Correct is: נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA)

Regards,
Teodor Bors

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, Sigrid Peterson <petersig@...> wrote:


From: Sigrid Peterson <petersig@...>
Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 3:36 AM


 



Is this pointing correct, or reversed?

============ === Quote ============ ==
נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA)
נִדְרַנָא (nidranA)
============ ===End quote======= =====

I ask, because I may have memory glitch, and be remembering the wrong vowel
value for patach. About half an hour of web research produced the unhelpful
news that Qamatz [both /a/ vowels in the first word, represented as A] and
Patach [the /a/ vowel under the resh in nidranA] had the same long a sound,
as in "father."

Whereas my memory produces a slightly longer open /a/ sound for patach, and
a slightly shorter open /a/ sound for Qamatz

Now the question is bugging me, and I'm away from my textbooks temporarily.

Thanks in advance.
Sigrid Peterson, PhD
Lecturer
Department of Religious Studies
201 Claudia Cohen Hall
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
001-215-275- 2740 (Cell)

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@gmail. com> wrote:

> Well, the spelling is נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA) in the plural, and the
singular
> does not appear. I would imagine this dialect would write it the same or
> re-pointed as נִדְרַנָא (nidranA). That is, the final long vowel of
the
> suffix remains.
>
> Gareth.
>
> reena basser wrote:
> > "Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
> > ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
> > '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud)"
> >
> > .The obvious example is end of kol nidrei
> > nidrana la nidrei we-esarana la esarei ushevuatana la shevuoth
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gareth Hughes
> > To: Aramaic Group
> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your responses.
> >
> > Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
> > of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
> > anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something
> I've
> > missed).
> >
> > Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
> > are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
> > that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic,
> which
> > you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
> > you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see
> the
> > '-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
> > shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
> > these patterns?
> >
> > Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
> > ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
> > '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gareth.
> >
> > Bors Teodor wrote:
> > > I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some
> examples from ancient dialects and modern ones.
> > >
> > > Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
> > > Biblical Aramaic -> -na
> > > Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
> > > Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
> > > Modern Mandaic -> -an
> > > Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
> > > Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or
> -an, I go for -na)
> > > Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
> > > Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
> > > Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
> > > Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
> > > Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
> > > Targum Onqelos -> -na
> > > Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
> > > Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
> > > Syriac -> -an/-n
> > > Qumran Aramaic -> -na
> > > Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
> > > Judaean Aramaic -> -na
> > >
> > > I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you
> need i will.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Teodor Bors
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@gmail. com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@gmail. com>
> > > Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> > > To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups .com>
> > > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear group,
> > >
> > > Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to
> sketch
> > > out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural
> possessive
> > > ending: -an and -anA.
> > >
> > > I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
> > > Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
> > > Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest
> Aramaic.
> > > Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
> > > -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if
> any
> > > list members might be able to map out the variations between these
> forms.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any help.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Gareth Hughes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Gareth Hughes
> >
> > Department of Eastern Christianity
> > Oriental Institute
> > Pusey Lane
> > Oxford
> > OX1 2LE
> >
> > +44 (0)1865 615331
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> --
> Gareth Hughes
>
> Department of Eastern Christianity
> Oriental Institute
> Pusey Lane
> Oxford
> OX1 2LE
>
> +44 (0)1865 615331
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is this pointing correct, or reversed?

=============== Quote ==============
נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA)
נִדְרַנָא (nidranA)
===============End quote============

I ask, because I may have memory glitch, and be remembering the wrong vowel
value for patach. About half an hour of web research produced the unhelpful
news that Qamatz [both /a/ vowels in the first word, represented as A] and
Patach [the /a/ vowel under the resh in nidranA]  had the same long a sound,
as in "father."

Whereas my memory produces a slightly longer open /a/ sound for patach, and
a slightly shorter open /a/ sound for Qamatz

Now the question is bugging me, and I'm away from my textbooks temporarily.

