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 #19
Help Print Share

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

%0D%0A%3E %28And we Catholics tend %0D%0A%3Eto believe that although everything %0D%0A%3Easserted in the Bible is %0D%0A%3Einerrantly true%2C the sacred authors %0D%0A%3Echose the words themselves.%29 %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EAnd surely%2C at least some of %0D%0A%3Ethe New Testament was written %0D%0A%3Ein Greek. One would %0D%0A%3Ethink that Paul would write %0D%0A%3Ein the language that would %0D%0A%3Ebe understood by His readers--and %0D%0A%3EHis readers often were Greeks. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EI plan on doing these other %0D%0A%3E%3Eimportant works after I am %0D%0A%3E%3Edone with this translation. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EThe translation %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EI realize the 2 examples I %0D%0A%3E%3Egave are mere examples%2C but %0D%0A%3E%3Emy point still stands. %0D%0A%3E%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EHow does one explain that the %0D%0A%3E%3ELuke passage is %2Aperfect%2A Aramaic %0D%0A%3E%3Estructure.....and follows the Peshitta wording %0D%0A%3E%3E%2Aexactly%2A. Again%2C one is %0D%0A%3E%3Enative%2C the fother foriegn sentence %0D%0A%3E%3Estructure. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EI can%27t remember the particular passage. %0D%0A%3E My own opinion is %0D%0A%3Ethat the first chapter %28or %0D%0A%3Emaybe the first two chapters%29 %0D%0A%3Eof Luke comes from a %0D%0A%3ESemitic text%2C but the rest %0D%0A%3Ewas written in Greek. %0D%0A%3EI can%27t remember which part %0D%0A%3Eof Luke your text was %0D%0A%3Echosen %28though--and this is damaging %0D%0A%3Eto my case to some %0D%0A%3Edegree--I think it may have %0D%0A%3Ecome from the second part%29. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EAnyway%2C the Greek word order is %0D%0A%3Efine. I don%27t notice %0D%0A%3Eany awkwardness in it. %0D%0A%3EGreek is just very flexible. %0D%0A%3E And%2C as I said%2C %0D%0A%3Ethe word order is compatible %0D%0A%3Ewith the hypothesis that the %0D%0A%3Etext was written by a %0D%0A%3ESemite. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EThe hypothesis being put forth is %0D%0A%3E%3Ethis%3A %0D%0A%3E%3E%0D%0A%3E%3E%28A%29 Was this strange Greek actually %0D%0A%3E%3Ea %2Aspoken%2A language%3F %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EWho knows%3F %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3E%28B%29 Is it an indication of %0D%0A%3E%3ETranslation Greek....found so commonly in %0D%0A%3E%3Ethe Septuagint. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EOr maybe the NT writers were %0D%0A%3Ewriting in Septuagint style%2C just %0D%0A%3Eas the Book of Mormon %0D%0A%3Eis written in King James %0D%0A%3EBible style. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EWe know%2C for instance%2C that the %0D%0A%3E%3EAramaic of the Targums was %0D%0A%3E%3E%2Anot%2A a spoken language%2C but %0D%0A%3E%3Ea literary language based on %0D%0A%3E%3Ehard work by the scribes. %0D%0A%3E%3E It is a strange %0D%0A%3E%3EAramaic indeed. %0D%0A%3E%3E%0D%0A%3E%3ECould this example be another instance %0D%0A%3E%3Eof this phenomenon%3F %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EIt could. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%3ECompare the way the Greek NT %0D%0A%3E%3Estructures it%27s sentences with the %0D%0A%3E%3Eway Josephus does%2C for instance. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EJosephus would be a good control%2C %0D%0A%3EI suppose%2C though alas he %0D%0A%3Eis a Semite%2C too. %0D%0A%3EI don%27t have Josephus here. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3ESh%27lam lekh%2C %0D%0A%3EAlex %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
Alexander R. Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander R. PrussSend private message to Alexander R. PrussAdd Alexander R. Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 01:02 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Greek word order is very flexible (so is Semitic but somewhat less so I feel). It certainly does not need to adhere to SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) word order. Any of the 6 possible word orders can occur in any one Greek text. SOV is quite common in classical Greek, for instance. I would not find VSO at all strange.

