Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #128
Help Print Share

 
Send email to Send private message to Add  to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

%0D%0A%3E%28V1.1%29%22size%3D%225%22%5D Nyd%5B%2Ffont%5D as %5Bi%5Dand%5B%2Fi%5D%2C but %0D%0A%3Ein the next two verses%2C %0D%0A%3EMatt. 1%3A19-20%2C you translate %5Bfont %0D%0A%3Eface%3D%22Estrangelo %28V1.1%29%22size%3D%225%22%5D Nyd%5B%2Ffont%5D as %5Bi%5Dbut%5B%2Fi%5D. %0D%0A%3ECould you explain this%3F %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EAkhak bMshikha %0D%0A%3EJohn Marucci %0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A.

Dec-- at 00: AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #
 

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

1. Excellent question.

Nov-04-2000 at 00:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi John,

Thank you for your kind words, it is really a pleasure to be working on this project especially with all of the wonderful feedback and interest generated in the last few months.

The first question is (somewhat) easier to answer than the second. When I give the answer to the second, it may seem like I am perhaps skirting the issue....please bear with me.

Perhaps some general information here will help as well.

The oldest manuscripts of the Peshitta were written before the invention of the chapter/verse concept. Entire sentences (even chapters) are strung together like one continuous long sentence (without even 'periods')....as if the absence of vowel markings is not enough to deter the reader!

I think the best way to answer is to reverse the questions and define what Nyd is and isn't.

(2) I like to think of Nyd as a "thought-switch". Its main purpose is to introduce a new topic into the thought process. Especially helpful in texts without sentence-delimiters or verse numbers.

In this capacity, it does bear resemblance to the various English words (thoughts) "And, But, However, For, Then, Now."

It is not, however translated definitively by any of those English terms. If I'm still making sense here, it's a miracle. Basically, there is no true (one) equivalent to this term in English. It is a combination of the "effects" of "And, But, However, For, Then, Now." It is a "thought-switcher."

For a translator, this is a cause for many headaches.

In English, the tendency is to be very concise and definitive....for sentences to make a point and then continue.

In Semitic languages, however, there is no problem with entire books being composed in loose clauses connected by simple "and's & but's"...monotony is no deterrent, whereas in English there is a preference for conciseness.

Aramaic is a very oratory language, whereas English is more geared towards the written form.
Hence, there is need for a "thought-switcher" in Aramaic.

Having said all that, let me say this. Many people choose not to translate the word. I was personally advised on occasion not to. It is, often, best left untranslated.

Many times, I could have just as easily translated it "and" instead of "now" in my translation. It really depends on the context and what "sounds best" in English.....I am many times trying to "sync" two thought processes that are not always in "sync".

(1) Exactly where to place Nyd....it is true that a clause never begins with this word, but there are no other concrete rules about its exact placement. A general "understood" rule is that it should appear as near as possible to the beginning of the clause, whether the clause begins with a verb or noun. In Matti 1:20, for instance, it would be proper to have it occur between dk and Nylh. Both cases are proper grammar.

There are 2 ways to approach a translation such as this work. Both need to be utilized for maximum effect. The first is to try and define what the word would equate to in English. The second is to look at it as "Nyd means Nyd"....and here is how I can best relate it to an English phrase/clause given the s

Print Top
John Marucci
 
Send email to John MarucciSend private message to John MarucciAdd John Marucci to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

2. RE: Excellent question.

Nov-05-2000 at 09:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Akhi Paul,

I was afraid you were going to say that. Actually, your concept of Nyd as a "thought-switch" is very intelligible. Here is my understanding of the concept.

Linguists think of words as having two parts; the sound or label of the word which they call a phoneme, and the meaning of the word which they call a morpheme. Forum readers can think of the morpheme as a box containing the meaning of an individual word and the phoneme as the sound or written form of the word which labels and identifies the word for us.

