New_ark_n_j New Jerusalem - September 17, 2010 add/view comments (0) |
|
|
|
|
Will You Be Ready THE ANUNNAQI are those beings who were sent down to the Planet Qi (Earth), known to you as angels. The word Anunnaqi means “those who ANU sent from heaven to Earth. ” They are called NETERU, meaning “guardians” by the Egyptians. The Anunnaqi Eloheem are the “mighty ones.” In Ashuric/Syraic (Arabic) the “mighty ones” are referred to as Jabbariyns. In Aramic (Hebrew) the “mighty ones” are referred to as Gibboreem. The very elite among the Anunnaqi are called the DINNEER, or the DINGIR, meaning “the righteous, or divine ones of the rocket ship,” or ILU, meaning “the lofty ones” in Akkadian. The Anunnaqi, Eloheem, were acting as intermediaries between Earth and NIBIRU. They came to the planet Earth in order to find gold and other resources, to take back to their planet which is the 8th planet—Rizq, of the 19th galaxy called Illyuwn meaning “on high,” which was on its way to destruction due to constant rays from the three suns UTU, APSU, and SHAMASH. The Anunnaqi arrived on the planet Qi by way of passenger crafts called shams. Their planet-sized ship Nibiru, which means “planet which crosses the skies, or planet of the crossing” travels at 1,008,600,272 feet per second, the speed of light.Nibiru is about 2½ to 3 times the size of the planet Earth. Nibiru has a crystal dome giving it the ability to break down light, it has solar panels that are the size of pin’s heads or less than that and can generate millions and millions of watts of energy. Sumerian ( EME. IR15 "native tongue") was the language of ancient Sumer, spoken in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) since at least the 4th millennium BCE. During the third millennium BCE, there developed a very intimate cultural symbiosis between the Sumerians and the Akkadians, which included widespread bilingualism. The influence of Sumerian on Akkadian (and vice versa) is evident in all areas, from lexical borrowing on a massive scale, to syntactic, morphological, and phonological convergence. This has prompted scholars to refer to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millennium as a sprachbund. Akkadian gradually replaced Sumerian as a spoken language somewhere around the turn of the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE (the exact dating being a matter of debate), but Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Mesopotamia until the first century CE. Then, it was forgotten until the 19th century, when Assyriologists began deciphering the cuneiform inscriptions and excavated tablets left by these speakers. Sumerian is a language isolate. The history of written Sumerian can be divided into several periods. * Archaic Sumerian — 31st – 26th c. BCE * Old or Classical Sumerian – 26th – 23rd c. BCE * Neo-Sumerian — 23rd – 21st c. BCE * Late Sumerian — 20th – 18th c. BCE * Post-Sumerian — after 1700 BCE Archaic Sumerian is the earliest stage of inscriptions with linguistic content, beginning with the Jemdet Nasr (Uruk III) period from about the 31st to 30th centuries BCE. It succeeds the proto-literate period, which spans roughly the 35th to 30th centuries. Some versions of the chronology may omit the Late Sumerian phase and regard all texts written after 2000 BCE as Post-Sumerian. The term "Post-Sumerian" is meant to refer to the time when the language was already extinct and only preserved by Babylonians and Assyrians as a liturgical and classical language (for religious, artistic and scholarly purposes). The extinction has been traditionally dated approximately to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the last predominantly Sumerian state in Mesopotamia, about 2000 BCE. However, this date is very approximate, as many scholars have contended that Sumerian was already dead or dying as early as around 2100 BCE, by the beginning of the Ur III period, while others believe that Sumerian persisted as a spoken language in a small part of Southern Mesopotamia (Nippur and its surroundings) until as late as 1700 BCE. Whatever the status of spoken Sumerian between 2000 BCE and 1700 BCE, it is from this period that a particularly large amount of literary texts and bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical lists survive, especially from the scribal school of Nippur. This, along with the particularly intensive official and literary use of the language in Akkadian-speaking states during the same time, is the basis for the distinction between a Late Sumerian period and all subsequent time. Dialects Two varieties (dialects or sociolects) of Sumerian are recorded. The standard variety is called eme- ir ( pronounced). The other recorded variety is called eme-sal ( EME.SAL, possibly "fine tongue"), though often translated as "women's language" (the root sal can have several different meanings). Eme-sal is used exclusively by female characters in some literary texts (this may be compared to the female languages or language varieties that exist or have existed in some cultures, e.g. among the Chukchis and the Caribs, and to women's use of Prakrit as opposed to men's use of Sanskrit in some of the Indian classics); in addition, it is dominant in certain genres of cult songs etc.. The special features of eme-sal are mostly phonological (e.g. m is often used instead of as in me vs standard e26, "I"), but words different from the