11-13-2012, 08:25 AM
Quote:Azabthani is Hebrew, not Aramaic.
That was my point. :-)
Quote:But again, it wasn't different in His mother dialect. The root is a primitive Semitic root (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) with the attested meaning, in the Hebrew scripture. Again, see Psalm 2:1, or Isaiah 17:12. I don't understand why you think r-g-sh is a foreign root to "His mother dialect", when in fact it existed prior in Hebrew and Aramaic. Your presumption (again, drawn from a tiny corpus) is flawed.
Not all Aramaic is derived from the same vocabulary base. For example, although the so-called "Neo-Syriac" dialects (Chaldean, Assyrian, etc.) are all related to Syriac they are not descended from Syriac and have each followed different paths with acquiring new vocabulary and extending meaning. The Eastern/Western split goes very far back.
Again, look at the "boot" example. (Honestly.) When was the last time you referred to the "trunk" of your car as a "boot"? However, "boot" is most common in British English (to the absence of "trunk" nearly altogether). In the UK if you say "trunk" instead of "boot" or "apartment" instead of "flat" or "bathroom" instead of "loo" or "W.C." you're pegged by such shibboleths immediately, as they're simply not in your dialect of English -- or rather they're mostly there, but they mean completely different things, and in some contexts they are absent altogether. Same principle.
Quote:Firstly, The Jerusalem Talmud is written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, not "Galilean" Aramaic. It is a reconstructionalist viewpoint again that is equating the two.
It's not a matter of reconstrucionalism, it's a matter of actual reconstruction only when such reconstruction is needed..
As a point of order, earlier on in Aramaic nomenclature "Galilean" and "Jewish Palestinian" were synonyms. In modern day, "Galilean" is a subset of the greater "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" the former indicating the earlier portion of the language, the latter as late as the Byzantine era. Both corpi are large enough to draw reasonable conclusions about vocabulary choices for exceedingly common words from the earlier portions of writing simply due to distributions of frequency. The dialects do not change so quickly to see large sets of everyday, common words that the average speaker would use dozens to hundreds of times a week in normal conversation and writing drop out completely without a trace. This is why equivalent phrases are employed to determine common idiom, and it is not an argument to silence, it's a demonstration of actual differences.
Quote:Of course, but that is my point. Differences with speech or an accent are one thing, the lack of a root heavily attested to in both classical Hebrew and Aramaic is another thing altogether.
But that's what we see. :-) Ample examples of equivalent phrases where other words are chosen in place of what would commonly and consistently be expected vis a vis Eastern Aramaic dialects. If it happens once or twice it's nothing. When it happens in every recorded instance, there is significance, especially when such differences are shared among closely related dialects of one basic group. :-)
Quote:How can you possibly know how fragmented they were back in Jesus' time? The conditions were the same (an occupation by a foreign force, religious and cultural differences, etc.)
It's a widely accepted, educated guess based upon what we know about Neo Aramaic dialects and the processes that got them where they are today compared to earlier dialects. It employs the same processes and principles that linguists use to understand the evolution of modern English and other languages.
Quote:The fact is demonstrated by Peter's speech, so there's no need to consult the later rabbis. <!-- s--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
I'll err on consulting all the sources that are available. Think about it: If the Rabbis *agree* on it (which never happens), then it must be true! ;-)
Quote:It is NOT an eastern Aramaic word: it is a word in both Hebrew and Aramaic. See the above quotes from the Old Testament, which was not written in Eastern Aramaic.
It (ra'am) is a primitive Semitic root, predating both Hebrew and Aramaic.
I'm talking about semantic change. It doesn't matter if it's a primitive root, if it's meaning shifts between dialects one cannot draw conclusions that it was "understood" the same way at all. (To do so is the Etymological Fallacy.)
In English there are plenty of roots and derived that express this problem. The Greek baino was inducted into English as the prefix basi- where we get "basic" "basis" "base" things that indicate a strong bottom or level. Baino means "to march".
The word "camera" in English means a device to take pictures. In Latin (where it is derived from) "camera" means "vault." It's well attested in both Latin and English, but the meaning has changed.
"Egregious" is from the Latin for "select" or "choice" as in "the finest," but today it's meaning is the exact opposite.
"Agony" comes from a Greek word that means "competition," but when someone says "I'm in agony!" they mean they're in a lot of pain. :-)
Primitive roots do not dictate actual usage of the words derived from them. How they are used in context dictates their meaning, and we have examples of this kind of disparity in use. :-)
Peace,
-Steve