Peshitta Forum

Full Version: "MarYah deception" ???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Burning one Wrote:MUCH thanks for taking the time to break it down. i'm seeing it finally like never before; explaining it this way makes perfect sense. with those grammatical pieces missing before it just wasn't connecting as to what was going on, but what you laid forth really does make sense.

Jeremy (and all),

There is a similar thing in English. You have nouns that are ultimately derived from verbs, others are just plain nouns. Think of the patters you typically get for nouns that are verbal in origin:

creat-or (from "create")
orat-or (from "orate")
runn-er (from "run")
design-er (from "design")
teach-er (from "teach")

Then there are nouns that are just nouns.

House
Cat
Dog
King

Now imagine if someone wrote an article and said the emphatic of house ("the house") was "Hous-or". Or the emphatic of King ("the king") was "King-er". <!-- s:wow: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wow.gif" alt=":wow:" title="Wow" /><!-- s:wow: -->

That's precisely what the author of the "MarYah Deception" article is claiming when he says that "MarYah" is the emphatic of Mara. Silly, huh? He's either ignorant of Aramaic, or purposely titled the articled with "Deception"...as that was his intent.

The other misconception people have is that they are thrown off by the spelling, -YA, instead of -YH. But they fail to realize that's how all personal names or titles containing God's name are spelled in Aramaic. Jeremiah, Hekekiah, Obadiah, etc. Look them up.

MarYah is only used for God and Christ for a reason.

+Shamasha
MR` has an unusual plural absolute in the form of (Mau-Ra-WauN) "lords". The only similar pl abs structure I have found to that is (KuwR-Sa-WauN) "thrones". Even though KRS has an extra consonant to MR, the similarity is there. In other words, I am looking for a comparative root to MR`.

(Mau-Ra-WauN) (KuwR-Sa-WauN) plural absolute

The singular emphatic for "the-throne" is (KuwRS-Yau`)

(MauR-Yau`) and (KuwRS-Yau`) share the same similarity in the singular emphatic.

Beyond that, the roots diverge some, MR` dropping the Yod and KRS carrying it forward, but I think it interesting none-the-less.
Shlama Akhi Jerry,

Jerry Wrote:Paul, I don't know of any parallel to the MR` root, even among noun roots. It seems to be unique to itself.

Unique in what way? Meem, Resh and Alap. It certainly isn't unique in that it's a noun that ends in a weak radical. You can say that about the following:

MYA (water)
KSA (cup)

What is unique about it, exactly?

Jerry Wrote:So turning (MauR-Yau`) into the proper noun MarYah is always going to be a speculative venture, IMO. I doubt your case can be proven any more than I could prove that it is a singular emphatic.

Why? See above. What is the emphatic for the lexical stems Maya and Kasa ?

Jerry Wrote:For example, (Mau-Re`) is unique. I don't know of any other root, where such a construction would be the singular construct if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic.

Kasa. (cup) Bara. (son) Bertha. (daughter). How many more do you want ?

Jerry Wrote:It would instead be the plural emphatic. Yes, (MauR-Yau`) is unique, but so is (Mau-Ra-Yau`). So if (MauR-Yau`) is the proper noun MarYah, then what is (Mau-Ra-Yau`)?

Maraye is the plural, 3rd-person. Different word that happens by chance, by grammatical accident, to have the same 4 consonants. But pronounced differently.


Jerry Wrote:There is a finite number of forms that a root conforms to. They are singular absolute, construct, and emphatic. And plural absolute, construct, and emphatic. Six of in total. Sometimes, singular absolute and construct are inflected the same. MR` is a large root, with many examples. The SEDRA 3 listing is the only way that it's various inflections can be aligned to the six grammatical forms. It is the only way to put the puzzle together.

No it's not. A lexical entry is a horrible way to put the puzzle together. It is meant to be a reference tool for lookup, to someone already familiar with the grammar of the target language.

Jerry Wrote:To assume that MarYah exists, is to assume that the singular absolute never occurs in the root.

I don't understand that statement, please explain.

Jerry Wrote:Possible, but unlikely in such a large sample. We know that by context (MauR-Yau`) works as "the-Lord" or "a-lord" in all examples. We know that MarYah doesn't. It doesn't in Matthew 22: 43 & 45.

I don't understand what you are referring to?