standard language are also used (e.g. ga-ša-an vs standard nin, "lady"). Sumerian words adapted into Akkadian were sometimes of the eme-sal variety, so that it may have been the more colloquial variety. Classification Sumerian is an agglutinative language, meaning that words could consist of a chain of more or less clearly distinguishable and separable affixes and/or morphemes. Sumerian is a split ergative language. It behaves as a nominative-accusative language in the 1st and 2nd person of present-future tense/incompletive aspect (a.k.a. marû-conjugation), but as ergative-absolutive in most other forms of the indicative mood. Similar patterns are found in a large number of unrelated split ergative languages (see more examples at split ergativity). In Sumerian the ergative case is marked by the suffix -e and the absolutive case (as in most ergative languages) by no suffix at all (the so-called "zero suffix"). Example of the ergative pattern: lugal-e e2 mu-un-du3 "the king built the house"; lugal ba-gen "the king went" (the transitive subject is expressed differently from the intransitive subject, as it takes the suffix -e). Example of the nominative-accusative pattern: i3-du-un (< *i3-du-en) = I shall go; e2 ib2-du3-un (< *ib2-du3-en) = I shall build the house (the transitive subject is expressed in the same way as the intransitive subject, as both verbs takes the same 1st person singular suffix -en). Sumerian distinguishes the grammatical genders animate/inanimate (personal/impersonal), but it does not have separate male/female gender pronouns. Sumerian has also been claimed to have two tenses (past and present-future), but these are currently described as completive and incompletive aspects instead. There are a large number of cases - nominative, ergative, genitive, dative, locative, comitative, equative ("as, like"), terminative ("to"), ablative ("from"), etc. (the exact list varies somewhat in different grammars). Another characteristic feature of Sumerian is the large number of homophones (words with the same sound structure but different meanings), which are perhaps pseudo-homophones, as there might have been differences in pronunciation (such as tone) that are unknown. The different homophones (or, more precisely, the different cuneiform signs that denote them) are marked with different numbers by convention, "2" and "3" being replaced by acute accent and grave accent diacritics respectively . For example: du = "go", du3 = dù = "build". Sumerian has been the subject of controversial proposals purportedly identifying it as related genetically with almost every known agglutinative language. As the most ancient written language, it has a peculiar prestige, and such proposals sometimes have a nationalistic background and generally enjoy little popularity among linguists because of their unverifiability. Examples of suggested related languages include: * Dravidian languages (see Elamo-Dravidian) * Turkic languages by Julius Oppert and Adam Falkenstein * Hurro-Urartian languages (see Subarian, Alarodian) * Munda languages (Igor M. Diakonoff) * Nostratic languages (Allan Bomhard) Writing system
The symbol Ω (lower case letter) Sumerian cuneiform Development Letter sent by the high-priest Lu'enna to the king of Lagash (maybe Urukagina), informing him of his son's death in combat, c. 2400 BCE, found in Telloh (ancient Ngirsu). The Sumerian language is the earliest known written language. The "proto-literate" period of Sumerian writing spans ca. 3500 to 3000 BCE. In this period, records are purely logographic, with no linguistic or phonological content. The oldest document of the proto-literate period is the Kish tablet. Falkenstein (1936) lists 939 signs used in the proto-literate period (late Uruk, 34th to 31st centuries) Records with unambiguously linguistic content, identifiably Sumerian, are those found at Jemdet Nasr, dating to the 31st or 30th century BC. From about 2600 BC, the logographic symbols were generalized using a wedge-shaped stylus to impress the shapes into wet clay. This archaic cuneiform ("wedge-shaped") mode of writing co-existed with the pre-cuneiform archaic mode. Deimel (1922) lists 870 signs used in the Early Dynastic IIIa period (26th century). In the same period the large set of logographic signs had been simplified into a logosyllabic script comprising several hundred signs. Rosengarten (1967) lists 468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian) Lagash. The pre-Sargonian period of the 26th to 24 centuries BCE is the "Classical Sumerian" stage of the language. The cuneiform script is adapted to Akkadian writing from the mid 3rd millennium. Our knowledge of Sumerian is based on Akkadian glossaries. During the "Sumerian Renaissance" (Ur III) of the 21st century BC, Sumerian is written in already highly abstract cuneiform glyphs directly succeeded by Old Assyrian cuneiform. Transcription Transcription, in the context of cuneiform, is the process in which an epigraphist makes a line art drawing to show the signs on a clay tablet or stone inscription in a graphic form suitable for modern publication. Not all epigraphists are equally reliable, and before a scholar publishes an important treatment of a text, the scholar will often arrange to collate the published transcription against the actual tablet, to see if any signs, especially broken or damaged signs, should be represented