09-16-2008, 03:04 PM
Shlama Akhi,
Yes, I believe so. Since the vowel/number markings didn't come until centuries later, when it was originally written it could have been singular or plural.
Another thing to consider, Akh, is this:
It is a very odd way in Aramaic to just insert an adjective immediately after a verb. It's not grammatically correct in Aramaic. The verb "tla" immediately preceding "qwdsha" suggests that the latter is not an adjective at all, but rather a noun.
Whether that noun is "ring" or "consecrated object", it works grammatically. However "ring" completes the parallelism with "pearl", whereas "consecrated object" doesn't.
+Shamasha
Abudar2000 Wrote:But here given that the Peshitta/Peshitto both have ("qudhsho") marked as a singular, could both our ancestors have marked the same word incorrectly?
Yes, I believe so. Since the vowel/number markings didn't come until centuries later, when it was originally written it could have been singular or plural.
Another thing to consider, Akh, is this:
It is a very odd way in Aramaic to just insert an adjective immediately after a verb. It's not grammatically correct in Aramaic. The verb "tla" immediately preceding "qwdsha" suggests that the latter is not an adjective at all, but rather a noun.
Whether that noun is "ring" or "consecrated object", it works grammatically. However "ring" completes the parallelism with "pearl", whereas "consecrated object" doesn't.
+Shamasha