Thanks in advance.
Sigrid Peterson, PhD
Lecturer
Department of Religious Studies
201 Claudia Cohen Hall
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104  USA

petersig {at} sas.upenn.edu
001-215-275-2740 (Cell)



On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:

> Well, the spelling is נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA) in the plural, and the
singular
> does not appear. I would imagine this dialect would write it the same or
> re-pointed as נִדְרַנָא (nidranA). That is, the final long vowel of
the
> suffix remains.
>
> Gareth.
>
> reena basser wrote:
> > "Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
> > ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
> > '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud)"
> >
> > .The obvious example is end of kol nidrei
> > nidrana la nidrei we-esarana la esarei ushevuatana la shevuoth
> >
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Gareth Hughes
> >   To: Aramaic Group
> >   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:05 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> >
> >
> >
> >   Thank you for your responses.
> >
> >   Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
> >   of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
> >   anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something
> I've
> >   missed).
> >
> >   Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
> >   are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
> >   that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic,
> which
> >   you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
> >   you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see
> the
> >   '-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
> >   shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
> >   these patterns?
> >
> >   Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
> >   ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
> >   '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).
> >
> >   Thanks,
> >
> >   Gareth.
> >
> >   Bors Teodor wrote:
> >   > I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some
> examples from ancient dialects and modern ones.
> >   >
> >   > Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
> >   > Biblical Aramaic -> -na
> >   > Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
> >   > Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
> >   > Modern Mandaic -> -an
> >   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
> >   > Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or
> -an, I go for -na)
> >   > Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
> >   > Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
> >   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
> >   > Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
> >   > Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
> >   > Targum Onqelos -> -na
> >   > Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
> >   > Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
> >   > Syriac -> -an/-n
> >   > Qumran Aramaic -> -na
> >   > Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
> >   > Judaean Aramaic -> -na
> >   >
> >   > I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you
> need i will.
> >   >
> >   > Regards,
> >   > Teodor Bors
> >   >
> >   > --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
> >   > Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> >   > To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
> >   > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Dear group,
> >   >
> >   > Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to
> sketch
> >   > out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural
> possessive
> >   > ending: -an and -anA.
> >   >
> >   > I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
> >   > Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
> >   > Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest
> Aramaic.
> >   > Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
> >   > -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if
> any
> >   > list members might be able to map out the variations between these
> forms.
> >   >
> >   > Thanks in advance for any help.
> >   >
> >   > Best wishes,
> >   >
> >   > Gareth Hughes.
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >   --
> >   Gareth Hughes
> >
> >   Department of Eastern Christianity
> >   Oriental Institute
> >   Pusey Lane
> >   Oxford
> >   OX1 2LE
> >
> >   +44 (0)1865 615331
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> --
> Gareth Hughes
>
> Department of Eastern Christianity
> Oriental Institute
> Pusey Lane
> Oxford
> OX1 2LE
>
> +44 (0)1865 615331
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gareth:
I think youre right, obviously "na" is akin to Heb. "nu", and so of no import
concerning sigs or pls. In my original post I too quickly assumed the sing.
would be nidran, or perhaps nadran but in this dialect nidrana is likely
correct. I had not realized at the time we deal with variant dialects.

Herb



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Gareth Hughes
   To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 5:17 PM
   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings



   Well, the spelling is נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA) in the plural, and the
singular
   does not appear. I would imagine this dialect would write it the same or
   re-pointed as נִדְרַנָא (nidranA). That is, the final long vowel of
the
   suffix remains.

   Gareth.

   reena basser wrote:
   > "Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
   > ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
   > '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud)"
   >
   > .The obvious example is end of kol nidrei
   > nidrana la nidrei we-esarana la esarei ushevuatana la shevuoth
   >
   >
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Gareth Hughes
   > To: Aramaic Group
   > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:05 PM
   > Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
   >
   >
   >
   > Thank you for your responses.
   >
   > Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
   > of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
   > anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something I've
   > missed).
   >
   > Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
   > are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
   > that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic, which
   > you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
   > you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see the
   > '-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
   > shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
   > these patterns?
   >
   > Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
   > ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
   > '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).
   >
   > Thanks,
   >
   > Gareth.
   >
   > Bors Teodor wrote:
   > > I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some
examples from ancient dialects and modern ones.
   > >
   > > Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
   > > Biblical Aramaic -> -na
   > > Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
   > > Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
   > > Modern Mandaic -> -an
   > > Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
   > > Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or -an, I
go for -na)
   > > Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
   > > Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
   > > Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
   > > Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
   > > Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
   > > Targum Onqelos -> -na
   > > Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
   > > Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
   > > Syriac -> -an/-n
   > > Qumran Aramaic -> -na
   > > Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
   > > Judaean Aramaic -> -na
   > >
   > > I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you need i
will.
   > >
   > > Regards,
   > > Teodor Bors
   > >
   > > --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
   > > Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
   > > To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
   > > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Dear group,
   > >
   > > Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
   > > out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
   > > ending: -an and -anA.
   > >
   > > I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
   > > Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
   > > Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
   > > Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
   > > -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
   > > list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.
   > >
   > > Thanks in advance for any help.
   > >
   > > Best wishes,
   > >
   > > Gareth Hughes.
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   > >
   >
   > --
   > Gareth Hughes
   >
   > Department of Eastern Christianity
   > Oriental Institute
   > Pusey Lane
   > Oxford
   > OX1 2LE
   >
   > +44 (0)1865 615331
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >

