Gift or Gifts in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17

[abudar2000]

shlomo Mike,

I think I see what you are saying. I didn't pose my question quite accurately. When one scrolls down book and chapter from the first page (after clicking Peshitta on Dukhrana) he can go to a specific verse and then click the verse as we said before. The page here then gives us the option of going down to a specific word to get an accurate breakdown of the word: Again, No. 5249 ion Acts 2:33(This, these - as it is written in Dukhrana) Here, a precise and specific definition of the word is not given and niether is it when the number in blue(5249 - in this case) is clicked. But the grammatical breakdown of the word will tell us this word is Fem. singular (this) and not "these." So, at this point this helps us zoom in a little more pertaining to further clarity of the word, no/yes??
[/b]

Yes, as it applies to nouns, and pronouns.

Also, additional breakdown of the word is given like "Perfect PEAL" OR "Active Participle - PEAL, or Imperfect PAEL and so on. BTW, I have no idea what these are (PEAL, or PAEL, or PAEIL.) Feel free to give me an idea if you wish but you don't have to. There is another option all the way to the right where it states "See the verses," something like that. Now, one can dig still a little deeper by seeing this very exact word (in its exact form) how it is used in other passages. So, in this case looking at 5249 one can see that for "this" as in "this stone" (Singualr) is a Fem. Singualr word. IOW, by doing further research of this word, or any word in Dukhrana for that matter, there are tools/ options that help us dig a little deeper to see how this word is used elsewhere. The same word that takes on a different form is spelled differently depending what is the first charater of the word. So, Terms like "with the tool," or "to the tool" and "of the tool" all would have the same root word but are spelled differently because of the first character used in this word.

Here you've mixed two different things, one is verbal forms and the other proclitics.

Without going to far into Aramaic grammar there are four types of things that affect how we interpret a verb:
-Verbal form, which affect the meaning of the verb => Peal (active - base), Ethpeal (Passive - base), Pael (Active - intensive), Ethpaal (Passive - intensive), Afel (Active - extensive, causative), etc...
-Verbal prefix depending on form, time, number, and gender
-Verbal suffix depending on form, time, number, and gender

ex: (3 consonant verb - regular) (Let * represent a consonant)
Peal (perfect) => **a*
Ethpeal (perfect) => *et**e*
Pael (perfect) => *a*e*
Ethpaal (perfect) => *et*a*a*

So without understanding what the verbal forms represent, then even the most exhaustive breakdown won't help you. Your only hope then is to find an Interlinear like Paul Younan has, and then see how he has interpreted each verb in its form. Or take a course in Aramaic grammar which would be the best thing if you're serious about being able to read Aramaic.

Now the proclitics => "b, d, w, l" <= known as "beduwl"
They are used for verbs, nouns, etc... as a prefix and have nothing to do with the verbal prefix of a verbal form.
b => in, with, etc...
d => of, which, etc...
w => and, while, etc...
l => to, for, etc...

If no one know much of anything about Aramaic and wanted to look up the word for "tool" and found only the verse that said "to the tool" and then went to all the verses that included this exact word he would not get a clear picture because he might think that all the verses that contain "tool" would be in the "to the tool" category.

Yes!

For one to get a better idea of the definition of a precise word he/she can go to the lexicon in Dukhrana and ll the way to the right is an option for "word number." From there he can scroll down to where it says "inflections" and see how a given word (with the same root word or same stem) is used in all its forms and further, for each form or each "inflection" he can go to "see the verses" yet again and see all the verses for the word "of the tool" and then go back and see all the verses for the word "of the tool", then again he can go back and see all the verses for the word "to the tool." Now he should be getting a much BIGGER and ACCURATE picture of this word if he goes to all or most of the verses for each form.

Assuming the person who has translated these verses did a good job of translating. I would use the Paul Younan interlinear as much as possible for this, and Ethridge isn't that bad, but Paul has a word-for-word interlinear.

I guess what I am trying to say is how deep is one willing to dig. I am losing my focus here a bit so I will close at that. But do you think we are on the same page now; that the options at Dukhrana gives us the tools to get down to the nitty-gritty and clear definition of any given word??? The tools are there. We just have to use them.

We're almost there; the tools at Dukhrana are very helpful, but a deeper understanding of Aramaic grammar is required to get into the "nitty-gritty"

push bashlomo,
keefa bar morun