In the case of Nyd its' morpheme box is bigger or broader than any one single equivalent English word. The same is true for the proclitics b and l. This does not mean that the morpheme box contains multiple word meanings each of which is equivalent to a single English translation. Rather the morpheme box contains a single concept-meaning which is bigger or different from the multiple English words it can be translated into. Because in the case of Nyd a translator is forced to choose an English word with a smaller or narrower morpheme, some of the original sense and flavor of the Aramaic thought is lost. Hence, the desire to read the New Testament in the original language.

On this level of individual words then, the problem for the beginner is how to grasp the meaning and sense of the original Aramaic morpheme. Depending on the word, it may be broader or narrower, more precise or more vague than its' English equivalent. In my example of Nyd in the original post, Jenning's Lexicon, while giving valid equivalent English translations, didn't give enough information to allow me to make the conceptual jump from the English concept of a conjunction to the Aramaic concept of a "thought-switch." Neither do any of the four Syriac Grammar books I own.

This of course leads to my next question. You also translate the proclitic w as both but and and. Is w also a "thought-switch?" If so, how does its' morpheme differ from Nyd? How does an Aramaic writer decide which one to use?

Akhak bMshikha,
John Marucci

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

3. RE: Excellent question.

Nov-05-2000 at 11:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Shlama Akhi John,

I was afraid you were going to say you were afraid that I said that

Your understanding of the difficulty in answering that question is much appreciated. It also demonstrates the inherent problems with, not only translations in general, but also (as you rightly stated) the anguish the beginner will experience in trying to 'connect' with the 'psychology' of a new language.

This is, of course, a problematic situation with any attempt to learn any language.

It is particularly difficult when comparing two languages like English and Aramaic, which have a totally alien relationship to each other, especially in their respective 'Psychologies.' English-to-German or Spanish-to-French is one thing, they all are from one family (Indo-European).....but Aramaic-to-English is something very different.

This is not meant to discourage the reader or seeker, but rather to be an encouragement to study the language at a more intense and profound level.....one of actually adopting the thought patterns themselves.

I realize that an interlinear or grammar can only do so much in helping to achieve that goal. This is more of what Akhi Dean was referring to with his mention of a 'conversational' setting. This will also (God willing) happen on this site some day.

Regarding the proclitic w (you're good!)....yes, it presents some of the same issues as Nyd. I have indeed translated it as and, but and even yet. The difference, though is that w always means and in Aramaic, but this sometimes comes across awkwardly in English (whereas it is perfectly legal in Aramaic). It is more a matter of prose. It does, however, cleanly translate to "And" in English 99.9% of the time.

It may also be mentioned that sometimes the proclitic d means who or that, which would make it behave more like a relative pronoun in English terms.

These things, unfortunately, are the bane of both the translator and the student of a language.

For a student they simply must be learned and applied to a person's 'knowledge-base' without reference to, or reliance upon, an existing paradigm. (I know this is easier said than done.)

Much more can be dealt with on this topic. Perhaps there should be another part to the grammar, called 'psychology?'


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

4. RE: Excellent question.

Nov-06-2000 at 03:24 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Very interesting thread all!

I just wanted to add to it only via illustration. Many of you, like myself, probably took a second language in high school. For me, it was Spanish, and when I was a teenager, I noticed something interesting.

Take a phrase like "HACE FRIO"...how do we translate it into English? We would say "I AM cold." But...our Spanish friends are really saying, "I HAVE THE FEELING OF COLDNESS".

See the difference? In English, we make the cold part of our being (I AM) but in Spanish it is something you HAVE. Completely different way of thinking, isn't it?

Spanish has masculine and feminine words, English has neither. We Americans used to buy a car by the millions called a "Nova", Latin for "new"...pretty cool. But in Mexico, it became known as NO VA...which means, "It doesn't go"! Not a great selling device.

So here's my point finally. English and Spanish are closely related languages...both belonging to the Indo European group and specifically being derived from Latin...but look at those differences.

