Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gift or Gifts in Acts 2:33 and Acts 11:17
#16
shlom lkhoon,

If I may add an additional note in regards to SEDRA's definition of nouns and verbs;
their definition aren't always accurate, they sometimes list both the plural and singular despite the state of the noun or the verb, and also despite whether feminine or masculine. As their definition are closer to base form and mostly gender no specific (i.e. you can't use it to figure gender.)

You really have to look at the listed number, gender and type, rather than the definition (the definition is only there to give you an idea, and not the precise definition.)

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#17
[b]So Paul and Stephen,

I am still a little bit confused. Paul, you said something to the nature that the information in and of the lexicon is not transferable, legally, to third parties. So, I, as a 3rd party, when I go to Dukhrana.com or use the lexicon on this site (Peshitta.org) am I not doing so legally or legitmately?? I think I am might be overlooking something obvious here. Paul, you seemed to have cleared this up in one sense but in another sense it seems you stated something exactly the opposite. But I believe the misunderstanding is with me (more-less) but I just want to be sure again because I would rather not use someone's "stuff" w/o permission. But then again, all these resources at Dukhrana and even the lexicon here is right on the internet for everyone to see and tap into so I think I dropped a screw or two but I don't know where. Where may I have steered off??

(2.) about "hade," "hane" and "halen" again. Just to be sure we are on the same page here: In the very same chapter in Acts 2:15, 16 (that very location) you have Peter (I paraphrase) saying to his audience on Pentecost: "... [i]THESE' (Halen, here) are not drunk as you might imagine for it is only the 3rd hour of the day. But '[i]THIS' (hade, or hane - I forgot) is that which is spoken by the prophet, Joel."

So, you have in my first mention of Halen - "these", and the 2nd mention is "this" in Acts 2:15 and 16 accordingly.

The same words you wrote to me in the email you made the typo, right?? And this "halen" is also used with and next to "
rocks" in Matthew 4:3 (". . . tell 'THESE' stones to become bread.") matthew 4:3=Acts 2:15 for halen(these). Same word. Also "halen" found in Matt 24:34, Mark 2:8, Luke 1:20. All the same base word from "halen." Is this all accurate??

Yes, those 2 big bold points or dots I made reference to are found in the manuscript Khoubaris text as you go to John and scroll down to the word for "gift." You will see 2 big bold dots.

Done for now Paul. Thank you for being gracious.

Graciously,

Mike
Reply
#18
Abudar,

AS far as your comment is concerned I take it you mean when one goes to the Dukhrana site he has the option of which book he desire to go to. He clicks the desired book and chapter (say ACts 2:33 here) and then he has to scroll down to the very verse that where the precise word is that he is exploring. So, he clicks the verse and there is the page(pop up window) that gives him a break down of all the words and their meaning. So, if he goes down to the word for "this" next to "gift" he will see that the definition here is shown to read: "this, these." The point you made as SEDRA not being totally accurate (or not showing the full picture) would apply to this situation if one were to stop at that point. In other words, the dude, if he were to go this far and no more, does not have all the information that he can if he should stop at this point.


This is what you meant, is it not??

But we both know that as each verse gives a "general" breakdown" and meaning of the word there is a number next to each word (in blue) that one may proceed to (clicking here) - to get a PRECISE and COMPLETE definition of the word. Also, there is the option where one can go to and see all the verses where this exact word is located at in other passages.

But when he clicks on the number in blue he will get an accurate definition of the word, be able to know for sure about whether it is 2nd person common plural, 3rd person masculine singular, 1st person feminine plural; along with PERFECT PEAL, or PERFECT PAEL, and so on. In other words, the information here is exhaustive, as far as we can tell. Yes?

So, by clicking on the blue number he can "zero" in much more accurately and get down to the "bare bones" of the exact meaning of the word and its rendering and so on. Am I on the right road?? This is what I have been doing.

Thanks for your time.

Graciously,

Mike K.
Reply
#19
Mike Kar Wrote:So Paul and Stephen,

I am still a little bit confused. Paul, you said something to the nature that the information in and of the lexicon is not transferable, legally, to third parties. So, I, as a 3rd party, when I go to Dukhrana.com or use the lexicon on this site (Peshitta.org) am I not doing so legally or legitmately?? I think I am might be overlooking something obvious here. Paul, you seemed to have cleared this up in one sense but in another sense it seems you stated something exactly the opposite. But I believe the misunderstanding is with me (more-less) but I just want to be sure again because I would rather not use someone's "stuff" w/o permission. But then again, all these resources at Dukhrana and even the lexicon here is right on the internet for everyone to see and tap into so I think I dropped a screw or two but I don't know where. Where may I have steered off??