   --
   Gareth Hughes

   Department of Eastern Christianity
   Oriental Institute
   Pusey Lane
   Oxford
   OX1 2LE

   +44 (0)1865 615331




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, the spelling is נִדְרָנָא (nidrAnA) in the plural, and the
singular
does not appear. I would imagine this dialect would write it the same or
re-pointed as נִדְרַנָא (nidranA). That is, the final long vowel of the
suffix remains.

Gareth.

reena basser wrote:
> "Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
> ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
> '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud)"
>
> .The obvious example is end of kol nidrei
> nidrana la nidrei we-esarana la esarei ushevuatana la shevuoth
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Gareth Hughes
>   To: Aramaic Group
>   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:05 PM
>   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
>
>
>
>   Thank you for your responses.
>
>   Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
>   of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
>   anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something I've
>   missed).
>
>   Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
>   are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
>   that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic, which
>   you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
>   you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see the
>   '-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
>   shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
>   these patterns?
>
>   Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
>   ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
>   '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).
>
>   Thanks,
>
>   Gareth.
>
>   Bors Teodor wrote:
>   > I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some
examples from ancient dialects and modern ones.
>   >
>   > Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
>   > Biblical Aramaic -> -na
>   > Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
>   > Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
>   > Modern Mandaic -> -an
>   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
>   > Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or -an, I
go for -na)
>   > Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
>   > Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
>   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
>   > Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
>   > Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
>   > Targum Onqelos -> -na
>   > Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
>   > Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
>   > Syriac -> -an/-n
>   > Qumran Aramaic -> -na
>   > Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
>   > Judaean Aramaic -> -na
>   >
>   > I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you need i
will.
>   >
>   > Regards,
>   > Teodor Bors
>   >
>   > --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   > From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
>   > Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
>   > To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
>   > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Dear group,
>   >
>   > Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
>   > out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
>   > ending: -an and -anA.
>   >
>   > I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
>   > Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
>   > Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
>   > Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
>   > -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
>   > list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.
>   >
>   > Thanks in advance for any help.
>   >
>   > Best wishes,
>   >
>   > Gareth Hughes.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>
>   --
>   Gareth Hughes
>
>   Department of Eastern Christianity
>   Oriental Institute
>   Pusey Lane
>   Oxford
>   OX1 2LE
>
>   +44 (0)1865 615331
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Gareth Hughes

Department of Eastern Christianity
Oriental Institute
Pusey Lane
Oxford
OX1 2LE

+44 (0)1865 615331

"Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
'-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud)"

.The obvious example is end of kol nidrei
nidrana la nidrei we-esarana la esarei ushevuatana la shevuoth



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Gareth Hughes
   To: Aramaic Group
   Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:05 PM
   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings



   Thank you for your responses.

   Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
   of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
   anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something I've
   missed).

   Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
   are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
   that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic, which
   you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
   you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see the
   '-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
   shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
   these patterns?

   Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
   ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
   '-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).

   Thanks,

   Gareth.

   Bors Teodor wrote:
   > I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some examples
from ancient dialects and modern ones.
   >
   > Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
   > Biblical Aramaic -> -na
   > Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
   > Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
   > Modern Mandaic -> -an
   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
   > Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or -an, I go
for -na)
   > Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
   > Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
   > Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
   > Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
   > Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
   > Targum Onqelos -> -na
   > Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
   > Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
   > Syriac -> -an/-n
   > Qumran Aramaic -> -na
   > Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
   > Judaean Aramaic -> -na
   >
   > I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you need i
will.
   >
   > Regards,
   > Teodor Bors
   >
   > --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:
   >
   >
   > From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
   > Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
   > To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
   > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > Dear group,
   >
   > Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
   > out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
   > ending: -an and -anA.
   >
   > I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
   > Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
   > Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
   > Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
   > -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
   > list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.
   >
   > Thanks in advance for any help.
   >
   > Best wishes,
   >
   > Gareth Hughes.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >

   --
   Gareth Hughes

   Department of Eastern Christianity
   Oriental Institute
   Pusey Lane
   Oxford
   OX1 2LE

   +44 (0)1865 615331




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for your responses.

