Grammar Example 2

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Let's move on to the next grammatical concept which will help us understand Ephesians 2:15 better.

Please translate Luke 7:28-29, provided below for your reference, paying particular attention to the Dalet d Proclitic:

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
It's taking me forever to get through this "parsing". I haven't had time to do the "grunt work". I'd really like to "cut to the chase".
Moreover, I am doing my study in WORD 2000, and have to "transcribe it", using the special (brackets), so that the Estrangelo Script appears. I use the "copy-paste", which is a time-saver. Could you please post Ephesians 2:15, in your best understanding, of the translation, and I will be glad to "parse it". That's all I ask.

tkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I would like, before we get to Ephesians 2:15, to first demonstrate this grammar example - which we will use alongside the previous grammar example to better understand what Ephesians 2:15 says in the Aramaic.

In order to do this in a more expeditious manner, allow me to translate this reading in Luke by sentence rather than by parsing it word by word, and then ask the relevant questions afterwards.

Here is the translation we should concentrate on - if you disagree with any part, let me know, but I do strongly encourage you to check it out on your own with the resources available to you:

Notice the wild variance in translation of the d Proclitic! Why is this ? Look at the various meanings it has just in these two verses:

• Who
  
• That
  
• Of
  
• Because
  

Just for fun, try interchanging some of the meanings back and forth among these occurances of the "Dalet Clause." None of the phrases make any sense, correct? It does, in fact, sound pretty ridiculous to say "I say to you, who there is no prophet..." or "the Kingdom because Heaven..."

How does one go about translating such a beast as these 2 verses? Is it by intuition - whatever makes sense contextually? Are we to "guess" at the correct answer? Or, are there grammatical rules to govern the usage of such a participle of speech so dangerously diverse in meaning?

Of course, there are several rules of grammar governing proper usage of this "Dalet Clause" or "Dalet Proclitic." Otherwise, when we speak, the other person would have a perpetual look of confusion on his/her face - while trying to guess what exactly we are trying to say! We would not be able to converse - this is true of any language, but especially of Semitic languages - that are so vague and diverse to begin with, as compared to Indo-European languages that are so specific in their definitions and strict in their usage.

Let's examine closely each occurance of the "Dalet" Proclitic and why it means what it does in that particular usage.

The 1st Occurance - Substantives

The first occurance of the d Proclitic in our example is where it is "attached" to the word tyl .

Now, tyl (#'s 757, 11194) is a word whose "Part of Speech" is defined as Substantive. It means "There is no" or "Is not."

This word is one of only 2 Substantives in Aramaic - the other one is an antonym to tyl - and that word is ty0 (#723). This word means exactly the opposite - "There is" or "There are" or "Is."

Grammatically speaking, the rule is that whenever a d Proclitic is attached to one of these Substantives, it is best translated "that", unless it is preceeded immediately by a Noun, in which case it is best translated "who".

So the resulting meaning in this phrase, since the preceeding word is not a Noun, is "that there is no" or, in the case of the antonym, "that there is."

The 2nd Occurance - Adjectives

The second occurance of the d Proclitic in our example is where it is "attached" to the word Br - an Adjective meaning "great" or "greater".

Whenever the d Proclitic is present and attached to an Adjective, there will almost certainly be a Noun preceeding it, and in our case that is true.

Grammatically speaking, the rule is that whenever a d Proclitic is attached to an Adjective, it is best translated "who", unless the Noun preceeding it is not a Proper Noun, in which case it is best translated "that".

So the resulting meaning in this phrase, since the preceeding Noun is a Proper Noun, is "who is greater..."

The 3rd and 6th Occurances - Nouns

The third occurance of the d Proclitic in our example is where it is "in between" 2 Nouns - Fwklm and 0hl0

Whenever a d Proclitic is "in between" 2 Nouns, it can only be translated "of".

So the resulting meaning in this phrase is "Kingdom of God..."

Likewise, the very last occurance (the sixth) is translated "the baptism of Yukhanan."

The 4th and 5th Occurances - Verbs

The fourth occurance of the d Proclitic in our example is where it is "attached" to the word w9m4 - a Verb meaning "heard".

Whenever the d Proclitic is present and attached to a Verb, there will almost certainly be a Noun preceeding it, and in our case that is true.

That is also the case with the 5th occurance, where the d Proclitic is "attached" to the word wdm9 - a Verb meaning "they had been baptized".

Grammatically speaking, the rule is that whenever a d Proclitic is attached to an Verb, it can be translated as either "who" or "because", depending on context.

There are many meanings attributable to the d Proclitic, but there are grammatical rules to help govern the usage and understanding of this particle.

While not an exhaustive study, nevertheless this lesson, combined with the previous one, should help us better understand Ephesians 2:15.

Would it help if I demonstrate this with more examples? Or have I bored everyone to death?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #2
 
Sh'lama Akhi Paul:
Stephen Silver wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating the Dalet Clause. I think I'd like to frame the work you did on Luke 7:28-29. What I will do, from now on, is totally ignore parsing the meanings of words, and rather, concentrate upon the Dalet Clause, and the words that are directly related to it. Do you think that that would be a good idea?
Moreover, I think I speak for many on this forum, when I say, that these lessons are absolutely essential, in understanding the proper text, and I do very much appreciate your having taken the time to demonstrate Aramaic Grammar. It's too easy to "make it up as you go along", or subject a teaching to "circular reasoning", without a keen understanding of Aramaic Grammar, and in particular, the Dalet Clause. Please give us another example, Akhi Paul.

tkrwbw 0ml4
Stephen Silver

In reply to message #3
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen & All,

Consider another example - Mattai 2:2:

You can easily tell now, which rules each one follows, right?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #4
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen & All,

Consider another example - Mattai 2:20:

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Stephen & All,

This example demonstrates both grammar lessons very well.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org