Your fine using it for your personal use. So is everyone else who visits this site. It is people like me who make an interface of it on the internet, print excerpts from it in a book, republish it or repackage it that are bound by our agreement with the Way International. Again, all they (the Way International) are asking for is a copyright statement, like I have placed at the Lexicon page, noting that they hold the rights to that information, it belongs to them.

We are not selling it or anything like that, so don't worry. We have permission to use it as we are currently using it, so long as the copyright statement is there. We don't want people to think that the Lexicon was compiled by us, when in reality they slaved over it for so long. I don't have time to make one myself, that's a life-long project. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Mike Kar Wrote:(2.) about "hade," "hane" and "halen" again. Just to be sure we are on the same page here: In the very same chapter in Acts 2:15, 16 (that very location) you have Peter (I paraphrase) saying to his audience on Pentecost: "... [i]THESE' (Halen, here) are not drunk as you might imagine for it is only the 3rd hour of the day. But '[i]THIS' (hade, or hane - I forgot) is that which is spoken by the prophet, Joel."

Yes, note that "Halen" in 2:15 is masculine and plural. And notice that "Hade" in 2:16 is feminine, singular.

Mike Kar Wrote:So, you have in my first mention of Halen - "these", and the 2nd mention is "this" in Acts 2:15 and 16 accordingly.

Yes.

Mike Kar Wrote:The same words you wrote to me in the email you made the typo, right?? And this "halen" is also used with and next to "
rocks" in Matthew 4:3 (". . . tell 'THESE' stones to become bread.") matthew 4:3=Acts 2:15 for halen(these).

Absolutely. That's how you can tell that the word "KAPA" ("rock") is in the plural. You don't need Syame markings, because the preceding "Halen" is plural.

Mike Kar Wrote:Also "halen" found in Matt 24:34, Mark 2:8, Luke 1:20. All the same base word from "halen." Is this all accurate??

Yes on all counts.

Mike Kar Wrote:Yes, those 2 big bold points or dots I made reference to are found in the manuscript Khoubaris text as you go to John and scroll down to the word for "gift." You will see 2 big bold dots.

I don't see the dots you are referring to, verse 10 ends in "living waters" - please specify.

+Shamasha
Reply
#20
shlomo Mike,

Before I respond to your questions; I would like to mention that my comments about the use of the SEDRA database were meant to be informative, and I probably should have posted it in its own thread.

Mike Kar Wrote:Abudar,

AS far as your comment is concerned I take it you mean when one goes to the Dukhrana site he has the option of which book he desire to go to. He clicks the desired book and chapter (say ACts 2:33 here) and then he has to scroll down to the very verse that where the precise word is that he is exploring. So, he clicks the verse and there is the page(pop up window) that gives him a break down of all the words and their meaning. So, if he goes down to the word for "this" next to "gift" he will see that the definition here is shown to read: "this, these." The point you made as SEDRA not being totally accurate (or not showing the full picture) would apply to this situation if one were to stop at that point. In other words, the dude, if he were to go this far and no more, does not have all the information that he can if he should stop at this point.

This is what you meant, is it not??

Yes, in an oversimplification of what I???ve said.

Without focusing on Dukhrana specifically (I love using this great tool; the interface for the lexicon, Peshitta, and Khabouris are well implemented), I'll use it as the bases for my response.
The SEDRA database is used by many different Syriac lexicons online, and it is a good analytical database.

My focus was more on what is written in the Meaning (aka definition) field.

Mike Kar Wrote:[b]
But we both know that as each verse gives a "general" breakdown" and meaning of the word there is a number next to each word (in blue) that one may proceed to (clicking here) - to get a PRECISE and COMPLETE definition of the word. Also, there is the option where one can go to and see all the verses where this exact word is located at in other passages.

In the above question you mention "this".
????????????
???this, these??? is listed as number ???5249???

????????????
???this, these??? is listed as number ???5250, 5251???

Here 5249 can only be ???this??? and never ???these???.
Here 5250 and 5251 can only be "these" and never "this"
Since SEDRA went to the trouble of having different numbers for each word, then they should have given the proper meaning (aka definition). But anyone who reads the breakdown will know automatically what it should be.

This is a basic example, and goes back to what I was saying; that you can???t depend on the meaning, but rather you have to interpret the breakdown.

Here???s another basic example:
???he??? is listed as number ???5009, 5030???

Here 5009 should be ???she??? and ???5030??? should be ???he???

????????????????
Here 23320 should be ???you??? and never ???thou???