Philip, Gzella and Folmer is a useful book, but still just a collection
of papers from the 2006 Leiden Aramaic conference, and I can't see
anything immediately relevant here (unless you've spotted something I've
missed).

Teodor, thank you for raising the issue of what the endings actually
are; of course, the first 'a' in '-ana' is somewhat prosthetic. I think
that links nicely with your thoughts on the ending in Old Aramaic, which
you postulate as '-na' with an unwritten long final vowel. I wonder if
you have supporting evidence for this. I'm interested as I would see the
'-na' ending as not being in the oldest Aramaic. The selection you give
shows some interesting patterns. Can we make any broad comment about
these patterns?

Herb, I don't know of a variety of Jewish Aramaic that changes this
ending from '-an' to '-na' when the noun is plural, but I have seen
'-an' to '-[ey]nan' (e.g. Jerusalem Talmud).

Thanks,

Gareth.

Bors Teodor wrote:
> I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some examples
from ancient dialects and modern ones.
>
> Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
> Biblical Aramaic -> -na
> Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
> Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
> Modern Mandaic -> -an
> Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
> Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or -an, I go
for -na)
> Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
> Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
> Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
> Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
> Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
> Targum Onqelos -> -na
> Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
> Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
> Syriac -> -an/-n
> Qumran Aramaic -> -na
> Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
> Judaean Aramaic -> -na
>
> I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you need i
will.
>
> Regards,
> Teodor Bors
>
> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
> Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear group,
>
> Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
> out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
> ending: -an and -anA.
>
> I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
> Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
> Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
> Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
> -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
> list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gareth Hughes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--
Gareth Hughes

Department of Eastern Christianity
Oriental Institute
Pusey Lane
Oxford
OX1 2LE

+44 (0)1865 615331

This would be correct and consistent with the other dialects.  In Sureyt
(Turoyo Neo-Aramaic) for example using the earlier word; hedran=our glory
and hedrayna=our glories.  In classical Syriac the final vowel is lost on
the plural and it would be just hedrayn=our glories.

Viktor Can

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Herb and Reena Basser <
Basserh@...> wrote:

>
>
> I had once thought that in Jewish dialects X-an= our thing
> (singular),example hardan (our glory), X-na or X-nan= our things (plural):
> examples nidrana (our vows); rabbanan (our rabbis), But I have not
> systematically worked through it. the above examples are all found in the
> rabbinic liturgy and other places as well.
>
> Herb
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bors Teodor
> To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com <aramaic%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
>
> There's no such 1st person plural personal posesive pronoun -ana but -na.
> The -na form is the Official Aramaic one, shared generally and transmitted
> to the western Aramaic dialects while -an to the eastern ones (generally
> speaking but not as a rule).
>
> Regards,
> Teodor Bors
>
> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes
<garzohugo@...<garzohugo%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@... <garzohugo%40gmail.com>>
> Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
> To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com <aramaic%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM
>
> Dear group,
>
> Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
> out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
> ending: -an and -anA.
>
> I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
> Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
> Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
> Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
> -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
> list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gareth Hughes.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

reply-- sorry-- i metathesise when I type--- I meant hadran (out glory)

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Bors Teodor
   To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:19 PM
   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings



   There's no such 1st person plural personal posesive pronoun -ana but -na. The
-na form is the Official Aramaic one, shared generally and transmitted to the
western Aramaic dialects while -an to the eastern ones (generally speaking but
not as a rule).

   Regards,
   Teodor Bors

   --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:

   From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
   Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
   To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
   Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM



   Dear group,

   Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
   out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
   ending: -an and -anA.

   I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
   Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
   Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
   Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
   -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
   list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

   Thanks in advance for any help.

   Best wishes,

   Gareth Hughes.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I had once thought that in Jewish dialects X-an= our thing (singular),example
hardan (our glory), X-na or X-nan= our things (plural): examples nidrana (our
vows); rabbanan (our rabbis), But I have not systematically worked through it.
the above examples are all found in the rabbinic liturgy and other places as
well.


Herb

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Bors Teodor
   To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:19 PM
   Subject: Re: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings



   There's no such 1st person plural personal posesive pronoun -ana but -na. The
-na form is the Official Aramaic one, shared generally and transmitted to the
western Aramaic dialects while -an to the eastern ones (generally speaking but
not as a rule).

   Regards,
   Teodor Bors

   --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:

   From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
   Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
   To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
   Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM



   Dear group,

   Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
   out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
   ending: -an and -anA.