One cannot base conclusions on just looking at a few passages. One would need to actually count the number of sentences adhering to each word order, and then compare the statistics against other Koine Greek texts. But there is more to it than that. Because large parts of the NT were written by Semites, you would have to compare the statistics against the kind of Koine Greek that Semites use. So you would need texts by Semites who wrote in Koine, and you would need to compare the statistics. The results might be interesting, but without doing this kind of an analysis I think things are fairly useless.

There certainly are exceptions. Yes, the sentences with "eipen" (he said) do seem to fit the rule--at least when I open the Gospels at random. But I just opened the Gospels at random and got John 1:14: "Kai ho logos sarx egeneto" -- "And the word flesh became." A nice fairly common classical Greek SOV order. I'm sure Semitic poetry can be flexible in word order, so this is not impossible in Semitic poetry, but it is a bit more natural in Greek.

Now that I have my Greek Bible open to the first page of John, let's look a bit more. 1:1 - "En archE En ho logos" - "In the beginning was the Word" (VS, fine Semitic, but 1:1 is a deliberate echo of Genesis 1:1 so this says nothing) "kai ho logos En pros to theon" - "And the Word was with God" (SVO--well, actually SVC, but that's close enough--nice Indo-European word order) "kai theos En ho logos" - "And God was the Word" (OVS--fine Greek, acceptable Semitic). "Houtos En en archE(i) pros ton theon" - "He was in the beginning with God" (SVO, or SVC). I don't have the Peshitta with me, but if memory serves me, the first couple of verses of John sounded strange in Syriac. In fact, the crucial "God was the Word" looked really strange in Syriac. Of course, I'm not a Syriac scholar, so maybe it's OK, but it did seem a little awkward.

O.K., this isn't quite fair because John 1 is poetry and poetry is more flexible. But it does illustrate how flexible the word order is in Greek and how necessary it would be to have statistics to make the claims you're making.

Now, let's flip the page. My eye first falls on John 1:19. "Kai hautE estin hE marturia tou IOannou, hote apesteilan hoi Ioudaioi ex IerosolumOn hiereis kai Leuitas..." - "And this is the witness of John, when sent the Jews from Jerusalem priests and levites." We get OVS (or CVS - C=complement) in the first half and your Semitic VSO in the second half. Other more-or-less random verses. 1:18: "Theon oudeis heOraken" - "God nobody has seen" - OVS. 1:24: "Kai apestalmenoi Esan ek tOn Pharisaion" - SVO or SVC. 1:26: "ApekrithE autois ho IOannEs legOn..." - VSO. 1:32 "Kai emarturEsen IOannEs legOn..." - VSO. It looks, and this is interesting, that speech-reports in John tend to use the Semitic VSO. (Maybe as a conscious or unconscious echo of Septuagint style, though?) But elsewhere there is some flexibility.

Alex

Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

2. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 01:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
I withdraw my claim that John 1:1 looks awkward in the Peshitta. I just looked at the text. By the way, www.onlinebible.com has a Peshitta NT module (which I helped produce). The font it uses is Hebrew, but you can probably change that without too much difficulty.

Alex

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

4. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 02:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the info.

I did see that initially prior to beginning my work, and thought about using it.

Unfortunately, this text is not from our manuscripts, but from the Western manuscripts.

It has the 5 disputed books, occasional variant readings, and the "Church of God" revision in Acts 20:28.

It would have saved me much time, but I am using the Eastern texts of the Church of the East, therefore I cannot use it.

BTW - If you are interested in this kind of thing.....volunteers for this project are always needed

Thanks again, and God bless!

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>I withdraw my claim that John
>1:1 looks awkward in the
>Peshitta. I just looked
>at the text. By
>the way, www.onlinebible.com has a
>Peshitta NT module (which I
>helped produce). The font
>it uses is Hebrew, but
>you can probably change that
>without too much difficulty.
>
>Alex


Print Top
Samuel Tykocinski
 
Send email to Samuel TykocinskiSend private message to Samuel TykocinskiAdd Samuel Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

8. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-25-2000 at 00:01 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
Dear Alex,
Did you really help produce the Hebrew letter edition of the New Testament Peshitta? I have a copy of it on my online bible cd-rom. I also have Lamsa's translation of the Old and New Testament Peshitta. Your text reads in Acts some where the phrase Church of Alahah (God)Lamsa says Church of Meshikhaha(Messiah) why the difference? also why did you leave out the vowels as this makes reading more difficult? Is this the Same version of the Peshitta published by the American Bible Soceity which is Hebrew and Aramaic in Hebrew font with vowels adding like you did the five latter texts of 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, and Revelation from it says a 1891 edition in Mosoul, Iraq, which Paul says was a modern translation and in accurate, since these five books were not part of the Peshitta or the cannon of the New Testament Church in the East? My e-mail adress is :ammytico@aol.com" target="_top">Sammytico@aol.com , you can e-mail my your reply if you want or respond to it over here. I asked online Bible where they got this 1905 Peshitta text from and they said they did not know. I like it because I can read Hebrew letters , but not Estrangela and it allows me to compare the Peshitta in the original language rather than just rely on the translators like Herb Jahn's version, George Lamsa's, victor Alexander's, and in part Paul Younoun 's Version. I was thinking of buying this Hebrew -Aramaic Peshitta New Testament ,but if it is the same text I seee no need after all the vowels came later and we are not fully sure if they are all correct, but the letters themselves are exactly the sme in Hebrew or Estrangela script, but not in Arabic which has 28 letters instead of 22. Early Arabic had only 22 letttters though but that was way before the Quran was writen which has 28. Farsi uses the Arabic alphabet but has even more letters I believe 32 I was told. Sam.
Pax Iesu Christi cum ? The Peace of Christ be with you.

Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

9. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-25-2000 at 10:18 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
>Did you really help produce the
>Hebrew letter edition of the
>New Testament Peshitta?

Yes. I grabbed it off a website that allowed retrieval of bits of it, bit by bit, converted it into OLB format, and then Larry Pierce the author of OLB made it into a module.

>I have
>a copy of it on
>my online bible cd-rom. I
>also have Lamsa's translation of
>the Old and New Testament
>Peshitta.

I've seen (at least once, but probably more than that) awful mistakes in Lamsa's translation. Either the guy didn't know Syriac or else he had a big theological axe to grind or else he was working at times from a radically different text.

> Your text reads in
>Acts some where the phrase
>Church of Alahah (God)Lamsa says
>Church of Meshikhaha(Messiah) why the
>difference?

I don't know. I don't have an apparatus criticus.

> also why did you
>leave out the vowels as
>this makes reading more difficult?

The text I was converting didn't have them. If you want to put them, go ahead

>Is this the Same version
>of the Peshitta published by
>the American Bible Soceity which
>is Hebrew and Aramaic in
>Hebrew font with vowels adding
>like you did the five
>latter texts of 2 Peter,
>2&3 John, Jude, and Revelation
>from it says a 1891
>edition in Mosoul, Iraq, which
>Paul says was a modern
>translation and in accurate, since
>these five books were not
>part of the Peshitta or
>the cannon of the New
>Testament Church in the East?

No. This is from a 1905-1920 scholarly critical edition which I assume is part of the UBS Peshitta which is in Syriac script. (It's a neat edition in one way: The deutorocanonical books are _handwritten_ and then duplicated!)

Since it's at least from a scholarly edition and since the ABS version is according to Paul inaccurate, presumably the online text is going to be as good as or better than the inaccurate version. By the way, I'm glad someone is using that text. When I asked Larry Pierce to help me make a module for it, he didn't think there would be any users (other than me!) I, too, prefer Hebrew script, though I can decipher Estrangela most of the time when I work at it.

As for the five books, well we can get into issues of the canon if you want to.

>My e-mail adress is :ammytico@aol.com" target="_top">Sammytico@aol.com
>, you can e-mail my
>your reply if you want
>or respond to it over
>here. I asked online Bible
>where they got this 1905
>Peshitta text from and they
>said they did not know.

When you start it up, it says that it comes from the British and Foreign Bible Society text of 1905. Actually, that's 1905-1920.

The peace of Christ be with you,
Alex

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

3. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 02:23 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Hi Alex!

Thanks for your informative post.

I don't agree that Greek word order is THAT flexible. All languages have fairly strict rules regarding the position of verbs, subjects, participles, etc.

Greek cannot, naturally, encompass all available verb orders, just because the words are Greek.

Your point about the Semites writing the Greek is well taken. That is indeed a possible scenario.

However, I really feel awkward thinking that a Holy Work, being inspired by God, would be in a Creole-Aramaic/Greek that no true Greek would respect.

Believe I that Aramaic it is. Not do think I that this way was Greek.

I would love to be able to do a thorough study on the subject, but my translation work must take precedence right now.

I plan on doing these other important works after I am done with this translation.

I realize the 2 examples I gave are mere examples, but my point still stands.

