baphomet

Originally posted by pepsi78
Your question has nothing to do with LUS...

It most certainly does.

It is obvious you do not unerstand Latin declinations. Right?

If you did you could answer this:

Porcellam=(fill in the blank)

Porcellis=(fill in the blank)

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

'Porcel' is not a word in Latin, maybe in Ficto-Latin. You are so sad.

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

Let me explain. The words I posted above are declinations of the suffix '-lus' and '-ellus' and all mean something similar. You would have known that if you understood Latin. You have been exposed as a liar and a fraud for claiming that you understood latin when in fact you do not.

'Porcel' is not a word in Latin, maybe in Ficto-Latin. You are so sad.

Porcel is the root word of procel-lus. Lus being a surffix.

www.houseofnames.com...
Although the Irish had their own system of hereditary surnames and the
settlers brought with them their own Anglo-Norman naming practices, the
two traditions generally worked well together. The name Porcel is an occupational
surname, a form of hereditary name that existed in both cultures long
before the invaders arrived, but more common to the Anglo-Norman
culture.

It's a pig, it was a pig from long a go, before any influence.

Let me explain. The words I posted above are declinations of the suffix '-lus' and '-ellus' and all mean something similar. You would have known that if you understood Latin. You have been exposed as a liar and a fraud for claiming that you understood latin when in fact you do not.

Ellus just like PORC"EL"-LUS is a he pig.


Surffixes were added by the romans with the classical roman dictionary. You can see the roots and the suffix.

LUS does not modify the gender I'm sorry, EL=HE.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Porcel is the root word of procel-lus. Lus being a surffix.

Although the Irish had their own system of hereditary surnames and the
settlers brought with them their own Anglo-Norman naming practices, the
two traditions generally worked well together. The name Porcel is an occupational
surname, a form of hereditary name that existed in both cultures long
before the invaders arrived, but more common to the Anglo-Norman
culture.

It's a pig, it was a pig from long a go, before any influence.

There is no word 'porcel' in Latin but I am happy to see that you used a Irish source to prove me wrong. How juevenile.

Let me repost these since I think you missed them:

Porcellam=(fill in the blank)

Porcellis=(fill in the blank)

It is obvious to everyone now that you are a fraud and an imposter when it comes to stating that you understood Latin. You can not even give the defintion of two rather simple words that are related to the word you claim to understand. Why did you pretend to understand Latin when you did not? You should truly be ashamed of your childish behavior. Well, at least you will always have your Ficto-Latin.

What does 'porcellam' mean?

What does 'porcellis' mean?

These are not suffixes

en.wiktionary.org...:Latin_suffixes

'lam and lis are not part of the list.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

You got the answer.
And second who cares what they mean were talking about LUS from EL-LUS.

I presume
Piglets ? As in pigs ?

Remember, porcel=he pig.

Originally posted by pepsi78
These are not suffixes

No, they are words with the same suffix, now what do they mean?

and lis are not part of the list.

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

Sorry Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, they are. See below:

Number Singular Plural
Case Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative -ellus -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella
genitive -ellī -ellae -ellī -ellōrum -ellārum -ellōrum
dative -ellō -ellae -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
accusative -ellum -ellam -ellum -ellōs -ellās -ella
ablative -ellō -ellā -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
vocative -elle -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella

You got the answer.
And second who cares what they mean were talking about LUS from EL-LUS.

Because it proves that if you can not answer these simple questions you are a fraud.

I presume
Piglets ? As in pigs ?

What gender?

Remember, porcel=he pig.]

Remember, 'porcel' is not a word in real Latin (maybe in Ficto-Latin), 'porcus' is a male pig.

Number Singular Plural
Case Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative -ellus -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella
genitive -ellī -ellae -ellī -ellōrum -ellārum -ellōrum
dative -ellō -ellae -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
accusative -ellum -ellam -ellum -ellōs -ellās -ella
ablative -ellō -ellā -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
vocative -elle -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella

What I see is suffixes additions of "EL"

Yes but LUS does not change it's gender, EL is masculine

EL= can be translated as also ILUMM from ILLUMINATION. Masculine.
The root word is masculine.

