Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Definite Article
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Shlama
Can somebody explain please how the definite article can be recognized when translating from Assyrian (specially for Paul! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ) to English?
For instance:
[update: snip to avoid confusion]
And
'Shma' in Philippians 2:9 translated as 'given him a name'. So, why not for instance 'the name'?

Thanks!
Definitely can't answer your question, but I think you might be confused with your example. I believe Marya translates as "the LORD" only in the sense that it is a contraction for the name of the Lord; i.e., Mar (lord) + Yah (the name of the LORD [Psalm 68:4 and ~47 other places in the Tanakh]) = MarYah

All that to say I don't think there is intrinsically or grammatically a definite article in Marya (but I could be wrong).

Shlama,
Brian
Let me just rephrase the question <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

How to discern the difference between 'the' or 'a'?

I know this about this subject:
In Hebrew, a word is prefixed with Ha. As in 'Ha-Mashiach' (The Messiah)
In Aramaic it is suffixed with A (Alef) Msikha.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic</a><!-- m -->

Right?

So in Philippians 2:9, word $hema is suffixed with alef, so whynot translate it as 'the name while Etheridge and Murdock translate it as 'a name'?

I hope my question is a little more clear now?

Please some one who actually understands Aramaic?
Now you got me mad, Distazo. I might not understand very much but I can learn. Here's what I have so far:

...Aloha exalted him and gave him shema that is above all shemahim, debashmeh of Yeshua...

The first version of the noun is singular in number, emphatic in state, and probably should be rendered "the name"; I understand that the emphatic state roughly corresponds to a definite article (although technically Aramaic does not have definite articles).

The second is plural, absolute in state and is properly translated by Etheridge and Murdock as "names."

The third (from the following verse) is singular in number, emphatic in state with a third person masculine suffix (associating it with Yeshua) and what looks to my untrained eye like two proclitics, a dalet and a bet, a very (grammatically) bad english rendering might look like "at his the name" which conveys, rather sloppily, both the emphaticness and the ownership of the noun. It is properly both "his name" AND "the name" if that makes any sense, I know we don't say it in english.

I might render the phrase thus: ...Aloha exalted him and gave him THE name that is above all names, that at Yeshua's name, every knee...
Hi Bknight!

See, if we share some effort we reach far.
Your conclusion is more or less what I got to understand as well.

Weird enough most translators wrote 'a name' but I think that Paul clear refers to ha-shem / Shema which in Jewish speak, means YHWH.

Though, it was not right on topic, Marya is indeed a contraction of Mar+ Ya(h) if we compare halleluya in revelation, which undeniable means "praise be to Yah". I was confused by thinking that 'ya' was a special grammatical suffix which meant 'THE including emphatic'. But this might be nonsense.
distazo Wrote:Hi Bknight!

See, if we share some effort we reach far.
Your conclusion is more or less what I got to understand as well.

Weird enough most translators wrote 'a name' but I think that Paul clear refers to ha-shem / Shema which in Jewish speak, means YHWH.

Though, it was not right on topic, Marya is indeed a contraction of Mar+ Ya(h) if we compare halleluya in revelation, which undeniable means "praise be to Yah". I was confused by thinking that 'ya' was a special grammatical suffix which meant 'THE including emphatic'. But this might be nonsense.

Shlama Akhi

The -ya suffix is definitely not an indicator of the emphatic.

And you both are correct, there is no definite article in Aramaic (or Hebrew). The emphatic noun is indicative of "the/a", but it does not distinguish between them. Context dictates the proper translation.

+Shamasha