How does one explain that the Luke passage is *perfect* Aramaic structure.....and follows the Peshitta wording *exactly*. Again, one is native, the fother foriegn sentence structure.

For the entire text of the Greek NT, the *majority* of readings seem to mimic the Semitic Sentence Structure found so often in the Septuagint......which we all know was Translation Greek.

The hypothesis being put forth is this:

(A) Was this strange Greek actually a *spoken* language?

Or

(B) Is it an indication of Translation Greek....found so commonly in the Septuagint.

We know, for instance, that the Aramaic of the Targums was *not* a spoken language, but a literary language based on hard work by the scribes. It is a strange Aramaic indeed.

Could this example be another instance of this phenomenon?

Compare the way the Greek NT structures it's sentences with the way Josephus does, for instance.

Thanks again for the comment!

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Greek word order is very flexible
>(so is Semitic but somewhat
>less so I feel).
>It certainly does not need
>to adhere to SVO (Subject-Verb-Object)
>word order. Any of
>the 6 possible word orders
>can occur in any one
>Greek text. SOV is
>quite common in classical Greek,
>for instance. I would
>not find VSO at all
>strange.
>
>One cannot base conclusions on just
>looking at a few passages.
> One would need to
>actually count the number of
>sentences adhering to each word
>order, and then compare the
>statistics against other Koine Greek
>texts. But there is
>more to it than that.
> Because large parts of
>the NT were written by
>Semites, you would have to
>compare the statistics against the
>kind of Koine Greek that
>Semites use. So you
>would need texts by Semites
>who wrote in Koine, and
>you would need to compare
>the statistics. The results
>might be interesting, but without
>doing this kind of an
>analysis I think things are
>fairly useless.
>
>There certainly are exceptions. Yes,
>the sentences with "eipen" (he
>said) do seem to fit
>the rule--at least when I
>open the Gospels at random.
> But I just opened
>the Gospels at random and
>got John 1:14: "Kai ho
>logos sarx egeneto" -- "And
>the word flesh became."
>A nice fairly common classical
>Greek SOV order. I'm
>sure Semitic poetry can be
>flexible in word order, so
>this is not impossible in
>Semitic poetry, but i

Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 02:45 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Sh'lam!

>I don't agree that Greek word
>order is THAT flexible.
>All languages have fairly strict
>rules regarding the position of
>verbs, subjects, participles, etc.

Inflected languages are actually VERY flexible. My native language is Polish, and if you shuffle the parts of speech around in any given sentence, you get basically the same sentence back, except maybe with a bit of a shift of emphasis. I can say "John wrote a book" in Polish as "Jan napisal ksiazke" (SVO), "Jan ksiazke napisal" (SOV), "Ksiazke Jan napisal" (OSV, with strong emphasis on the object), "Napisal Jan ksiazke" (VSO), "Napisal ksiazke Jan" (VOS), and "Ksiazke napisal Jan" (OVS, again with strong emphasis on the object). The reason all these reshufflings are OK is that the word endings mark what is an object and what is a subject.

English has a rigid word order because there are no word ending markers. Hebrew has a somewhat more flexible word order, partly because it has the nice "et-" accusative marker, but it also has some rigidity due to the fact that it no longer has the noun inflections that earlier Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic; there are traces of the inflections in, e.g., Psalm 118, too) had. Once you lose the noun inflections, you need to compensate with a more rigid word order.

Syriac has some flexibility because at least the gender of the object of a very is often indicated by a suffix pronoun on the verb. (By the way, was that feature of Syriac present in first century Galilean Aramaic?) But Greek, like Polish, has enormous flexibility.

>Greek cannot, naturally, encompass all available
>verb orders, just because the
>words are Greek.

It can, because the information that in English and some Semitic languages is marked by word order is marked in Greek by inflection.

>However, I really feel awkward thinking
>that a Holy Work, being
>inspired by God, would be
>in a Creole-Aramaic/Greek that no
>true Greek would respect.

I like that idea myself. God employs what the world scoffs at. He chose young ruddy-faced David over the other candidates for king. He chose Israel, even though He says explicitly somewhere (I think) that there was nothing special about Israel. He likes using the lowly and that which the world despises. He used simple fishermen to spread His message. Indeed some of the Fathers say that the fact that these uneducated men taught such wise doctrines is clear proof of the divine origin of their doctrines.

