Questions on Akkadian and Baltic Languages - LexiLine Journal 268

The following questions on Akkadian were submitted to me concerning the relation of Akkadian to Latvian (i.e. Baltic)....

>Akkadian is listed as the first Semitic language.
>How can it be related to Latvian if Latvian isn't Semitic?

Semitic is a word first coined by August v. Schloezer only in the late 1700's of the modern era (1771). There is no such thing as a Semitic language (or people for that matter) - it is a fictional
construct.

Schloezer noted about the Baltic languages (on the basis of Latvian), that:

"Latvian is very European ... having many common root words with Slavic, Germanic, Latin and Greek; indeed, many Latvian words even have an unexpected similarity with Hebrew".
(Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte, J.J. Gebauer, Halle, 1771, p. 316, LexiLine translation from the German.)

This occurs because as I have discovered, "Temple Hebrew" (i.e. the most ancient Hebrew) is what we otherwise know as the Egyptian hieroglyphs, which have the same language root as Latvian, i.e. ancient Indo-European, viz. proto-Indo-European.

Sumerian is very close to Latvian. Akkadian is further removed because the Sumerians (from the North, i.e. Latvian ZIEMELI "northerners" = SUMERI) mixed with the southern Canaanite
populations, resulting in Akkadian. In Lithuanian the term GUDDA (= AKKAD) are the Byelo-Russians, i.e. a mixture of Baltic and Finno-Ugric peoples, similar to a mixture of Sumerian and Canaanite (Assyrian) whereby Gani or Ganini in Latvian means "shepherds" and this is the root of Canaan whereas Azhi, Azhuli (Assyri) means "goatherds" so the names Canaanite and Assyrian are virtually identical in their original meaning. In Latvian azis is a billy-goat and kaza is a goat so that the pastoral shepherd people of this region known as Kazak (Cossack) will also be related. I.e. these were the shepherds.

>I looked at the Akkadian and Sumerian goddesses. They don't
>resemble Baltic goddesses in name or attribute. If a group moves
>north to the Baltic, wouldn't they keep their same deities?

The group did not move north to the Baltic but came southward to Mesopotamia as the Sumerians, whereupon there was a mix with the southerners.

>Inanna/Ishtar, goddess of Love and War.
>The Sumerian goddess d Inanna (Sumerian (N)in.an.(n)a 'Lady of the
>Heaven' or 'Sister of an') has the Akkadian name Itar (with
>unknown meaning). She was originally the goddess of Love, the
>celestial Courtisan. She is sometimes also called the divine
>Prostitute although it is not very clear from the texts, what her
>relation to temple prostitution actually is. By the previously
>described process of 'syncretism' she was already early in history
>identified/unified with a divinity of the planet Venus (delebat
>spelled as dil.bat) and a god of quarrels and of war. She was an
>important goddess and she had quite a complicated character because
>of this syncretism. She is also goddess of fertility, but different
>from the Mother goddess, more emphasizing the erotic aspects. In
>pictures (iconography) she can either be completely dressed up or
>depicted naked.

Ishtar is the same as Latvian Austra "the Morning Star", i.e. Venus. see http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi197.htm where this is explained - it has been online for quite some time for the diligent researcher. The Latvian DEKLA (DELE) also = "Venus" (my
identification) is also the same as Akkadian ITAR.

Sumerian (N)in.an.(n)a is a transcriptional and transliterational garbling by the Oriental Scholars of Latvian Janina (gen.), i.e. Janis viz. Jumis (diminutive form) as the "ceiling of heaven", hence the feast of Ligo Svetki or Jani (Janini is diminutive) is celebrated at Midsummer, when the sun is at its highest in the heavens. This is in.an.na =
Janina. In Egypt these were the heavenly priests of "On", Babylonian "Anu".

>A Semite is one who speaks a semitic language. A Hamite is one who
>speaks a hamitic language. This has always been true, despite
>popular misuse of the terms.

No, it has not ALWAYS been true, but only since Schloezer coined the construct of Semitic in the year 1771.

>The AFRO-ASIATIC FAMILY, or the HAMITO-SEMITIC FAMILY of languages
>encompasses nearly all the languages of the Near East and northern
Africa.

Yes, these are the languages of the peoples which consist of blacks mixed with whites - i.e. the mixed bloods or Arabs, which is the same as Latvian RAIBIE = "colored, mixed", i.e. A-RABIA. Blacks and the peoples of Asia Minor are the peoples specifically pictured as enemies of the Pharaohs on artefacts found in the tomb of Tutankhamun (which tomb we of course know to be the Ark of the Covenant and all that was hidden with it - see
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi000.htm).

[Note: please take notice of the fact that my observations here are not be seen as racist - rather, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves only in 1860 in the modern era. Prior to that time, the entire world was race-oriented, and, as recent conflagrations show, it is still that way in many places. We no longer necessarily call it "color", but can hide the concept under "ethnicity" or "religion", but it is all the same.]

The most ancient Hebrew language (Temple Hebrew), as well as the Sumerian found in Akkadian and the language of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs do not correctly belong to the Afro-Asiatic group but are rooted in the ancient Indo-European language - which of course was
mixed with Canaanite over the millennia - but it was originally NOT Hamito-Semitic (according to my research).