differently. Transliteration is the process in which a Sumerologist decides how to represent the cuneiform signs in Roman script. Depending on the context, a cuneiform sign can be read either as one of several possible logograms, each of which corresponds to a word in the Sumerian spoken language, as a phonetic syllable (V, VC, CV, or CVC), or as a determinative (a marker of semantic category, such as occupation or place). (See the article Transliterating cuneiform languages). Some Sumerian logograms were written with multiple cuneiform signs. These logograms are called diri-spellings, after the logogram 'diri' which is written with the signs SI and A. The text transliteration of a tablet will show just the logogram, such as the word 'diri', not the separate component signs. History of decipherment Cuneiform The key to reading logosyllabic cuneiform came from the Behistun inscription, a trilingual cuneiform inscription written in Old Persian, Elamite and Akkadian. In 1838, building on the 1802 work of Georg Friedrich Grotefend, Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) was able to decipher the Old Persian section of the Behistun inscriptions, using his knowledge of modern Persian. When he recovered the rest of the text in 1843, he and others were gradually able to translate the Elamite and Akkadian sections of it, starting with the 37 signs he had deciphered for the Old Persian. Meanwhile, many more cuneiform texts were coming to light from archaeological excavations, mostly in the Semitic Akkadian language, which were duly deciphered. By 1850, however, Edward Hincks (1792–1866) came to suspect a non-Semitic origin for cuneiform. Semitic languages are structured according to consonantal forms, whereas cuneiform, when functioning phonetically, was a syllabary, binding consonants to particular vowels. Furthermore, no Semitic words could be found to explain the syllabic values given to particular signs. Sumerian In 1855 Rawlinson announced the discovery of non-Semitic inscriptions at the southern Babylonian sites of Nippur, Larsa, and Uruk. Julius Oppert suggested that a non-Semitic, "Turanian" language had preceded Akkadian in Mesopotamia, and that speakers of this language had developed the cuneiform script. In 1856, Hincks argued that the untranslated language was agglutinative in character. The language was called "Scythic" by some, and, confusingly, "Akkadian" by others. In 1869, Oppert proposed the name "Sumerian", based on the known title "King of Sumer and Akkad", reasoning that if Akkad signified the Semitic portion of the kingdom, Sumer might describe the non-Semitic annex. Credit for being first to scientifically treat a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian text belongs to Paul Haupt (1858–1926), who published Die sumerischen Familiengesetze (The Sumerian family laws) in 1879. Ernest de Sarzec (1832–1901) began excavating the Sumerian site of Tello (ancient Ngirsu, capital of the state of Lagash) in 1877, and published the first part of Découvertes en Chaldée with transcriptions of Sumerian tablets in 1884. The University of Pennsylvania began excavating Sumerian Nippur in 1888. A Classified List of Sumerian Ideographs by R. Brünnow appeared in 1889. The bewildering number and variety of phonetic values that signs could have in Sumerian led to an unfortunate detour in understanding the language — a Paris-based orientalist, Joseph Halévy, argued from 1874 onward that Sumerian was not a natural language, but rather a secret code (a cryptolect), and for over a decade the leading Assyriologists battled over this issue. For a dozen years, starting in 1885, even the great Friedrich Delitzsch accepted Halévy's arguments, not renouncing Halévy until 1897. François Thureau-Dangin working at the Louvre in Paris also made significant contributions to deciphering Sumerian with publications from 1898 to 1938, such as his 1905 publication of Les inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad. Charles Fossey at the Collège de France in Paris was another prolific and reliable scholar. His pioneering Contribution au Dictionnaire sumérien-assyrien, Paris 1905-1907, now available in whole at Google Books, turns out to provide the foundation for P. Anton Deimel's 1934 Sumerisch-Akkadisches Glossar (vol. III of Deimel's 4-volume Sumerisches Lexikon). In 1908, Stephen Langdon summarized the rapid expansion in knowledge of Sumerian and Akkadian vocabulary in the pages of Babyloniaca, a journal edited by Charles Virolleaud, in an article 'Sumerian-Assyrian Vocabularies', which reviewed a valuable new book on rare logograms by Bruno Meissner. Subsequent scholars have found Langdon's work, including his tablet transcriptions, to be not entirely reliable. In 1944, a more careful Sumerologist, Samuel Noah Kramer, provided a detailed and readable summary of the decipherment of Sumerian in his Sumerian Mythology accessible on the Internet. Friedrich Delitzsch published a learned Sumerian dictionary and grammar in the form of his Sumerisches Glossar and Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, both appearing in 1914. Delitzsch's student, Arno Poebel, published a grammar with the same title, Grundzüge der sumerischen Grammatik, in 1923, and for 50 years it would be the standard for students studying Sumerian. Poebel's grammar was finally superseded in 1984 on the publication of The Sumerian