This can be seen anywhere.
Spanish:

www.espanol-ingles.com.mx...
* use el with masculine nouns;
* use la with feminine nouns;
* use el immediately before feminine nouns that begin with a stressed 'a' vowel (el agua).

You are just not comfortable knowing you are wrong.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes but LUS does not change it's gender, EL is masculine

Sorry Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, but all of the suffixes below have the letters 'el' in them. Including the feminine and neuter declinations. Why is that? Maybe if you knew how to answer my previous questions you would have an idea, but you do not because you do not understand Latin. Maybe you can quote another Irish source to prove this wrong.

Number Singular Plural
Case Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative -ellus -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella
genitive -ellī -ellae -ellī -ellōrum -ellārum -ellōrum
dative -ellō -ellae -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
accusative -ellum -ellam -ellum -ellōs -ellās -ella
ablative -ellō -ellā -ellō -ellīs -ellīs -ellīs
vocative -elle -ella -ellum -ellī -ellae -ella

You are just not comfortable knowing you are wrong.

I am certainly not wrong about you being a fraud. You could not even give the description of two fairly common Latin words that any first-year student would know. Do you enjoy being a fraud?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

LUS from ELLUS states clear, that LUS is a suffix to modify the age making the root younger. EL being masculine as the root. You can post all the suffixes all you like.

EL in latin can be compared to illie , illum, these are masculine terms, making el from the suffix the root masculine.

www.yourdictionary.com...
el, the (from Latin ille; see al-1 in Indo-European roots) + niño, child (from Old Spanish ninno, from Vulgar Latin *nīnnus).

EL=HE masculine

quizlet.com...
nominative, singular, masculine, that ille

We can now move on with the thread, since you blocked it, I had to fix it so we can move on.

IT's the same thing where ever you look AL=EL in arabic.

reply to post by pepsi78


hola senor! Espanol es no Latin. Es both dos different languages! Venetian es no Latin either. You so sad senor. Only Latin es Latin. Aye aye aye.

reply to post by fordrew


No look up, as I told your masonic friend it's EL+suffix in LATIN.

EL=MASCULIN. ille=Masculin
EL=illie.

EL+suffix are Latin words.
ELLUM is a HE in latin.

reply to post by pepsi78

I have red the tablets.

I'm not convinced that you have, and I am utterly convinced that IF you have, then you have not understood what you've read.

The abzu is not what you say.

Oh yes - in fact it is all three things that I've said. The Deity/place, the temple of Enki, and the freeshwater areas on the land.

No , Marduk is only related to Babylon, the myths of marduk from babylon with the mother goddess do not match

Which is WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU. Marduk is a Babylonian combination of the Sumerian gods Ninurta and Asarluhi. Let me try it this way:
If I have two ingredients in the pantry, they are originally separate ingredients. Such as, say, an apple and some sugar.
If I then take the apple and sugar, combine them in cooking, and come out with a candied apple, it is now, at a later date, a single candied apple, originally made of two ingredients.

The dragon is not the abzu, tiamat nammu is the dragon. You are mixing Nammu with the Abzu, she is in deed the serpent.

For the SUMERIANS the dragon WAS Abzu/Kur/Asag. Nammu was not the dragon. Only later, as Tiamat, did she become the dragon.

Yes, and this is why some sumerian and babylonian stories do not connect.

They DO connect, but they do so organically, through various influences over time. The Assyrians and Babylonians, the Hittites etc. I think you're expecting them to be repeated in exactly the same manner, and if not, you cannot see the connections. I'm afraid that is not how cultures evolve. I've told you time and again, look for the nuances, or you'll miss everything.

I have red them, the abzu is a resting place. Enki sleeps in it. he is woken up by the (nammu) to start creating humans. It's nothing like the enuma elish, no battle, everything is made from the abzu.

Again, if you've read them, you haven't understood them.
Everything is made from the life-giving substance inside Enki's TEMPLE Abzu.
Enki dwells in his TEMPLE Abzu.
This is neither the deity/place Abzu, nor the freshwater areas on the land Abzu.
You simply have to learn the distinctions.
Stop thinking that the Babylonian epic of creation should repeat the Sumerian stories in an exact fashion, this is not how it works. Learn how cultures change and absorb each other's mythology.

Originally posted by pepsi78
EL in latin can be compared to illie , illum, these are masculine terms, making el from the suffix the root masculine.