>In addition to a common source for their most ancient vocabulary,
>as well as other syntactic similarities, what binds the branches of
>the Afro-asiatic family together is their consonantal root system.
>In this system most words consist of three consonants, while a
>lesser number have two or (to an even lesser extent) four
>consonants. In any one word, these consonants are called
>the "root," and the root relates to the general concept behind the
>meaning of the word. Usually, the root is unalterable, although it
>can be inflected by the use of infixes (elements which are inserted
>within the root) and by prefixes and suffixes, all of which denote
>grammatical changes and which form new words with related meanings.

The above may hold true for later languages but it is simply false for the older tongues. Akkadian, the oldest of this alleged Afro-Asiatic family does NOT use the alleged above described "root" system, hence, it is a fiction of the linguists.

>[question quoting from
http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/semitic.html]
>Most significantly, the vowels of the root--and hence its
>vocalization--change depending upon how the root is used in any
>given part of speech, e.g., as a noun, a verb, or in a certain
>mood, case or verb tense, etc. The pattern of vowel usage and
>change is called the "scheme." Thus, root and scheme are the two
>major elements which constitute the word in the Afro-asiatic
>languages. For example, in Arabic the root pertaining to the
>concept of teaching and learning is d-r-s. While the consonants drs
>will always remain the same, the scheme and vocalization will
>change depending upon usage, e.g.:

>darasa, "to study, learn" (wouldn't Latvian be "mac" as the
root? "Es macos" or "Es gribu macities"
>darrasa, "to teach" macitaijs uses the same root, but
refers to religion. )
>dars, "lesson, class" (this is confusing. I'm thinking
of "bernu dars")
>durus, "lessons" ( macibas)
>mudaaris, "teacher (male)"/mudaarisa, "teacher (female)"
(skolotajs/taja)
>madrasa, "school" ("skol" skolnieks, skola, skolot)

>The same system holds for Akkadian. The consonants would remain the
>same, while the vowels and vocalization changed according to use.
>With the use of the cuneiform writing system (borrowed from the
>Sumerians, a non-Semitic language), with signs values that stand
>for syllables, Akkadian is the only Semitic language in which the
>vowels are explicitly spelled.

DAR in Latvian means "to do" hence DARAS i.e. d-r-s are "doings", so that the Latvian term DARBA "of work" viz DARB(a)S "work" is a derivation of DAR plus the substantive forming suffix .BA (a suffix of spatial location). The Latvian DAR is found in morphed form in the Germanic prefix dar- as in German darstellen, darbieten, etc, i.e. the general concept of "DAR" as "to do" became more specifically used in other languages for a specific doing or work or
as a "doing" prefix, and in Arabic d-r-s then became a more specified term meaning study (work), teaching (work), or the work of learning, i.e. "work" just as it is used today in telling a student to "do his work". We find this same term in Old Kingdom Egyptian as the hieroglyph of the extended PALM of the hand (i.e. not precisely "hand") which is delna (DEL.NA) in Latvian, i.e. R//L permutation. The same R//L permutation is found in Latvian DAR- "to
do" and German LERn "to learn" LEHR- "to teach".

Latvian mac is a newer term rooted in the older concept of Latvian medz which means not precisely "to do" but rather "to be able to do" which later led to the English term mast-er, German meist-er and Latin magister whence the hypothetical Indo-European root *meg.
K, G and DZ permutate in Latvian giving MAC, MAK, MEDZ.

The lexical method which I use quite successfully is generally ignored by most mainstream linguists because they are presumably ill-informed and ignorant of these matters and thus do not know what they are doing. To make lexical comparisons you do not simply look in ten different language dictionaries under the same exact word to see if the words are similar, which is what the mainstreamers do when comparing languages lexically - and consequently regarding the lexical system to be less valuable than grammar (which is quite false). That is the method of ignoramuses.

Rather, languages diverged in that certain terms relating to central concepts were initially already different and then obtained still different usage over the millennia in different - but related languages. Terms relating to the "hand" are a good example. Today, Latvian uses the term ROKA (Lithuanian RANKA) for hand, but note that ROKA today also means arm - the Latvians have the same term for hand AND arm. Actually very strange. So which was first? The
permutation of R and L gives LOKA "bent, bendable, bender" so that the concept of the "bent" or "bendable" appendage gave the ARM (related to ROKA, RANKA) its name.

The flat of the hand - or palm - on the other hand was the Latvian DELNA and this is the Egyptian hieroglyph D-, DUO- [to extend, to give], which shows what the Egyptologists erroneously call a "hand" whereas it is a "palm", since the fingers are extended but closed, and not spread.

We then also have other terms for "hand" such as fist, German Faust but Latvian Kulaks i.e. KU-LOKAS, KUK-LOKAS "clump at the end of the bendable appendage".

The German Faust and English fist will be similar to Latvian (s) piest "clench(ed)", where the word CLENCH C-LENCH is KU-LOKAS KU-LONKAS.

The English and German term "HAND" for hand is an s//k//h permutation from Latvian sani "side", diminutive sanite > kanite (whence count) >hand. Divergences such as these are extremely well-suited to determine the date of separation of the various language groups.

So, you can not just scour dictionaries, you have to know what you are doing. What mainstream linguistics writes about the above terms is Alice in Wonderland nonsense.