Mike Kar Wrote:[b]
But when he clicks on the number in blue he will get an accurate definition of the word, be able to know for sure about whether it is 2nd person common plural, 3rd person masculine singular, 1st person feminine plural; along with PERFECT PEAL, or PERFECT PAEL, and so on. In other words, the information here is exhaustive, as far as we can tell. Yes?

No, you don???t get an accurate definition; you get the same definition as before.
What you do get is an accurate breakdown, the same as before you hit the link.

It???s exhaustive if someone knows how to interpret the Aramaic verbal forms.
????????
18492 (Peal) => ???kill???

????????????????
18437 (Ethpeal) => ???kill???

For ???kill???
18492 should be ???he killed??? <= Active Verb => ex: bob killed james
18437 should be ???he was killed??? <=Passive Verb => ex: james was killed

Mike Kar Wrote:[b]
So, by clicking on the blue number he can "zero" in much more accurately and get down to the "bare bones" of the exact meaning of the word and its rendering and so on. Am I on the right road?? This is what I have been doing.

Please see above!

I was in no way referring to you when I made that post.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#21
Abudar,

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely, Graciously,

Mike

Reply
#22
Paul, Ti-kanis??

Thanks for getting back with me. Those 2 big bold points that I was referring to are found in John 4:10 and are next to "Gift" in that verse and at the end of the word (reading R to L). These will be seen in the Khoubaris manuscript which I saw when I scrolled down there. Just curious because this question was asked in light of Syame markings to indicate plural. It appears these bold "periods" are not Syame markings. Before I thought that Syame markings ( 2 dots) can be anywhere.

But I have done some research on this word on the Khoubaris manuscript and see other "single" marks in this very word. Like, sometimes for this word one dot would be places above the first letter "m" (I believe) of this word "gift" and other times it would not. Like in Acts 2:38 for "gift" there are no dots above this word. But for this same word you will see a dot above the "m" (first letter) in places like Acts 10:45 and 11:17. Also, taking this same word there will be found, on occasion another dot places above the 3rd letter of the word. So, vo this word "gift" and using the same lexical number, you may find one (at times) dot and 2 dots for this word in other places. What does this mean and does this change the meaning of the word in any way??? What is the scribe intention's??

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#23
Mike Kar Wrote:Paul, Ti-kanis??

Thanks for getting back with me. Those 2 big bold points that I was referring to are found in John 4:10 and are next to "Gift" in that verse and at the end of the word (reading R to L). These will be seen in the Khoubaris manuscript which I saw when I scrolled down there. Just curious because this question was asked in light of Syame markings to indicate plural. It appears these bold "periods" are not Syame markings. Before I thought that Syame markings ( 2 dots) can be anywhere.

But I have done some research on this word on the Khoubaris manuscript and see other "single" marks in this very word. Like, sometimes for this word one dot would be places above the first letter "m" (I believe) of this word "gift" and other times it would not. Like in Acts 2:38 for "gift" there are no dots above this word. But for this same word you will see a dot above the "m" (first letter) in places like Acts 10:45 and 11:17. Also, taking this same word there will be found, on occasion another dot places above the 3rd letter of the word. So, vo this word "gift" and using the same lexical number, you may find one (at times) dot and 2 dots for this word in other places. What does this mean and does this change the meaning of the word in any way??? What is the scribe intention's??

Kindly,

Mike

Yasoo Mike, Kala.

I'll have to take a look at it again when I get home, but it could be markings that indicate the beginning or end of a liturgical reading. Sometimes later scribes went in and placed markers where readings begin and where they end for liturgical purposes, it helped them out during the year for the appointed readings (readings are fixed for every day of the year!)

+Shamasha
Reply
#24
Paul,

Thank you. But the dots (diacritical markings) you would know; yes? For "gift" in Acts 2:38 "mawhab,t,a" (its pretty close but not accurate) you have no "dots" above this word at this place. But taking the same word "gift" with the same lexical number (spelled the same way) in Acts 2:33 you have a dot above the "m" (first letter of the word). You also have the same word with one dot above the "m" in Acts 10:45, and Acts 11:17. Further, you have 2 dots for the same word(same lexical number for "gift") in Hebrews 6:4 and Romans 5:16. Here, there is the one dot placed above the "m" (maw) and another dot placed above the 3rd character of the word.

Are these diacritical markings?? And what is the significanse of these dots( whether none, one or two)??

Would this change the meaning of this word in any way or to any degree??

Thanks again Paul.

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#25
shlomo Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote: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.

Mike Kar Wrote:
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...

Mike Kar Wrote:
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!

Mike Kar Wrote:
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.

Mike Kar Wrote:
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
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)