Sorry Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, there is no word 'el' in Latin, it only exists in Ficto-Latin where you will find other words such as 'porcel' which you claim means 'pig'

(from Latin ille; see al-1 in Indo-European roots)

You will recall that I mentioned this word (ille) about 3 or 4 pages ago. You were too busy with Ficto-Latin that you must have missed this.

EL=HE masculine

quizlet.com...
nominative, singular, masculine, that ille

We can now move on with the thread, since you blocked it, I had to fix it so we can move on.

Sorry, no word 'el' there. Maybe you can use the Ficto-Latin Dictionary to show us the definition

IT's the same thing where ever you look AL=EL in arabic.

Really?!? Arabic too! Wow, maybe you can show everyone the Latin dictionary defintion and finally put things to bed.

Originally posted by pepsi78
EL+suffix are Latin words.
ELLUM is a HE in latin.

In that case what does 'porcellum' mean Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster? Be specific.

I'm not convinced that you have, and I am utterly convinced that IF you have, then you have not understood what you've read.

I have red sumerian tablets.

Oh yes - in fact it is all three things that I've said. The Deity/place, the temple of Enki, and the freeshwater areas on the land.

No the Abzu is the fresh waters that run under the world, it is a resting place. Enki comes from the Abzu, like exiting a square door filled with water. The abzu is the abyss.

This can be seen from the words "AB" there are stories with angles such as "AB"-AD-ON, abadon, that resides in the abyss. It is clear that the ABZU is used for sleep.

This is turn comes from the famos fishes that make ZzZz sounds by sleeping in the water.

Enki is a goat -fish, it's a fish.

Enki is not the ABZU, you are trying to link the abzu with the dark side as a force.
You must understand that you have twisted things, the dark side is total peace, the light side is awake, fairness, activity, duty, work. Who is awake has a job to do. As we work in the day time jobs and carry out tasks.

The abzu is not what you think, that is Nammu/tiamat.

Which is WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU. Marduk is a Babylonian combination of the Sumerian gods Ninurta and Asarluhi. Let me try it this way:

That is your imagination, there is no myths linking them as doing the same thing or having the same happening like addonis and the boar, or addonis and venus and the trip to the underworld for 6 months that match with the other mythological characters.

For the SUMERIANS the dragon WAS Abzu/Kur/Asag. Nammu was not the dragon. Only later, as Tiamat, did she become the dragon.

Abzu is not a dragon, that is Tiamat, also take a look in sumerian artifacts and scluptures and carvings, there is no depiction of the Abzu as a deity., Nammu is depicted as a deity in sumerian, she is the primordial sea.

Again, if you've read them, you haven't understood them.
Everything is made from the life-giving substance inside Enki's TEMPLE Abzu.
Enki dwells in his TEMPLE Abzu.

Yes resides in the abzu, go's there to sleep at night.

Stop thinking that the Babylonian epic of creation should repeat the Sumerian stories in an exact fashion, this is not how it works. Learn how cultures change and absorb each other's mythology.

The babylonian epic has nothing to do with the summerian creation myth.

With Nubiru, Marduk and such other things.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
EL+suffix are Latin words.
ELLUM is a HE in latin.

In that case what does 'porcellum' mean Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster? Be specific.

It's a pig, it's what it means, as in a neutral pig with no sex.
But you are forggeting that the surffix modified it.
The lum modified it to be neutral. the Lus does not modify the gender like Lum does, only the age.
So other suffixes do modify the root word, but LUS only modifies the age, leaving the root with it's meaning.

This in terms of Latin what you stated there wold be a person, or an animal, a person or a animal is neutral
The suffix modified the meaning. LUM modifies it to be neutral. LUS modifies it to be Young, LA modifies it to be feminine.

What you fail to see is that LUS does not modify it to be masculine, it only modifies the age. The root is masculine it's self.

EL=masculine form.

It could be that the neutral form is of a he. It just shows that EL is a masculine source.
As a person is a man, and there is men kind. It could be used as a neutral source and as a masculine I presume. This brings us to :LA" ELA.

Ela in ancient culture is the mother goddess and represents the earth, this with the phonician EL.