Aramaic and Hebrew on the other hand belong to a completely different family of languages, so the bridge between IELG and the Semitic Language Group is much bigger. What do we say to people who don't understand, as just one example, that mental states are not separated from physical ones in Aramaic, such as:

"If your eye offends, pluck it out" = Remove sinful visions from your eyes/mind.

OR

"You will handle snakes and drink deadly poison" (Mark 16:18) = You will overcome any obstacle/enemy- comp to Psalm 91.

What happens when countless westerners hurt and maim themselves by taking this literally when not a single easterner ever made this mistake?

So yes, the obstacles are formidable...but I will put the joy of hearing John 3:16 in its original wording as more than adequate compensation for the effort required.

What do you all think?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

5. RE: Excellent question.

Nov-06-2000 at 11:22 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-00 AT 11:32 PM (CST)

Shlama Akhi,

I think you have summed it up perfectly.

When my father first arrived in the US, he went to a restaurant and ordered a cup of coffee. To his astonishment, the waitress told him "It's on the house."

Needless to say, he was insulted. He thought she meant "Go jump off the roof."


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top
John Marucci
 
Send email to John MarucciSend private message to John MarucciAdd John Marucci to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

6. RE: Excellent question.

Nov-08-2000 at 08:43 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
To all,

My intention in starting this thread was not to scare people away from learning Aramaic. I simply wanted an answer to a question that had been bugging me.

While Aramaic is structurally quite different from English, it is hardly the most difficult language for an English speaker to learn. If your primary goal is simply to be able to read the Peshitta, you dont have the huge learning curve that someone who wants to speak fluent French in Paris has. The amount of vocabulary you need to learn in comparison to the whole language is small. And, unlike the French cafe conversation, the Peshitta isnt going anywhere, you have as much time as you need to deal with each verse.

I did imply that most of the older Syriac grammars arent very suitable for the modern independent learner. Among other difficulties, they assume you already know Biblical Hebrew, and are usually printed in serto script.

One recent book which I have just started working through is Introduction to Syriac, by W. H. Thackston. It is available from Ibex Publishers at https://www.ibexpub.com . It is especially useful for Pauls Interlinear readers in that it uses the same type of script, Estrangela, and provides transliterated pronunciation for all new words. The only caveat is that it doesnt contain a complete answer key to all the chapter exercises. Never the less, it is the best and most complete beginners book I have yet seen.


Shlama,
John Marucci

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

7. A Question about Luqa 14:26

Nov-09-2000 at 02:33 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Hi Akhi Paul!

I was going through Luqa 14 and noticed that you had rendered a key word as "hate" as in "whoever does not hate their mother and father".

I then remembered hearing something about how the same Aramaic word for "hate" can also mean "set aside". If so, it makes a bit better sense...we cannot "hate" our parents because of the fifth commandment to honor them. Rather, it seems likely to be an allegorical situation meaning "set aside family/business concerns for the kingdom of God". (A similar situation may also be with regards to the famous "let the dead bury their dead"??????)

Is this in fact the case?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

8. RE: A Question about Luqa 14:26

Nov-09-2000 at 10:20 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Hi Akhi Andrew,

I don't think that's the case here.

I know in most of Lamsa's writing, he mentions this. But (aside from using the word myself), I have not been able to verify that claim using any other resources (including Payne Smith).

In Aramaic, 0ns means to hate in a very strong way, to the extent of becoming an enemy.

This particular verse is particularly troublesome to me, but I try to concentrate on the context of the message possibly being that there would come a time when "brother would be against brother, and children against their parents....etc," for the Kingdom.

In other words, the Messiah's advent would split families up.....and what he meant by this teaching was:

"Anyone who loves his (???) more than me is not worthy of me"

In other words, even your family members must be as enemies to you if you have to choose between them and I.

Anyway, that's just my (sorry) attempt at theology.

I could absolutely change my mind on this subject if shown the proper references.