Jerry Wrote:It could be that (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, and not the absolute. In fact, it is the weakest link in my argument. It could be that (MauR-Yau`) is something beyond that of singular emphatic. But even then, I would not be convinced that MarYah is the answer.

Just my reflections on the subject. I am not convinced I am correct, but not convinced I am wrong either. It is just where I am at this moment of time.

Have you studied the grammar of Aramaic in a proper setting? I'm not meaning to ask in an insulting manner, please don't misunderstand me. But it appears that some of the basic understanding of the language is missing altogether and I just want to be sure we are on the same page when using terminology.

M-R-A (the lexical stem for "lord") is no different than B-R-A (the lexical stem for "son"). Please tell me what the Emphatic form for "B-R-A" (son) is ? Both lexical stems are nouns with a weak-III radical.

Is the Emphatic for "son"...."B-R-A", or "B-R-Y-A" ?

+Shamasha
Andrej Wrote:Jerry, i think we are not to forget that Pauls theory makes a lot more sense for one reason, which is the apparent avoidance of other supposed forms of Marya in scripture. If Paul was incorrect, why do we not find other forms to be as common as Marya? i'm no grammar freak, but i guess you get my point. Paul lines it up, whereas other theories seem to build on too little. The thousands of times Marya clearly refers to YHWH are too much weight to ignore. It is the practical that is convincing to me.
Sory if i made no sense.
Andrej,
My argument is not that (MauR-Yau`) does not align with YHWH. It does, as it aligns with Yeshua as well. And for what its worth, (Mau-Rau`) happens to align with Elohiym, "Father Lord of-the-Heavens".

I just happen to think (MauR-Yau`) is more akin to "the-Lord" than it is a proper noun like MarYah.
Shlama Akhi Jerry,

Jerry Wrote:MR` has an unusual plural absolute in the form of (Mau-Ra-WauN) "lords". The only similar pl abs structure I have found to that is (KuwR-Sa-WauN) "thrones". Even though KRS has an extra consonant to MR, the similarity is there. In other words, I am looking for a comparative root to MR`.

We don't base grammar on irregular forms. There's actually nothing unusual about the plural for "lords". But that is outside of the scope of the Emphatic for the lexical stem of M_R_A.

A comparative root to MRA is BRA (son)

Jerry Wrote:(Mau-Ra-WauN) (KuwR-Sa-WauN) plural absolute

The singular emphatic for "the-throne" is (KuwRS-Yau`)

The lexical stem for "the throne" is "Kuwrsyau" as well. The base lexical stem is identical to the emphatic. I don't see your point ?

Jerry Wrote:(MauR-Yau`) and (KuwRS-Yau`) share the same similarity in the singular emphatic.

No they don't. The root stem for "lord" is M_R_A, not "MARYA". The root stem for "throne" is KWRSYA. It already has the Yodh. I'm not sure what you're talking about ?

Jerry Wrote:Beyond that, the roots diverge some, MR` dropping the Yod and KRS carrying it forward, but I think it interesting none-the-less.

I don't follow. I really don't. We're talking about two different things, apparently.

+Shamasha
Jerry Wrote:I just happen to think (MauR-Yau`) is more akin to "the-Lord" than it is a proper noun like MarYah.

How so? Show me an example of a noun root that adds the Yodh when forming the Emphatic ?

Don't mention KWRSYA, "throne", as that already has the Yodh in the root.

If your logic holds, then we would make B_R_Y_A for the emphatic of "Son", and that's just wrong. It's B_R_A for the emphatic of "son", it's unaltered from the root lexical stem. There's no Yodh added to it.

Likewise, there's no Yodh added to M_R_A to make "the lord", it's simply M_R_A for the emphatic. Unchanged from the root. It's not a substantive, it's not a verbal root. This is the basics of Aramaic grammar.

+Shamasha
Andrej, though it is very deep waters you swim in there, I'm not afraid to jump in with you.. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Rafa...in the Eastern Peshitta, do you find that it records the Apostles Baptized people in the Name of Y'shua? And if so, why do you think that is?
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jerry,
A comparative root to MRA is BRA (son)
+Shamasha
Greetings Paul,

The singular absolute for "son" is (BaR), for "lord" it either does not exist, is not in usage, or is (Mau-Rau`)
The singular construct for "son" is (BaR), for "lord" it is (Mau-Re`)
The plural absolute for "son" is (B:NiyN), for "lord" it is (Mau-Ra-WauN)

They don't look very comparative to me. So far, I have noticed only two places in the entire NT where the the plural absolute ends in Xa-WauN.

