--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, "Pere Porta Roca" <pporta@t...> wrote:
>Unhappily I do not know Aramaic. I know Hebrew and Greek. So I'll be
an observer in order to see whether I decide to study the language.
Forgive me, please, if I keep silent and only reading the posts.
Perhaps I'll decide to study the tongue and... participate!

No problem! We're glad to have you here. Along the way, hopefully
you'll pick up on why different people are interested in Aramaic and
how they've come at the language. (Based on the survey results so far,
many have probably taken an initial interest in Biblical Aramaic, many
others in Syriac, which is the dialect used by several Eastern
Christian traditions.) The other common point of entry, which is
probaby more significant in general than currently represented on this
list, is an interest in Rabbinic literature. Others may have an
interest in the historical periods during which Aramaic was a major
influence, and still others may just like the challenge of studying an
ancient or rare modern language.

Already knowing Hebrew is a good start, BTW, and Greek will be useful
for some of the later dialects, especially those that had more contact
with the West. Aramaic is its own language, but there is enough
similarity among Semitic languages in general that knowing one
provides a good foundation for learning others.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

T. Peterson wrote:

> It would be something
> like if a network news
> anchor slipped and said
> "y'all" during a
> broadcast, providing a
> clue that the formal
> speech he was using was
> not how he ordinarily
> talked, and that his
> vernacular dialect was
> perhaps something from
> the Southern U. S. So
> we look for these
> linguistic clues that
> point to regional
> deviation from the
> standard.

I remember last year participating in a heated
discussion on another list wherein I held the minority
view.  One of the posters slipped in a "y'all" and,
trying to score personal points, I noted that he and I
were both from the southern U.S. (I hail from
Georgia).  But such a connection was not to be had so
easily since my debate opponent was--and had always
been--from Bakersfield, CA.

My point?  Even without the easy access to varying
dialects that we now possess (with the modern media
devices most of us share), it is feasible that ancient
Aramaic speakers/writers might have picked up and
passed on a phrase or two which would then *seem* to
identify them with a particular region, ...when in
fact the truth was otherwise.  Consequently, I see
this whole endeavor of provenance as a risky business
indeed, to be approached at the same pace and caution
as a person crossing a frozen lake.  In the early
Spring.

Cheers,
-- Michael Millier




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
   From: Trevor Peterson
   To: aramaic@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:13 PM
   Subject: [aramaic] Re: first post

   Today I've been admitted as a member of this list on Aramaic. Unhappily I do
not know Aramaic. I know Hebrew and Greek. So I'll be an observer in order to
see whether I decide to study the language. Forgive me, please, if I keep silent
and only reading the posts. Perhaps I'll decide to study the tongue and...
participate!

   Pere

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

Hi All,
Yes, I do agree that all three are the same and they come under Modern Assyrian
thanks

Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON@...> wrote:
--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, Matay <ashuroyo@y...> wrote:
> Shlomo,
>
> You could have created a category : MOdern
> Dialects ( Turoyo, Assyrian, Chaldean e.a.).

That is in fact what I meant by the category Modern Dialects. I
didn't think it needed to be elaborated.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
aramaic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, Rob Phenix <foolishgalatian@y...> wrote:
> Is literary criticism of Modern Aramaic literature "in bounds" for
this group?

It overlaps the bounds, IMO. As I've already said, I think a list like
Hugoye is free to address some literary concerns with regard to Syriac
texts that would not be appropriate here. Our primary objective is to
talk about (and dare I say, better understand) the Aramaic language.
Because most of our contact with the ancient dialects is through
texts, we have an inherently textual orientation in what we do.
Functional aspects of language study also share some common interests
with literary criticism.

In short, I would say the "modern" part of your question is
irrelevant. We deal with Aramaic in all dialects and all periods. (Not
that we have expertise in all areas, but as far as the bounds of
discussion are concerned, there is no problem.) As for the rest, just
be careful to stick with questions that have a more overt connection
to the language as such.

Perhaps some examples would help. Looking for indications of meter in
a composition and discussing how meter affects the reader's experience
of the text would generally be OK. Exploring Marxist themes would
probably not. If that's not clear enough, go ahead and ask your
question, and we can deal with more specifics.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Thank you Trevor for sharing a fine idea and taking on the burden of love to
keep it happening.
Is literary criticism of Modern Aramaic literature "in bounds" for this group?
RP


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, Matay <ashuroyo@y...> wrote:
> Shlomo,
>
> You could have created a category : MOdern
> Dialects ( Turoyo, Assyrian, Chaldean e.a.).