It's EL and ELA, he and she,.

reply to post by pepsi78

I have red sumerian tablets

If you've read them, as I said, you haven't understood them.

No the Abzu is the fresh waters that run under the world, it is a resting place. Enki comes from the Abzu, like exiting a square door filled with water. The abzu is the abyss.

You are mixing up Enki's TEMPLE Abzu, with the Deity/place Abzu.
AGAIN.

Enki is a goat -fish, it's a fish.

Enki is not the ABZU, you are trying to link the abzu with the dark side as a force.
You must understand that you have twisted things, the dark side is total peace, the light side is awake, fairness, activity, duty, work. Who is awake has a job to do. As we work in the day time jobs and carry out tasks.

The abzu is not what you think, that is Nammu/tiamat.

I've tried to explain this, but here we go, again:
I'm not talking about Enki.
I am not saying that Enki is the Deity/place Abzu.
I am saying that Enki had a temple called the Abzu.
Enki is a different deity to Abzu.
His temple is not the same Abzu as the Deity/place Abzu/Kur/Asag.

That is your imagination, there is no myths linking them as doing the same thing or having the same happening like addonis and the boar, or addonis and venus and the trip to the underworld for 6 months that match with the other mythological characters.

And this is why you have trouble understanding the history of mythology; many, many influences come to bear over time. For two myths from different times to be connected, they do not need to be identical. As I pointed out, nuances are very important.

also take a look in sumerian artifacts and scluptures and carvings, there is no depiction of the Abzu as a deity., Nammu is depicted as a deity in sumerian, she is the primordial sea.

Yes, I told you that She is the primordial sea. But She is not the dragon. Abzu/Kur/Asag is indeed depicted as a deity, most notably in a scene with what is assumed to be both Ninurta and Inanna. Take a look at Henri Frankfort's Cylinder Seals, plates XIXa, XXIa and XVIIIj.

The babylonian epic has nothing to do with the summerian creation myth.

With Nubiru, Marduk and such other things.

NO. I've already pointed out the Sumerian myth that influenced the Babylonian epic of creation.
Go back and read my posts, I did put it as clearly as possible.

If you've read them, as I said, you haven't understood them.

Understanding them does not equal agreeing with you.

You are mixing up Enki's TEMPLE Abzu, with the Deity/place Abzu.
AGAIN.

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.

I've tried to explain this, but here we go, again:
I'm not talking about Enki.
I am not saying that Enki is the Deity/place Abzu.
I am saying that Enki had a temple called the Abzu.
Enki is a different deity to Abzu.
His temple is not the same Abzu as the Deity/place Abzu/Kur/Asag.

Because entering the abzu was done thru a temple, a door.


Here is Enki exiting the abzu

And this is why you have trouble understanding the history of mythology; many, many influences come to bear over time. For two myths from different times to be connected, they do not need to be identical. As I pointed out, nuances are very important.

I don't have trouble

Yes, I told you that She is the primordial sea. But She is not the dragon. Abzu/Kur/Asag is indeed depicted as a deity, most notably in a scene with what is assumed to be both Ninurta and Inanna. Take a look at Henri Frankfort's Cylinder Seals, plates XIXa, XXIa and XVIIIj.

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.

NO. I've already pointed out the Sumerian myth that influenced the Babylonian epic of creation.
Go back and read my posts, I did put it as clearly as possible.

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.

Step number one.

Marduk decides to create human beings, but needs blood and bone from which to fashion them. Ea advises that only one of the gods should die to provide the materials for creation, the one who was guilty of plotting evil against the gods

In sumerian culture is she that creates the humans not Marduk. Ea/Enki advices her not marduk.

Marduk inquires of the assembly of the gods about who incited Tiamat’s rebellion, and was told that it was her husband Kingu. Ea kills Kingu and uses his blood to fashion mankind so they can perform menial tasks for the gods.

None of this happens in the sumerian creation stories. Tiamat/Nammu does not rebel.

The creation of man

They bound him, holding him before Ea.
They imposed on him his punishment and severed his blood vessels.
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.

In sumerian epic the clay is mixed in the abyss, the abzu and people are created.