So, yes, why would He not use people whose Greek wasn't all that great? It is not the letter that matters, but the message it conveys. The New Testament is there to teach us things we need for salvation, not to tickle the fancy of an over-refined pagan audience. (And we Catholics tend to believe that although everything asserted in the Bible is inerrantly true, the sacred authors chose the words themselves.)

And surely, at least some of the New Testament was written in Greek. One would think that Paul would write in the language that would be understood by His readers--and His readers often were Greeks.

>I plan on doing these other
>important works after I am
>done with this translation.

The translation

>I realize the 2 examples I
>gave are mere examples, but
>my point still stands.
>
>How does one explain that the
>Luke passage is *perfect* Aramaic
>structure.....and follows the Peshitta wording
>*exactly*. Again, one is
>native, the fother foriegn sentence
>structure.

I can't remember the particular passage.

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

6. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 03:29 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Alex,

Your post was refreshing and appreciated....thanx!

I will continue with my examples (posting them here) with examples from every chapter of the Interlinear Greek Luke.

I will also try to find some Josephus. I agree with you that this would be a fantastic control, since he was also Jewish and translating his originally Aramaic works (he said so, himself) into Greek.

If this does not look like the Greek of the NT, it would support my hypothesis.

I think there are two possibilities here:

(1) They could have been trying to mimic the Septuagint, while *writing* originally in Greek, as you rightly pointed out...

or

(2) The Greek translators of the NT could have been trying to mimic the Septuagint, while *translating* the original Aramaic.


Josephus would be a strong control, indeed. Do you know where we could get a copy of the Greek work?

In regards to "Syriac" vs. "Aramaic", we in the East don't make this distinction.

To be consistent, you would have to say "American English", "Australian English", etc.

We simply call it "Aramaic", since "Syriac" is a dialect of "Aramaic"....although there are distinct features and scripts, but not enough to warrant, in our estimation, a different designation.

You said:

">Syriac has some flexibility because at
>least the gender of the
>object of a very is
>often indicated by a suffix
>pronoun on the verb.
>(By the way, was that
>feature of Syriac present in
>first century Galilean Aramaic?)"

You mean as in "Amr Eshoa Alehin...." (Said Jesus to them(feminine)"?

The verb, nor it's position, is affected at all. (c.f. - Matti 28:10 in this translation, and for another perfect example of my hypothesis - compare the Greek text)

Please elaborate, as I'm unsure what you are referring to.


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul


>Sh'lam!
>
>>I don't agree that Greek word
>>order is THAT flexible.
>>All languages have fairly strict
>>rules regarding the position of
>>verbs, subjects, participles, etc.
>
>Inflected languages are actually VERY flexible.
> My native language is
>Polish, and if you shuffle
>the parts of speech around
>in any given sentence, you
>get basically the same sentence
>back, except maybe with a
>bit of a shift of
>emphasis. I can say
>"John wrote a book" in
>Polish as "Jan napisal ksiazke"
>(SVO), "Jan ksiazke napisal" (SOV),
>"Ksiazke Jan napisal" (OSV, with
>strong emphasis on the object),
>"Napisal Jan ksiazke" (VSO), "Napisal
>ksiazke Jan" (VOS), and "Ksiazke
>napisal Jan" (OVS, again with
>strong emphasis on the object).
> The reason all these
>reshufflings are OK is that
>the word endings mark what
>is an object and what
>is a subject.
>
>English has a rigid word order
>because there are no word
>ending markers. Hebrew has
>a somewhat more flexible word
>order, partly because it has
>the nice "et-" accusative marker,
>but it also has some
>rigidity due to the fact
>that it no longer has
>the noun inflections that earlier
>Semitic languages (e.g., Ugaritic;
>there are traces of the
>inflections in, e.g., Psalm 118,
>too) had. Once you
>lose the noun inflections, you
>need to compensate with a
>more rig

Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

7. RE: Translation Greek

Aug-24-2000 at 06:31 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
I was thinking of things like "Sh'lameh d'Elaha" (or however you exactly do the vowels). The masculine possessive "-eh" (h sounded) = "his" on "Sh'lam" isn't really needed semantically--a literal translation is "Peace of him, of God". And I think Syriac does similar things with verbs and not just with nouns in the construct case.

A really interesting example in a fairly late (I don't know how late) text is: "Bareh debarnasha" (lit. "Son of him, of the sonofman", but it meaning really nothing different from "Son of Man").

Alex

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