That is in fact what I meant by the category Modern Dialects. I
didn't think it needed to be elaborated.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Shlomo,

You could have created a category : MOdern
Dialects ( Turoyo, Assyrian, Chaldean e.a.).

Shlome,
Matay

  --- Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON@...> wrote:
> I've put a couple of questions in the polls
> section. I think we would
> all benefit from a general idea of the
> expertise represented on this
> list. There's nothing particularly scientific
> about them, but please
> take a moment to answer anyway. I realize there
> are probably some gaps
> in the list of categories, and the presentation
> is somewhat biased.
> (For instance, there's no good reason to lump
> all the modern dialects
> together, except that I suspect most of us
> don't know much about
> them.) Perhaps the only productive outcome will
> be that I'll have to
> draw up a new format for the poll and try again
> later.
>
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> aramaic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

OK, now that we have 70 members, I figure we can try floating some questions.
If you have a passage you're struggling with, or a grammatical issue you've
been wondering about, feel free to ask away. In the meantime, here's something
I've been thinking about for a while:

I mentioned in my first post on this list that my point of entry into Aramaic
was an interest in BA (Biblical Aramaic) in particular, which broadened out
into a consideration of SLA (Standard Literary Aramaic) as a whole. My
question pertains to SLA. One of the topics that comes up in looking at a
literary text, whether a biblical text, or something from Qumran, or what have
you, is where the text was written. Now, the notion of SLA is that there was a
written standard according to which most literature of the period was shaped.
If that standard were perfectly met, there would be no way to ask where a text
was written based on the language. (Perhaps content would provide clues, but
that's another issue.) So to talk about the provenance of a text, we have to
assume that the standard was not perfectly met--that the writer was unable to
keep his or her own language from bleeding through, so to speak. It would be
something like if a network news anchor slipped and said "y'all" during a
broadcast, providing a clue that the formal speech he was using was not how he
ordinarily talked, and that his vernacular dialect was perhaps something from
the Southern U. S. So we look for these linguistic clues that point to
regional deviation from the standard.

Now, my question is, what needs to be taken into account when we comb the
language in a given text for indicators of provenance? How do we get at the
appropriate features? Is it even a possible task? Part of the reason that I
raise this question is that it is this pursuit that has led me to take a
closer look at some of the later dialects. It seems like this might be one
area where geographical differentiation can be explicitly observed. On the
other hand, I also wonder whether the whole thing might be an exercise in
futility, particularly since we don't know much if anything about the history
of these texts.

Anyway, I'm curious if any of you have any thoughts on the matter. I realize
this line of questioning could end up stretching the bounds of the discussion
matter appropriate for this list. But at the same time, I think there is a lot
that can be said while staying completely on topic. If people want to talk
about specific grammatical features to look for in texts, we can do that. We
can also talk about the relevance of learning one Aramaic dialect for
understanding another. And to a certain extent, we can talk about the bigger
issue of dialect variation, as long as we keep it specifically on the subject
of Aramaic dialects in particular.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Just a quick thought on the dialect questions. If you know a
particular dialect well, you also know it to a significant degree. In
other words, whatever shows up in your answers to the first question
should probably also show up on the second. I'll also mention that
you can go back and change your answers, if you feel so inclined.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

In case you haven't looked lately, we have 67 members as of this
morning. That's better than a lot of Aramaic lists that I've seen,
and this is only our third day in existence :-) But feel free to pass
the word to others you know who might be interested. All they need is
the Web address

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/

If you want to provide a quick summary, you can use the description
from the same page. (You can also send the list rules, which I think
you should all have received when you signed up.) So far, we've put
out announcements on B-Hebrew, B-Greek, Hebraisticum, ANE, Hugoye
List, and one is pending on H-Judaic. If you're involved with other
lists that you think might have some interested participants, you're
more than welcome to mention us there. (Again, the description from
our main page provides a useful summary, and be sure to include the
link.) You might want to check with the moderator(s) first, if you're
not sure that it's OK to publicize other lists. If you do mention us
on another list, I wouldn't mind getting a quick e-mail (off-list) to
let me know which one. That way we hopefully won't bombard the same
list with multiple announcements.

