Peshitta Forum

?????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ??????????????

b:reihiyth bo:ro e:lo:hiym eith hashho:ma:yim v:eith ho:o:rets

It seems odd to me that this verse is never translated as it actually reads. First off, there are two words in it (eith) that are not translated at all, except I noticed that the Aramaic Targum does apply a translation to them (yoth).

And lastly, there is the word Elohiym which most seem to skirt around the grammatical element to it.

Just thought I would bring this up as a topic of converstion, in case anyone is interested in discussing it.

Shlama,

?????? (`eth) is as an object marker, and is thus not translated.

Onkelos is not alone to mimic the Hebrew `eth in Genesis 1:1 (and throughout his Targum). The Peshitta ANK also mimics the Hebrew object marker in this verse, which is pretty peculiar, as in Syriac you usually use -?? as an object marker, if any at all.

//Lars

Greetings Lars, and thanks for the response. From what I have read, it does seem to be universally accepted that the "object marker" is more-or-less "untranslatable" to English. Perhaps so, yet I would think there is some tangible element to a word used so often in the OT. I offer this for consideration:

Yes, it is likely that of an "object marker".
Yes, it is likely an "object marker".

Two sentences, one using an "object marker", and the other not.

Lars, I am quite new to this board and to the Peshitta as well, so I am not even quite sure what the Peshitta ANK is, but it would be interesting to know which word they used to align with the object marker. Onkelos used (YoTh) as the Aramaic object marker. It is my suspicion that the "Syriac" object marker is not (YoTh), but instead (YaD). Not to be confused with (`iYD) "hand".

Not surprisingly, the Peshitta NT grammatical analysis lists all occurrances of (YaD) as "construct" in form, logically, since the "object marker" is indeed such. Its first occurrance is in Matthew 4:13:

And he left her to Nazareth, and dwelled in Capernaum, upon that-of the sea.

(`eiTh) Hebrew
(YoTh) Aramaic
(YaD) Syriac

(that of) English ?

Jerry Wrote:Onkelos used (YoTh) as the Aramaic object marker. It is my suspicion that the "Syriac" object marker is not (YoTh), but instead (YaD). Not to be confused with (`iYD) "hand".

Not surprisingly, the Peshitta NT grammatical analysis lists all occurrances of (YaD) as "construct" in form, logically, since the "object marker" is indeed such. Its first occurrance is in Matthew 4:13:

And he left her to Nazareth, and dwelled in Capernaum, upon that-of the sea.

(`eiTh) Hebrew
(YoTh) Aramaic
(YaD) Syriac

(that of) English ?

Shlama Akhi Jerry,

The typical Object Marker in Syriac (if used) is l- and in very rare occurences yath (in order to mimic the Hebrew 'eth).

The Yad you are referring to in Matthew 4:13 is indeed the construct form of hand. ???????? ?????????? yadh yammaa meaning "the hand of the sea" which is the sea side, the bank of the sea, the edge of the sea with which the sea grab things.

The Object Marker in Syriac is not in the construct form. The construct form is a special form of a noun that can be used directly infront of another noun to make a genetive. (Also, adjectives often have the construct form before prepositions and in rare cases before adverbs). I would not say the Object Marker is a noun, but a Particle, and does thus not have any state.

//Lars

Jerry Wrote:Greetings Lars, and thanks for the response. From what I have read, it does seem to be universally accepted that the "object marker" is more-or-less "untranslatable" to English. Perhaps so, yet I would think there is some tangible element to a word used so often in the OT. I offer this for consideration:

Yes, it is likely that of an "object marker".
Yes, it is likely an "object marker".

Two sentences, one using an "object marker", and the other not.

Shlama akhi Jerry,

Please bear with me akhi, but I have a hard time picturing an Object Marker in the English language that is used in the same way as I perceive an Object Marker in a Semitic language. Could you please clarify your consideration for me?

Object Markers in Hebrew are as far as I know only used together with definete nouns and pronouns, and translating your sample sentences into Hebrew would not make use of 'eth.

However, I do think that there is a possibility that what we identify as Object Markers in Semitic languages can carry additional information for the reader or listener, as is the case with other particles found in Semitic languages. I also believe that capturing this added information is difficult and even more so if the target language does not make use of the same syntax when it comes to structure and elements, and is therefore usually omitted when translated possibly because of convinience and/or lack of knowledge.

//Lars

Tov shlama akhi Jerry :-)

Jerry Wrote:... I am quite new to this board and to the Peshitta as well, so I am not even quite sure what the Peshitta ANK is, but it would be interesting to know which word they used to align with the object marker. ...

With Peshitta ANK ('Awrayta, N??bhiye, K??thabhe) I mean the Peshitta OT.

In Genesis 1:1 the Peshitta OT imitates the Hebrew by using yath in place of 'eth. yath is however only used a handfull of times in the whole Peshitta OT. My own observations are that the Object Marker l- is used instead, and often the 'eth is not translated at all and completely omitted.