(KuwR-Sa-WauN) (Mau-Ra-WauN)

That is worth noting, IMO, especially when the singular emphatic shows as (KuwRS-Yau`) and within MR` there exists (MauR-Yau`). I do not claim it to be definitive, just worth noting. Yes, the Yod is used only twice in the MR` root, and throughout in the KRS"Y" root, but it is used.
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jerry,
Jerry Wrote:To assume that MarYah exists, is to assume that the singular absolute never occurs in the root.
I don't understand that statement, please explain.
+Shamasha
If (MauR-Yau`) is the proper noun MarYah, then it forces (Mau-Rau`) to be the singular emphatic "the-lord". Since there is no (MauR), then there is no singular absolute "lord". That is possible, but with 755 occurances of the word "lord", you would think it would be used in the singular absolute at least once.
Shlama Akhi Jerry,

Let's stick to one question (we're all over the place here!): what is the Emphatic for B_R_A (Beth-Resh-Aleph), "son"?

How do you form the Emphatic for a weak-III noun root ?

BRA
MYA
KSA

...etc ? These are no different orthographically from the root for "lord", MRA.

Let's just concentrate on this one question.

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jerry,

Let's stick to one question (we're all over the place here!): what is the Emphatic for B_R_A (Beth-Resh-Aleph), "son"?

How do you form the Emphatic for a weak-III noun root ?

BRA
MYA
KSA

...etc ? These are no different orthographically from the root for "lord", MRA.

Let's just concentrate on this one question.

+Shamasha
To start with, the roots for the above three are BR, MY, and KS; son, water, cup. But only in BR will you actually find the singular absolute root BaR, "son". In water and cup, they are not in usage, yet the root (the phantom root I call it) is still MY and KS. Were they ever to write "cup" in absolute form, they would write it as KauS.

BRA, MYA, and KSA are the singular emphatics. the-son, the-water, the-cup. B:Rau`, Ma-Yau`, Kau-Sau`

Let's go to MR. My argument for what makes MR unique is that its root is actually MRA, Mau-Rau`. That is why it is so odd that Mau-Re` is used as the singular construct, and why a Yod is introduced to force Mau-Rau` (the absolute) into the singular emphatic.
Akhan Jerry. Those are not the roots. BR is not the root of son, it's the construct. MY is not the root of water, thats MYA. You apparently don't want to have this discussion, that's fine just say so in the beginning instead of wasting my time.

You can hold to whatever theology or argument you'd like but I'm not going to allow you to bend grammatical rules to suit your theory.

You refuse to give me another example of a noun root that is modified with a Yodh to form the emphatic. Instead you keep bringing up that MRA is somehow unique when it's no different from any other noun.

Until you come up with another example where a Yodh is used to form the Emphatic from a noun please don't waste my time.

MRYA is not the Emphatic of lord. If it were, you would notice it used frequently outside of scripture and in secular usage. Even in pagan usage, but you don't.

+Shamasha
Paul, you are correct that BaR is the "construct" and not the "absolute" as I wrote. My mistake. But BaR is still the base root, the simplest form it can be written in. See top left corner of link below, under "root", it says BR.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:467&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php? ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

If I am bending any grammatical rules, then so is Dr. George A. Kiraz with SEDRA 3, and posted on Dukhrana. Hopefully they are not wasting your time as well. They list the root for lord as MRA, and list the inflections the same way as I do.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:1843&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php? ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

You say show me another noun where a Yod is used to form the singular emphatic. I could say, show me another noun where Xau-Xe`, as in Mau-Re`, is used as a singular construct. You likely can't, because both MauR-Yau` and Mau-Re` are unique to the stem. And I highly suspect that there are numerous other roots with some unique trait to them.

In Hebrew, sometimes it seems as though are as many exceptions to the rule as there are rules. No doubt, exceptions to the rule occur in the Aramaic as well.
Jerry,

The Miltha of GOD spoke to Moses and gave him The Name of GOD. And the Miltha of God IS GOD, and the Miltha of God, in the fullness of time became a Human Being for our salvation living among us, as one of us, in the Person of Y'shua, The Messiah, who IS THE MILTHA of GOD, The Father.

Do you disagree with any of what I just said? And if so, what exactly and correct it with what GOD has taught us in His Holy Scriptures.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15