Did they speak Kalanga?

The trouble with being wrong is that you can only say “I was wrong” when you know what is right. I don’t know if the Anunnaki spoke Kalanga language; I previously said that they did. So, was I wrong?  I leave it to the reader to decide for him/her self. What if it later turns out that they did after all, speak Kalanga?

In this regard I must take my hat off to I.M. Leteane of Pitoronet dot com who, in his Mmegi newspaper column “Digging Tswana Roots”, never claimed knowledge of what language the Anunnaki spoke, save to say they spoke a PROTOLANGUAGE of sorts.  Leteane is right. He will be right even if it is later confirmed that indeed they spoke Kalanga language!

Using language to understand how man/society began is rather like using light to understand how the universe began. As you approach the big bang all sorts of crazy things start happening. Cause and effect become hard to differentiate. As a layman whose understanding of Physics is based on online news outlets, I cannot say much more about the big bang, but I suppose you get the drift!

 

So many Kalanga words originated from the physical presence of the Anunnaki on earth, that one may be forgiven for thinking that they (Anunnaki) spoke Kalanga too. But how could they have spoken Kalanga if the things they were “speaking” about were only here on earth, and not where they (Anunnaki) came from? Presumably then, only the things that they brought with them will bear names in the language that they spoke. Principal among such things are the rockets that the Anunnaki used to reach earth. Many Kalanga words revolve around the Anunnaki rockets, so much so that it becomes difficult to know whether the rockets reached earth under control of the language, or whether the language sprang up among us (cloned monkeys) as a result of our trance-like fascination with the rockets. In other words, cause and effect become blurred, language-wise!

KU MA:  verb, meaning TO STAND (UPRIGHT)

The Sumerian tablets call Anunnaki rockets – shems. The reader is reminded that ancient scribes often omitted the final vowel in a word. So, a shem could be shema or shemi or even shemu. It is my contention that the word shem is a mistranslation of the sound “cheemy” or “cheemer”, which sounds are written “chimi” or “chima” or alternatively “tjimi” or “tjima” in Kalanga language.  All these nouns are derived from the infinitive verb “ku ma” meaning “to stand (upright)”. An Anunnaki rocket was therefore called “chimi” or “chima” which are pronounced as “cheemy” or “cheemer”, respectively.

KU DUMA: verb, two meanings - TO AGREE and TO MAKE RUNNIG SOUND (ENGINE)

In Kalanga the “D” is normally pronounced like a Russian “D” (tongue flat on palate) and not like an English “D” (only tongue’s tip touching palate).  However the word “duma” is pronounced both with the Russian “D”, when it means TO MAKE A ROARING SOUND LIKE RUNNING ENGINE OR THUNDER; and with the English “D” sound, when it means TO AGREE. I submit that the latter meaning is what motivated the naming of the Russian Parliament – a place where legislators AGREE TOGETHER.

In both meanings, the word “duma” however, originates from the Anunnaki  rockets  STARTING, or put differently, AGREEING TO RUN:  “DU” for the sound and “MA” for STANDING (rocket).

KU NGA: verb, meaning TO RESEMBLE.

The Kalanga infinitive verb “ku nga”, meaning “to resemble” was appended as a suffix to Anunnaki items such as “chima” meaning a rocket, or Anunnaki acts such as “ku wa” meaning “to fall”. The results were “chimanga” meaning a maize cob, which resembles an Anunnaki rocket (see EASTER ISLAND RAPA NUI MOAI BIRDMAN PETROGLYPHS at Dreamstime dot com) and “wenga” meaning a parrot, which facially resembles the Anunnaki, and is able like the Anunnaki, to speak.

The “panga” is a familiar tool associated with Africans. The Kalanga verb “ku pa” means “to give”. Therefore a “panga” looks (nga) like something which is used to give or proffer something to another person, such as a spatula. At this point you find yourself in a knot. The above suggests that our use of the spatula predated our use of the panga! But how could this be possible if, even as monkeys, we used sharpened cutting tools made of stone? Where was the spatula then? I think the answer is obvious – we did not directly “develop” out of the monkey. We “developed” out of something else; something which introduced the spatula to us BEFORE we came across, or invented the panga. Just a thought, at this point I do not want to speculate on a “spatula” being “chipa; tola”, meaning a tool from which you take, when GIVEN.