//Lars

Lars, thanks again for your responses and clarification for ANK.

To my knowledge (Y-Th) does not exist in the Syriac NT, but apparently does in the Syriac OT and in the Aramaic. (YaD) in the NT, has a rather significant difference in marking from (`iYD) "hand", but could very well be the noun construct of "hand", as you say. Yet, I have some suspicion that it may have morphed from (Y-Th), or vice-versa, or strayed from (`iYD).

I do not use the term "construct" in a rigid sense. In the Peshitta NT for instance, active participle verbs such as (NoTaR) are listed as in a "construct" form, as in "keeping-of the-law". In Hebrew, the Masorete Maqef puts even particles into a type of "construct" form, such as "as-of good", particle to adjective.

Regarding the "consideration" that I offered. It has been suggested by most that the "object marker" is not translatable to English, or maybe "mimicked" at best. Within my consideration was a proposed English translation, for what many call the "object marker"; or maybe more appropriatively called the "demonstrative particle". So the same consideration offered for Genesis 1:1 would be:

; eith hashho:ma:yim v:eith ho:o:rets
; that-of the-heavens, and-that-of the-land.

Shlama akhi Jerry,

Thank you for your clarification, I can now better follow what you mean. Although I personally do not really like 'that-of', as it seems pretty awkward and somewhat misses the point. I believe it is best to leave it out completely, or second best not to translate it at all and leave it in as is, that way the true meaning of it is preserved even though not fully graspable :-) The later is probably why yath is preserved in Gen 1:1 Peshitta OT.

Moreover, I am aware of several different 'Object Markers' in Aramaic:

• 'yt- (early Aramaic inscriptions and Phoenician)

• wt- (Old Aramaic Hadad inscription)

• yt- (Targum Aramaic, Nabataen, Palmyrene and Galilean Aramaic. Sometimes found sporadically in Eastern Aramaic dialects such as Syriac)

• l- (Syriac, but also found in many other dialects, also common in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew)

The yad you are talking about... I can only find it 21 times in the Peshitta NT, and just about all of them are together with yamma (sea) or urkha (road) forming a genitive. So I really don't see how yad in the given context can be interpertated as being an 'Object Marker'. Especially since 'iyda is an irregular noun, and has the form yad in constructus and absolutus. Furthermore, if yad really was an 'Object Marker' then I would expect it to be used all over the Peshitta NT, and there should also be traces of it in other texts, but none is documented.

//Lars

It has been a good discussion Lars, and you made some good points. One that caught my eye was that you thought "that-of" didn't work well for Gen 1:1. "Awkward", I think you said. You were right. I do still think there is a word for (`eith) in Gen 1:1, but not the one I was suggesting.

My 2 cents:
I thought about it and can't seem to find any simple way to express ???? in English.

Here's what I'm thinking:
In the beginning Elohim created [unto] the heavens and [unto] the earth.

What fits there that actually makes sense in English constructs?

I deleted a couple of posts earlier because I have a habit of getting ahead of myself.

Revisiting this verse though was quite beneficial to me in gaining a new perspective on the translational difference between Hebrew (`eith) and (`eth ~). It was trying to make both of them mean the same thing that was unworkable, and not so much the translations themselves. They each appear to each have their own distinct meaning, just as (`at'), also with the same two root consonants, has its own meaning, "thou".

Jerry Wrote:?????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ??????????????

b:reihiyth bo:ro e:lo:hiym eith hashho:ma:yim v:eith ho:o:rets

It seems odd to me that this verse is never translated as it actually reads. First off, there are two words in it (eith) that are not translated at all, except I noticed that the Aramaic Targum does apply a translation to them (yoth).

And lastly, there is the word Elohiym which most seem to skirt around the grammatical element to it.

Just thought I would bring this up as a topic of converstion, in case anyone is interested in discussing it.

How do you propose that we translated eith? It's the marker of the direct object, so there's no way to translate it in English. In Greek it would simply be translated by putting the noun in the accusative case. I don't understand how you want this translated.

And what grammatical element of elohim do you say translators are skirting? The fact that it's plural? Are you referring to the way certain Kabbalists interpret this as "he created God"? Because no reasonable Kabbalist would say that is literally what the passage is saying. It's pure homily.

the issue I would have with most of the above proposed substitutions for an object marker is that they serve only to obscure the meaning of the text. They make it seem that something other than the heavens and the earth were created, where in Hebrew the eith actually serves to clarify for the reader what is the object of bara.

Greetings Dawid,

Yes, it is easy to be wrong in translating words, and my first instinct for (`eith) on this thread was wrong. But leaving a word out guarantees one to be wrong. For me, it just seems better to try, even to get it wrong along the way, than to not try at all. For 400 years, who has even tried?

You say, "It's the marker of the direct object, so there's no way to translate it in English." How can you be so sure of that? Because others have said so?