Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Doubling verbs and words
Something which I several times have seen, is that the Peshitta has some idiom to double a verb which is an idiomatic emphasis .

I don't know a western equivalent but in French where we have the idiom CO?TE QUE CO?TE which means 'it costs what it costs=at ANY cost...' (aproximately)

(e.g. Murdock shows this distintion)
e.g. 2 corinthians 8:19
likewise had been expressly chosen by the churches...
Litterally 'choosing chosen..'

2 Corinthians 8:8
not as I commanding command you... (I did not command you expressly)

Or in JOhn 13:29
Charging he charged him to... (He charged him expressly to...)
The Greek has no such idiom.

HOwever, it tries to in for instance in Acts 5: 28
To charge you, we charged you not to...

Now as for verbs, this also happens with nouns.
As in 1 Timothy 1:3
"That you would to command -man man- to...'
(That you would command some men...)
Acts 2:4
They began to speak with language language (Greek heteros glossais).
"They begon to speak several languages...

So it looks like the Greek, normally, does not have this idiomatic construction but the Aramaic has.

Now I have the following question:
Are there more cases of such idiomatic constructions in the Peshitta and is this a good case for primacy as well?
2nd Corinthians 8:10 has one as well...
Here's some simple ones. They're not of the same construction as verb duplicates, but are interesting nonetheless.
These particular constructs are repeated many a time in the text.
Luke 16:5 - had had men hayave d'mareh: literally "one one from the debtors of his master," interpreted "each/every/all of the debtors of his master." The generic form is had had men (...)
Acts 2:7 - had l'had: similar to above, but closer to English: literally "one to one," interpreted "one to another."
Acts 2:38 - 'nash 'nash menkhun: literally "man man from you[pl.]," interpreted "each one of you."

Though it's quite clear that these don't contribute to any primacy arguments.
Aaron S Wrote:Though it's quite clear that these don't contribute to any primacy arguments.

Thanks. But what about this:

Clearly in the Peshitta there is added expression; an emotion.
In the Greak however, here is just 1 time a duplicated verb (and I wonder if this is really Greek idiom!) ie in Acts 5 (as noted above).
So the Greek has lesser expression.

Would a translator loose expression or -add- it?
You have spoken well. I was merely pointing out that the terms I brought up do not contribute to it, as they are common Aramaic constructs.

The other day I had spoken to Jeremy (The Burning One) a bit about this subject, and this was what he said. I'll cut and paste what he said here.

"the Aramaic text is not really an idiom like "from the calm" = "immediately," or "son of an hour" = "a little time," etc.. rather, it is more of a method of emphasizing something, and is used also in Hebrew, like in Genesis 14:10, where it speaks of "pits pits" = BE'EROTH BE'EROTH, like saying "There were MAJOR PITS there," or Deuteronomy 16:20, which says "righteous, righteous" TZEDEQ TZEDEQ, like saying "extreme righteousness." a translator could use different terms to make the reading make sense where applicable.

an English example would be like saying to your child: "You had BETTER clean your room," ...but say instead... "Cleaning clean your room." it sounds kind of odd to repeat it in English, simply because we don't normally use such a construction for emphasis in this language. but in Hebrew and Aramaic such a form is fine. now there are instances in the Aramaic when you could repeat it and it sound somewhat okay, but then there are other places where it just sounds weird to repeat it in a translation, and so you have to go for something else unless you're giving an ultra-literal rendering.

at first in my translating i went with the literal and doubled them, but it sounded a bid odd and wasn't necessary, so in those instances i've opted for appropriate renderings contextually. i had actually gone back and changed the few that i had done after reading them aloud and hearing how odd they sounded, and from the suggestion of another proof-reader -- i think i got them all but if you find any remnants feel free to point them out... that would be one of the VERY few instances where i would go that route, and since it isn't an idiom being translated literally, i don't give any notes there.

personally, i don't see it as much of a primacy evidence, but i could be wrong. just looking at a few examples from the Gospels in the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old Syriac, it is a hit and miss situation. we know that the OS are not Peshitta texts, but augmented from the Greek, and so, like in John 13:29, we find it in the OS Sinaitic, but it is not the case with the one from Luke. to me it would not fit well for a primacy evidence on this alone, but i am not familiar with much other Aramaic texts that we know are translated from Greek sources, so i would need further study to come to a staunch conclusion. i suppose a look at the Western 5 books could be helpful in this area to see if any such constructions are present.

anyhow i hope that helps sort it out a bit. there are examples of Semitic grammar that DO point to Aramaic primacy, and while they are evidences, i haven't put any in my notes because they are so profuse that i think i'd spend most of my time on the notes! they come in the form of predicate/verb clauses, conjugations, etcetera.. Paul has given a few concise examples of these online if you're interested to see what i am referring to."

Chayim b'Moshiach,

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)