Anyone else out there who speaks Aramaic, and has used the word 0ns in a way other than to mean "Hate?"


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Hi Akhi Paul!
>
>I was going through Luqa 14
>and noticed that you had
>rendered a key word as
>"hate" as in "whoever does
>not hate their mother and
>father".
>
>I then remembered hearing something about
>how the same Aramaic word
>for "hate" can also mean
>"set aside". If so,
>it makes a bit better
>sense...we cannot "hate" our parents
>because of the fifth commandment
>to honor them. Rather,
>it seems likely to be
>an allegorical situation meaning "set
>aside family/business concerns for the
>kingdom of God". (A similar
>situation may also be with
>regards to the famous "let
>the dead bury their dead"??????)
>
>
>Is this in fact the case?
>
>
>Shlama w'burkate
>Andrew Gabriel Roth


Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

9. RE: A Question about Luqa 14:26

Nov-09-2000 at 10:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
Not necessary, dear Akhi!

I should notpost when I don't have my sources around me and/or am uncertain from my own memory.

In the Hebrew it is the same word, pronounced SAW-NAY and it is the exact meaning you suggest. Hate...to personally make an enemy of. It is apprently related to an even older Aramaic word, SANE which is a more general kind of hatred.

For those who might be interested, some of the Tenakh verses this appears in are:

Genesis 24:60, 26:27, Exodus 20:5, and Leviticus 26:17.

Sorry for the error.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

10. Awesome References!

Nov-09-2000 at 11:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
Hi Akhi,

Great references from the Tenakh. I just looked them up in my Hebrew/English interlinear. The verse from Leviticus is particularly interesting.

This is surely one of Maran's most 'hard' teachings.

Sometimes I wonder what reference Lamsa was using for this verse.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Not necessary, dear Akhi!
>
>I should notpost when I don't
>have my sources around me
>and/or am uncertain from my
>own memory.
>
>In the Hebrew it is the
>same word, pronounced SAW-NAY and
>it is the exact meaning
>you suggest. Hate...to personally
>make an enemy of.
>It is apprently related to
>an even older Aramaic word,
>SANE which is a more
>general kind of hatred.
>
>For those who might be interested,
>some of the Tenakh verses
>this appears in are:
>
>Genesis 24:60, 26:27, Exodus 20:5, and
>Leviticus 26:17.
>
>Sorry for the error.
>
>Shlama w'burkate
>Andrew Gabriel Roth


Print Top
Akhi Shmuel
 
Send email to Akhi ShmuelSend private message to Akhi ShmuelAdd Akhi Shmuel to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

11. RE: Awesome References!

Nov-10-2000 at 10:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 
Akhi Paul/Andrew:
The passage in question means as in the Amplified Bible: If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and his wife and children and brothers and sisters- and even his own life also-he cannot be My disciple.
The word rendered hate is Miseo,which means from Misos(hatred); to hate:to utterly despise with a consuming hatred, but by extension as used in this passage a lesser form of love that is hatred in the extreme in comparrison to our love for God. You can find this in Vine's Expository dictionary or Thayer's Greek Lexicon and other sources as well. I do not know Aramaic resources to define the original word but the Greek rendering of it is a clue to its meaning. also study the complete context of Luka's passage will help determine how the meaning of the word for extreme hatred should be understood. The strongs number is 3404 if you need the reference number. The source for the amplified Bible is Abbot-Smith.Manual Greek Lexicon .
I hope this helps, Shlama Rabba Shmuel-Eliezer

Print Top
Akhi Shmuel
 
Send email to Akhi ShmuelSend private message to Akhi ShmuelAdd Akhi Shmuel to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: Awesome References!

Nov-11-2000 at 09:13 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 
Akhi All:
In the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God. have been added in brackets by the Amplified Bible to clarify the meaning of the word for hatred in the Greek Targum of the New Testament. There source was Abbot-Smith.Manual Greeek Lexicon. Shlama Rabba Shmuel-Elizer

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service