Here the original epic of creation

www.piney.com...
She gave directions for purification and cries for clemency,
the things that cool divine wrath,
perfected the divine service and the august offices,
said to the surrounding regions: "Let me institute peace there!"
When An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaga
fashioned the dark-headed people (not marduk) (there is no battle with tiamat)
they had made the small animals that come up from out of the earth,
come from the earth in abundance
and had let there be, as it befits it, gazelles
wild donkeys, and four-footed beasts in the desert.

Another summerian creation epic.

faculty.gvsu.edu...
Nammu, who is either the sea or the goddess of the riverbed, goes to her son Enki, who is asleep in the deep (the Apsu) and entreats him to rise from his bed and "fashion servants of the gods" (Kramer, History Begins 109). Enki, who after all is the god of wisdom, thinks of the germinating powers of the clay and water of the abyss, and he tells Nammu to have some womb-goddesses pinch off this clay and have some "princely fashioners" thicken it, so she can mold it or give birth to it:

Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
It is man . . . . (Kramer, History Begins 109)

Not like Babylonian at all. There is no legacy, only that the characters are the same, but also bear different names, the story line is another and does not match with the creation story from summeria.

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's a pig, it's what it means, as in a neutral pig with no sex.

Only partly correct and it further demonstrates your lack of knowledge in Latin.

It also means the singular accusative of a male piglet. This alone makes your whole retarded theory that 'el' equals 'him' unsupportable. If your explanation it can only be one thing, but what you fail to realize is that Latin does not work the same way as modern English (which you also no mastery of). The letters 'el' appear in both declinations and do not indicate gender so futher words would be needed to determine if the speaker were refering to a gender neutral piglet or a male piglet.

But you are forggeting that the surffix modified it.

And you do not realize, my Ficto-Latin Fraudster, that the same suffix (not surffix) can be used in several instances.

The lum modified it to be neutral. the Lus does not modify the gender like Lum does, only the age.
So other suffixes do modify the root word, but LUS only modifies the age, leaving the root with it's meaning.

Perhaps this is how declinations work in Ficto-Latin, but in real Latin this is not the case as is obvious by your failing to recognize that different declinations can share endings.

[qupte]This in terms of Latin what you stated there wold be a person, or an animal, a person or a animal is neutral
The suffix modified the meaning. LUM modifies it to be neutral. LUS modifies it to be Young, LA modifies it to be feminine.

Wrong Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, there are cases where all three cases or gender (male, female, neuter) can have the SAME suffix.

What you fail to see is that LUS does not modify it to be masculine, it only modifies the age. The root is masculine it's self.

I love when I guy who only knows pretend Latin tries to educate people about real Latin. You are unbelievably arrogant.

It could be that the neutral form is of a he...

Or it could be that you have no clue. Stick with Ficto-Latin where at least you have control over the rules. It is kind of hard to change the rules of a language that is over two thousand years old (especially when you do not know them).

Only partly correct and it further demonstrates your lack of knowledge in Latin.

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

It also means the singular accusative of a male piglet. This alone makes your whole retarded theory that 'el' equals 'him' unsupportable.

I don';t see how it does, neutral can be masculine as in a man. It is not a retarted theory.
Lus does not change the gender, you have the documentation on the wiki, it only makes the noun diminuative look younger.

So let me help you with lum

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

Same as:

Suffix

-la

1. nominative feminine singular of -lus
2. nominative neuter plural of -lus
3. accusative neuter plural of -lus
4. vocative feminine singular of -lus
5. vocative neuter plural of -lus

-lā

1. ablative feminine singular of -lus

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

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

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.

And you do not realize, mt Ficto-Latin Fraudster, that the same suffix (not surffix) can be used in several instances.

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

Perhaps this is how declinations work in Ficto-Latin, but in real Latin this is not the case as is obvious by your failing to recognize that different declinations can share endings.

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

Wrong Mr. Ficto-Latin Fraudster, there are cases where all three cases or gender (male, female, neuter) can have the SAME suffix.

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

I love when I guy who only knows pretend Latin tries to educate people about real Latin. You are unbelievably arrogant.

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.

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

Now remember adamskiel and adamskiela, first is adamskiel the young then adamskiela the old because this is how langueges function, from a HE- to a HE-R from man to woman, from Male to fe-male.
Of course you have made a jack...out of you, by your self, I did not do it, I don't like insulting people.