Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lamadh evidence of Aramaic not translated from Hebrew?

i read this in a site i stumbled across and realized i had previously noticed the difference mentioned between the Peshitta AN"K and the Peshitta NT, but i wasn't aware of the implication concerning the detail asserted about Aramaic that is not a translation from Hebrew:

Quote:While in the Targums and the Old Testament Peshitta the syllable yath is the sign of the accusative (earlier vath, as in the Sinjirli inscriptions), the letter lamedh serves that purpose in Aramaic which is not a translation from Hebrew.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... c-language</a><!-- m -->

although i don't personally ascribe to it, i know that the Hebrew Primacy notion, while rather small, is yet alive, and thought that it was worth pointing out this detail here on the Peshitta Aramaic Primacy forum, in case anyone might be dealing with HP advocates. i know the majority of evidences are geared toward disproving the Greek Primacy positions, but since Hebrew Primacy advocates are out there, then it is relevant to the topic.

maybe Paul or someone else with some more info on this could speak to this detail, as to the veracity of the claim in the quote. the yath sign of the accusative is indeed missing in the Peshitta NT, and the lamadh replaces that all over the text. i never made the connection between the two, so is it really a sign that the Peshitta NT Aramaic wasn't translated from a "lost" Hebrew source-text?

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Shlama Akhi

Great observation. Indeed the Yath is missing entirely from the NT, is not natively Aramaic and is rampant in translational Aramaic from Hebrew primary sources. As you know, the lamedh Proclitic serves that purpose in Aramaic.

For the Yath, open up Genesis chapter one on the left. See how frequent Yath is used in translational Aramaic from Hebrew.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)