09-02-2011, 10:03 PM
Dear Stephen,
I understand the logic behind it. It must have been a jar-maker or a potter.
But the grammar behind it, GRB, cannot be verified against CAL. (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searchroots.php">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searchroots.php</a><!-- m --> enter GRB)
(It would be "Simon the Jar", but not Simon the Jar-maker)
So, I would be happy to have such a (cross)reference because I used it in my Translation which is criticized by someone who actually reads Syriac and he cannot find grammatical justification <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->
According my Syrian reading friend, "Simon The Potter" should be written (if it were in Matthew 26:6) as (latin characters) "Simon quqoyo"
Regards
I understand the logic behind it. It must have been a jar-maker or a potter.
But the grammar behind it, GRB, cannot be verified against CAL. (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searchroots.php">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searchroots.php</a><!-- m --> enter GRB)
(It would be "Simon the Jar", but not Simon the Jar-maker)
So, I would be happy to have such a (cross)reference because I used it in my Translation which is criticized by someone who actually reads Syriac and he cannot find grammatical justification <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->According my Syrian reading friend, "Simon The Potter" should be written (if it were in Matthew 26:6) as (latin characters) "Simon quqoyo"
Regards