🚀 go-pugleaf

Some time ago, Jose Mallea Olaetxe <mallea@SCS.UNR.EDU> wrote:

>John,
>in your last posting you refer to Sumerian as an isolate, which prompted
>me to ask you if you know of Zacharia Sitchin's work. I believe he has
>written several, but I was just glancing at one book, where he quotes
>Sumerian left and right. According to the bibliography he is using, you
>would think he is not making any of it up.
>Do you know of Sitchin's work, and what do you think of his theories
>regarding the origin of the Sumerians, etc.? Thanks.
>JMallea



I've just seen this on sci.archaeology:


>In article <6vpf8f$gjp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, on Sun, 11 Oct 1998 05:21:19
>GMT, jrkitch@psci.net said...
>>
>> I have read most all of Sitchin's books concerning Nibiru
>> the Annunaki and his interpretation of ancient texts and
>> coming away impressed with the research involved but one
>> question comes up to me every single time; the human
>> element.
>>
>I agree in general with your comments.  I'd just like to add that Sitchin
>has his own unique interpretation of ancient texts.

>This URL is a link to a skeptical archive on Sitchin:

>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/zindex.html

>I've been assured by an academic who teaches Sumerian that anyone of his
>sophomore pupils in Sumerian could do a better translation than Sitchin.
>He was, maybe still is, head of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at
>the University of Michigan. He wrote:


>"First of all, I did point out that the whole shem is a sham, but here is
>one more go at this nonsense.
>On p. 139 S begins this incredible rubbish by translating the Sumerian
>verbal prefix mu- as if it were a noun.  That is like arguing that the /s/
>in "dogs" is not a plural marker. but means, "bathroom."   He seems to
>think that anytime the syllable /mu/  appears, it is the same thing.  That

>is like arguing that -ness in "goodness" is related to the Loch Nes
>monster@!
>On p. 140 he really does a doozy, rendering zag.mu.ku as "the bright Mu
>whic is afar."  This is news to everyone who thought that zagmu meant "new
>year" in Sumerian and ku (actually kug) meant "holy" or "pure," especially
>to the poor fellow who just  published a whole book on the word!  This is
>the holy processional barge for the new year festival!
>On p. 141 he invents a meaning for mu "that which raises straight" for
>which he provides not a shred of evidence.  That is followed  by five
>cuneiform signs which are meant to show the development of "mu." Only th
>first two are mu, the other three are completely different signs and have
>nothing to do with it at all. The final one on the left which he thinks is
>a conical chamber is actually a version of ninda (bread) or gar (to
>place), originally a representation of a beviled rim bowl, the standard
>ration bowl of the Uruk culture.
>  After more nonsense on p. 143 he says: mu or its Semitic
>derivatives shu-mu (that which is a mu), sham or shem....But the universal
>application of "name" to early texts that spoke of an object used in
>flying has obscured the true meaning of early records".
>This is truly mindboggling!  First, the root that comes out as shumu in
>Akkadian and shem in much later Hebrew is an old one, as attested by the
>fact that it occurs in other Semitic languages, including Arabic, as well
>in Ethiopic, that is in Afro-Asiatic outside of Semitic.  This means that
>it is older than any contact with Sumerian and likewise there are no loans
>from Sumerian in Ethiopic!  Just because two words have an m in them does
>not mean that they are related!
>You might believe that millions of people have misunderstood the Old
>Testament for thousands of years, you might also believe that  one of the
>most common verbal prefixes in Sumerian actually refers to spaceships, so
>that every other or so Sumerian phrase is about one thing only, including
>cattle accounts!
>If you do that, you would also have to believe that in the Near East today
>people speak about speceships to each other every day and we have never
>heard about it!   You might be interested to know that in modern Hebrew
>the word to name is indeed shem, and in Arabic it is ism, which derives
>from the same Semitic root!  Every day people say, "your name please," or
>so we think, but they are really talking about spaceships!
>It would be impossible to point out every single piece of rubbish in this
>book, but every page is full of such nonsense.  Enough already!"

>End quoted article.

>--
> Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
> Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@wxs.nl
Amsterdam