"MarYah deception" ???

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Jerry,

Paul, I don't know of any parallel to the MR` root, even among noun roots. It seems to be unique to itself.

Unique in what way? Meem, Resh and Alap. It certainly isn't unique in that it's a noun that ends in a weak radical. You can say that about the following:

MYA (water)
KSA (cup)

What is unique about it, exactly?

So turning (MauR-Yau`) into the proper noun MarYah is always going to be a speculative venture, IMO. I doubt your case can be proven any more than I could prove that it is a singular emphatic.

Why? See above. What is the emphatic for the lexical stems Maya and Kasa ?

For example, (Mau-Re`) is unique. I don't know of any other root, where such a construction would be the singular construct if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic.

Kasa. (cup) Bara. (son) Bertha. (daughter). How many more do you want ?

It would instead be the plural emphatic. Yes, (MauR-Yau`) is unique, but so is (Mau-Ra-Yau`). So if (MauR-Yau`) is the proper noun MarYah, then what is (Mau-Ra-Yau`)?

Maraye is the plural, 3rd-person. Different word that happens by chance, by grammatical accident, to have the same 4 consonants. But pronounced differently.

There is a finite number of forms that a root conforms to. They are singular absolute, construct, and emphatic. And plural absolute, construct, and emphatic. Six of in total. Sometimes, singular absolute and construct are inflected the same. MR` is a large root, with many examples. The SEDRA 3 listing is the only way that it's various inflections can be aligned to the six grammatical forms. It is the only way to put the puzzle together.

No it's not. A lexical entry is a horrible way to put the puzzle together. It is meant to be a reference tool for lookup, to someone already familiar with the grammar of the target language.

To assume that MarYah exists, is to assume that the singular absolute never occurs in the root.

I don't understand that statement, please explain.

Possible, but unlikely in such a large sample. We know that by context (MauR-Yau`) works as "the-Lord" or "a-lord" in all examples. We know that MarYah doesn't. It doesn't in Matthew 22: 43 & 45.

I don't understand what you are referring to?

It could be that (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, and not the absolute. In fact, it is the weakest link in my argument. It could be that (MauR-Yau`) is something beyond that of singular emphatic. But even then, I would not be convinced that MarYah is the answer.

Just my reflections on the subject. I am not convinced I am correct, but not convinced I am wrong either. It is just where I am at this moment of time.

Have you studied the grammar of Aramaic in a proper setting? I'm not meaning to ask in an insulting manner, please don't misunderstand me. But it appears that some of the basic understanding of the language is missing altogether and I just want to be sure we are on the same page when using terminology.

M-R-A (the lexical stem for "lord") is no different than B-R-A (the lexical stem for "son"). Please tell me what the Emphatic form for "B-R-A" (son) is ? Both lexical stems are nouns with a weak-III radical.

Is the Emphatic for "son"...."B-R-A", or "B-R-Y-A" ?

+Shamasha