Shlama Akhi Jeremy,
Let's shift gears a bit to less controversial roots, so we can examine the grammar a bit to satisfy your "neurotic" grammatical standards! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
--> I'll try to keep this as short as possible so as to not ramble. A lot of information below in a concise format.
As you know, Semitic languages are largely based on tri-consonantal verbal roots. There are roots that are nouns, not verbs. But for this grammar lesson let's just concentrate on a handful of examples from roots that are verbs. Specifically, verbs containing weak radicals.
The grammar involving "weak-3rd radicals" (meaning the 3rd consonant is Aleph, Waw, Ayin or Yodh) ..... Let's look at two example verbal roots that have weak 3rd-radicals:
B-R-A ("to create", just like in Hebrew)
Q-R-A ("to read", just like in Hebrew)
So these are verbs, and the pattern is
X-X-A (where "
A" is the weak-3rd radical, because they end in Aleph)
To create the Emphatic noun for the weak 3rd-radical, you would employ the following pattern:
Xa-
X-
W-
Y-
A (vowel "a" after first consonant, Waw after 2nd radical and Yodh prior to the weak-3rd radical)
So to create an Emphatic noun from each of the above weak-3rd radical verbal roots, we have the following:
Ba-
R-
W-
Y-
A (baroya, "Creat-or", cf. Romans 1:25, 1Peter 4:19)
Qa-
R-
W-
Y-
A (qaroya, "Read-er/Lect-or")
------------------------------------------------------------------
--- logical break here ----------
------------------------------------------------------------------
There are roots that have both a weak 2nd and a weak 3rd radical. The base pattern of such a root is
X-A-A. (Where the A-A represents the weak 2nd and 3rd radicals)
An example root:
R-(-A (Resh, Ayin, Aleph) - ("to see/to watch", just like in Hebrew)
In this case, we would employ the following pattern:
Xa-
A-
Y-
A (vowel "a" after first consonant, Yodh prior to final 3rd-radical)
So to create an Emphatic noun from the above weak-2nd and 3rd radical verbal root, we have the following:
Ra-
(-
Y-
A (Raeaya, "Shepherd", cf. Matthew 9:36, 25:32, John 10:11, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
--- logical break here ----------
------------------------------------------------------------------
As you see here, there are two patterns to create an Emphatic noun (there are other irregular patterns, but out of scope) from a verbal root, in other words creating a substantive. Which one you use depends on the nature of the root. Is it a weak-3rd radical? Or a weak 2nd and 3rd-radical? To summarize, they are listed again below.
Xa-
X-
W-
Y-
A (vowel "a" after first consonant, Waw after 2nd radical and Yodh prior to the weak-3rd radical)
Xa-
A-
Y-
A (vowel "a" after first consonant, Yodh prior to final 3rd-radical)
------------------------------------------------------------------
--- logical break here ----------
------------------------------------------------------------------
None of what I said above, is applicable to M-R-A in any way, shape or form. Why?
The Aramaic root meaning "lord" is M-R-A. (Meem, Resh, Aleph) It is
not a verbal root. It is a
noun root. Most of the time, lexemes derived from a noun root that ends in a weak radical retain the same form as the root. For instance, Maya ("Water"), Kasa ("Cup"), etc. All of the Emphatic forms for these are unaltered from the root. So "Cup" is "Kasa", "A Cup" is "Kasa", "The Cup" is also "Kasa"....you get the idea, right?
Search the Lexicon for these words and see that they retain their root form for the Emphatic. These roots are nouns and not substantives (nouns that are be derived from verbal roots like "create", "watch", "read".) They are not subject to the patterns addressed above.
The confusion around this stems from trying to apply a pattern meant for a verbal root with weak 2nd and 3rd radicals, normally reserved for nouns derived from verbs, to a word with a root that is a noun rather than a verb.
The bottom line is that M-R-A is a noun root, not a verb root. The Emphatic of the noun root M-R-A, is M-R-A, unaltered. No patterns needed to create the Emphatic.
Even if M-R-A was a verbal root (which it is not), then it still remains that the 2nd radical is not weak. How would you get the Yodh before the final weak radical, without the Waw? You would have to write it as "Maroya" - This is absolutely unattested to in the literature and spoken language. I cannot think of another single example. It's silly sounding to the native ear.
The author of this article has no clue about the differences in Aramaic grammar surrounding verbal and non-verbal roots. It is purely a deception, heavily biased towards his apparent hostility regarding the orthodox Christian position that the Messiah is God and Man.
To answer your last question re: the construct and absolute forms, here is the relevant entry from Theodor Noldeke's Compedious Syriac Grammar: (go to page 93 in the link)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=VP_PP9VW-hUC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=syriac+weak+radicals&source=bl&ots=GsH2Y9jWA3&sig=ESXftHr5k_qdleyH7cKF4E9GOOI&hl=en&ei=FSbwTZWPJcG1twel9rWaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lord&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=VP_PP9 ... rd&f=false</a><!-- m -->
![[Image: noldeke.jpg]](http://www.peshitta.org/images/noldeke.jpg)
Note the "Only used of God and of Christ (sic)" (as if They aren't one and the same!!!!)
+Shamasha