Where did you get that from? Anumidum has always been an alternate name for Numidium, but I can't find a single instance of it being used for Akulakhan. Akulakhan was always just Akulakhan, or Second Numidium.

Wow. I feel foolish now. I never noticed the second "i" wasn't there in Anumidum.
It does sound cooler without the second "i" though. Thanks for the correction!

I must be losing my mind. I could have sworn I read somewhere on the forums or in game that Akulakhan was alternatively called Anumidium or Anumidum.

As for that spelling mistake. Ugh... It's like everyday that I learn one of my TES spellings/pronunciations is wrong. I'm getting sick of it.

Does the Akula- part mean anything? I mean, if you're an ashkhan, leader of the ash tribes, then the Akulakhan is leader of ... something
Or it's just Second Numidium

Ah, numidiumism, such a lovely topic.

A-cool-a-khan make sense in such context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia also could give a hint.

Ah, it is not you who is late. It is me

Aedra created Mundus, and took their hands of of it. Change became stasis, Daedra became Aedra. Perhaps one final act of deviation?

Daedra waited for the creation of Mundus, because they cannot create. Then all rules are of. Mundus has been created, and the Daedra are now free to change. Change is a rearrangement of materials, they are not creating new things. This part may also be expressed in their Artifacts. They are always the same Artifacts. Their appearance changes, but the do not create new Artifacts.

This is all pure conjecture though I'm not all that knowledgeable on all this, but I find it interesting to think about all the same

("We gingen naar het strand en ik at een ijsje." Ik zou dat niet doen in dit weer )

I find it tempting to say that labeling the Aedra as agents of creation and Daedra as agents of change doesn't describe their most fundamental nature; rather, Aedra were the first to act* (with respect to Mundus, at least), and Daedra came after. "Change" can be thought of as creation-on-top-of-creation, and when some instance of a "change" involves the removal or replacement of something that was previously there, it's akin to adding a negative number. In this theory, the only difference between creation and change is that creation is simply the first thing that happens.

* If we go further back and relate this idea to Anu/Padomay, it gets a tad weirder, considering Anu is static stasis. In that case, you could say that Anu was the first to "act" on the virtue of existing first.

Change: Ripping a piece of paper.
Creation: Burning the paper creating ash.

It's impossible for Daedra to be incapable of creation unless you want to argue that creation and change only apply to thoughts and ideas, forms. With that model only Aedra can create new ideas, and Daedra can only work with the ideas already there or potential ideas.

According to Plato, there's no such thing as creation because everything already exists as a form, and when you cut down a tree and make a chair from the wood you're just pulling that form from the aether or something.

I dont think you can describe Aedra as Anuic and Daedra as Padomaic.

Both were Et'Ada, created by the interplay.
The chaos teased them out of the stasis, or the stasis stabilised their initial chaos and prevented them from dissolving again.

The only difference as far as I can tell is that the Aedra sacrificed themselves wholly or partially into the project, while the Magna-Ge refused that and left, and the Daedra stood at the sidelines.

No, but in the terms we're talking about, giving parts of yourself up in order to create new mythical symbols that add up to Creation, Daedra are incapable of it because as soon as they do it, they aren't Daedra anymore, they're Aedra.

Then we have to throw off our preconceived notions of what it means to create and change, instead studying how such terms are used within TES, creating new frameworks for the words.

I don't quite agree with that. The Monomyth implies that the Daedra missed the boat on creation, that the et'Ada who became Aedra chose to create, and once Nirn was made, all opportunities for further creation vanished.

They're still described as being Anuic and Padomaic.

From Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes.

It was the choices those et'Ada made that defined their essence. By choosing to create, the eventual Aedra mantled Anu, whereas the et'Ada who chose to make their own realms and know only void mantled Padhome, becoming padomaic; Daedra.

It still does little to explain why Aedra are representative of stasis. Where they representative of stasis even when they were creating Nirn? Or did that stasis only come after Nirn was finished?

Well, they can create artifacts of varying power. They can create effects that mimic what others have created (witness the "sun" in the Shivering Isles). Sheogorath technically changed himself so much he split in two and Jyggalag was re-created (if you believe it happened). But codifying something that can exist beyond their own existence (and often run counter to their whims) is something they are unwilling/unable to accomplish.

I just realized what you were originally arguing. Never mind. You're right. I suppose I more just wanted to stress that it was something they were unwilling to do rather than a physical impossibility.

For the creation that is important, yes. But a Daedra can still conceivably give up a part of himself to solidify an idea/reality for what is in his realm. It just wouldn't add anything new to Nirn, since it's out of its Dawn Era. Okay so they may not become an Aedra, those who took Lorkhan's deal, but they wouldn't be a Daedra anymore either.