   I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
   Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
   Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
   Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
   -ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
   list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

   Thanks in advance for any help.

   Best wishes,

   Gareth Hughes.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There's no such 1st person plural personal posesive pronoun -ana but -na. The
-na form is the Official Aramaic one, shared generally and transmitted to the
western Aramaic dialects while -an to the eastern ones (generally speaking but
not as a rule).

Regards,
Teodor Bors

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:


From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM


 



Dear group,

Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
ending: -an and -anA.

I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
-ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best wishes,

Gareth Hughes.










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't really have time here to make a map but I can give you some examples
from ancient dialects and modern ones.
 
Egyptian Aramaic -> -na
Biblical Aramaic -> -na
Samaritan Aramaic -> -an/-nan
Classical Mandaic -> -an/-aian/-n
Modern Mandaic -> -an
Neo-Aramaic jewish Arbel -> -an
Old Aramaic -> -n (pronunciation not known, could have been -na or -an, I go for
-na)
Neo-Aramaic Mlahso -> -na/-ena/-an
Neo-Aramaic Hertevin -> -an
Neo-Aramaic jewish Jilu -> -an/-ani
Neo-Aramaic Turoyo (Tur-Abdin) -> -an
Neo-Aramaic Ma'alula -> -H/-aH/-naH (H capital is H from Muhammad)
Targum Onqelos -> -na
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan -> -na
Babylonian Talmud -> -an/-nan
Syriac -> -an/-n
Qumran Aramaic -> -na
Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA, melkite) -> -an/-nan/-nah
Judaean Aramaic -> -na
 
I don't have the time now to put the bibliographic info but if you need i will.

Regards,
Teodor Bors

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...> wrote:


From: Gareth Hughes <garzohugo@...>
Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings
To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 6:27 PM


 



Dear group,

Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
ending: -an and -anA.

I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
-ni/-niAti/- niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best wishes,

Gareth Hughes.










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A current study might be found in: Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic
Setting, ed.  Holger Gzella and M. L. Folmer (2008).

Philip C. Schmitz
Professor of History
Department of History and Philosophy
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Hughes" <garzohugo@...>
To: "Aramaic Group" <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2009 11:27:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [aramaic] First-person plural possessive endings






Dear group,

Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
ending: -an and -anA.

I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
-ni/-niAti/-niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best wishes,

Gareth Hughes.

Dear group,

Does anyone have a broad enough knowledge of Aramaic varieties to sketch
out the trends of the two variants of the first-person plural possessive
ending: -an and -anA.

I can see the latter in use in Biblical Aramaic and the standard
Targums, whereas -an is in use in Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud and
Syriac. It seems though that -an is the ending of the earliest Aramaic.
Is there possible influence from Akkadian on the form -anA (although
-ni/-niAti/-niAshim are the classical Akkadian forms)? I wonder if any
list members might be able to map out the variations between these forms.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best wishes,

Gareth Hughes.

If anyone knows or can recommend someone who can translate aramaic script for a
fee or no fee, I would be grateful.
Please respond to me.
Thank you.
Jad Rifai




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For those who have not yet left  for SBL:

This is the third and final notice of the 13th annual E-Lister's that
will take place at SBL on  Saturday, Nov. 21st at 11:30 a.m.  at the
Eisenbrauns  Press booth  (# 704)  in the  the New Orleans Marriott
Exhibit Hall.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

So put this in your diaries/datebooks/planners and come along!

Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is the second notice of the 13th annual E-Lister's that will take
place at SBL on  Saturday, Nov. 21st at 11:30 a.m.  the Eisenbrauns
Press booth  (# 704)  in the  the New Orleans Marriott Exhibit Hall.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous SBLs.

As I've done in the past 12 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to
get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So if you haven't done so already, please write to me OFF LIST at
jgibson000@... and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBL Section and Session #)
you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll  publish a list of E-Lister's attendees on Nov. 20th.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and /please use a
header that says something like "SBL e-listers' meeting"/.

May I ask that if you are letting me know that you are giving a paper,
that you adhere as closely as possible to the SBL Program Book
Format when you do so. That is to say, I'd be grateful if you'd compose
your information according to this formula:

Name and Institution
Section #
Title of Section
Date
Time
Room
Paper title

For example:

Stephen C. Carlson, Duke University
SBL 24-112
Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and
Early Christianity Section
Tuesday,  11/24
11/24/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Bayside A - SH
Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas

Looking forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

Yours,

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]