Language, An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure, by Marie-Louise Thomsen. The difficulty in translating Sumerian can be illustrated by a quote from Miguel Civil of the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, regarding a tablet for making beer: "Two previous attempts, by J.D. Prince in 1919 and M. Witzel in 1938, had produced less than satisfactory results. A line that now even a first year Sumerian student will translate "you are the one who spreads the roasted malt on a large mat (to cool)," was translated "thou real producer of the lightning, exalted functionary, mighty one!" by the first author, and "stärkest du mit dem Gugbulug(-Tranke) den Gross-Sukkal" ["strengthen thou with the Gugbulug (drink) the large Sukkal"] by the second." "Two developments during the fifties made possible a better understanding of Sumerian literature. In Chicago, Benno Landsberger was editing the Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. In Philadelphia, where I had been working before 1963, Samuel Noah Kramer was busy making available to scholars as many literary tablets as possible from the collections in Philadelphia, Istanbul, and Jena." Landsberger worked to publish important bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian lexical tablets from the Old Babylonian period, which have greatly helped our knowledge of Sumerian vocabulary. Kramer and Thorkild Jacobsen both increased our understanding of Sumerian by publishing and translating Sumerian literary texts. Phonology and grammar Typologically, as mentioned above, Sumerian is classified as an agglutinative split ergative language. Ever since its decipherment, the research of Sumerian has been made difficult not only by the lack of any native speakers, but also by the relative sparseness of linguistic data, the apparent lack of a closely related language, and the features of the writing system. Note: in the following, assumed phonological or morphological forms are presented between slashes //, while plain text is used for the standard Assyriological transcription of Sumerian. Most of the examples are unattested. Phonemic inventory Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is inevitably extremely flawed and incomplete because of the lack of native speakers, the transmission through the filter of Akkadian phonology and the difficulties posed by the cuneiform script. As I.M. Diakonoff observes, "when we try to find out the morphophonological structure of the Sumerian language, we must constantly bear in mind that we are not dealing with a language directly but are reconstructing it from a very imperfect mnemonic writing system which had not been basically aimed at the rendering of morphophonemics."
Jehoshua Ben-Pandira Yeshu ( in Hebrew) is a name that appears in a few anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud, and later as the name of the central character of the Toledot Yeshu narratives. The accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. A tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus regarded at least one of the accounts as a reference to the historical Jesus and the Church would later claim that the accounts were derogatory remarks directed at Jesus. Many modern critical scholars view at least some of them as references to the Christian, but not the historical, Jesus. With one exception, traditional or Orthodox Jewish commentators throughout the centuries rejected the view that the term referred to Jesus. Whatever the case may be, in the medieval Toledot Yeshu narratives, "Yeshu" is used to refer to the Christian Jesus. The term was revived in the 20th century as a name for Jesus in modern Israeli Hebrew. He was Muslim, and this is why he was killed TEHRAN, Iran – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks a “big lie” used by the U.S. as an excuse for the war on terror, state media reported. Ahmadinejad’s comments, made during an address to Intelligence Ministry staff, come amid escalating tensions between the West and Tehran over its disputed nuclear program. They show that Iran has no intention of toning itself down even with tighter sanctions looming because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. “September 11 was a big lie and a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state TV. He called the attacks a “complicated intelligence scenario and act.” The Iranian president has questioned the official U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks before, but this is the first time he ventured to label it a “big lie.” In 2007, New York officials rejected Ahmadinejad’s request to visit the World Trade Center site while he was in the city for a U.N. meeting. The president also sparked an uproar when he said during a lecture in New York that the causes and conditions that led to the attacks, as well as who orchestrated them, still need to be examined. At the time, he also told Iranian state TV the attacks were “a result of mismanaging and inhumane managing of the world by the U.S,” and that Washington was using Sept. 11 as an excuse to attack others. He has also questioned the Sept. 11 death toll of around 3,000, claiming the Americans never published the victims’ names. On the 2007 anniversary of the attacks, the names of 2,750 victims killed in New York were read aloud at a memorial ceremony. RELATED STORIES Planted by the Republican Party |
|
