No, it is not used by more than one language. It is only used in Sumerian.
The Akkadian word for king is sharrum and in West Semitic languages the root
mlk, with different vocalizations and some sound changes is used. Show us one
instance of LUGAL being borrowed into another language, if you please!
>>mlk is the root and has nothing to do with kum,
>>which is Sumerian,
>Well, as I pointed out, I used an English/Summerian
>dictionary so I am not too supprised to find that my
>roots were Summerian. Now the fact that you think I
>am confusing languages because the root you choose comes
>from a different language, why doesn't that suprise me?
What in the world are you talking about?? You used Sumerian kum as part of
the etymology of Eblaite malikum! One is Sumerian and the other Eblait, a
completely unrelated Semitic language!