Thanks,
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

I've put a couple of questions in the polls section. I think we would
all benefit from a general idea of the expertise represented on this
list. There's nothing particularly scientific about them, but please
take a moment to answer anyway. I realize there are probably some gaps
in the list of categories, and the presentation is somewhat biased.
(For instance, there's no good reason to lump all the modern dialects
together, except that I suspect most of us don't know much about
them.) Perhaps the only productive outcome will be that I'll have to
draw up a new format for the poll and try again later.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06PETERSON@...>
To: <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:30 AM
Subject: RE: [aramaic] Great idea


> Jack wrote:
>
> > This will require some thought but at first blush I would think Syriac
> > would
> > be a launching pad since the materials, Peshitta and OS texts, are
> easily
> > available to anyone on the list.  Materials for J or CPA and for the
> > Western
> > Aramaic dialects of Jesus' day are harder to get and then most in
> German.
>
> Jewish Babylonian texts are also pretty easily available. A possible
> advantage to Syriac, though, is if it's actually somewhere in the middle
> of the regional dialects. (That happens to be the opinion of my teacher,
> Doug Gropp.)
>
> [snipped]
>
>
> > Western Aramaic dialects during the time of Jesus were Judean,
> Southeast
> > Judean, Samaritan, Old East Jordanian, Damascene and Orontes.
> >
> > Judean Aramaic can be divided into two dialects over time.  Old Judean
> > from
> > about 40 BCE to 135ish CE and Middle Judean after that.  During Jesus'
> > lifetime I would not call Galilean a separate dialect but just a
> separate
> > pronunciation scheme.  Galilean would develop into a dialect, IMO, by
> > about
> > 200 CE or so.  I think statements by some that Jesus spoke "Galilean
> > Aramaic" is an anachronism.
>
> Would you be able to cite some texts that you think represent these
> dialects? If you would prefer to point people to a published work that
> lays them out this way and cites the relevant sources, that's fine too.

There ya go, Trev...making me sort through the boxes I just packed <LOL>
Klaus Beyer, The Aramaic Language, 1986. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
Gottingen.

Jack

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
aramaic group:

Which dialects of Aramaic do you know to
any significant degree?

   o Old Aramaic
   o Official Aramaic (Persian Period)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Biblical)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Qumran)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Other)
   o Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
   o Christian Palestinian Aramaic
   o Samaritan Aramaic
   o Syriac
   o Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
   o Mandaic
   o Modern Dialects


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/surveys?id=912320

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
aramaic group:

Which dialects of Aramaic do you know well?

   o Old Aramaic
   o Official Aramaic (Persian Period)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Biblical)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Qumran)
   o Standard Literary Aramaic (Other)
   o Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
   o Christian Palestinian Aramaic
   o Samaritan Aramaic
   o Syriac
   o Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
   o Mandaic
   o Modern Dialects


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/surveys?id=912312

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Dear list-memebers,


In the book of Daniel there are several YIQTOLs with past reference.
Traditionally these has been explained as "durative past," but that
is clearly a misnomer, because duarativity is an Aktionsart term - a
verb marked for durativity can never cease to be durative regardless
of the verb form used.  Recently, there was an article with  an
attempt to explain the YIQTOLs of Daniel with past reference (I am on
vacation and do not have access to the article), but the explanation
was unconvincing ( but I am open for viewpoints regarding the
article).

Has any of the present list-members (or those who later will join the
list and who read previous posts) worked with this problem?

The situation with prefix-forms with past reference is not unique for
the Aramaic of Daniel, but we find it in Aramaic from different
times, and we find it in Syriac, both with fientive and stative
verbs. I have recently finished a translation of the Ethiopic Enoch
into Norwegian, and I discovered that even a higher percentage of
prefix-forms (YENAGGER) have past reference in this book than in
Daniel. We find the phenomenon in Accadian and in the Amarna letters,
and we find it in Ugaritic and Phoencian as well. So it is rather
typical for the Semitic languages! The view that some of these  forms
go back to an old preterit is completely without evidence.  So what
do you say about this situation? Any suggestions?

I have so far not mentioned Hebrew with YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs with
past reference, because I work on a thesis where both forms are
analyzed as representing the imperfective aspect, which solves the
problem.  But what about these other languages (BTW, if anybody is
interested in a rather detailed account of the conclusions of my
thesis, you can ask me for the address to my home-page.)


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
>I am particularly interested in Old Judean Aramaic and some of the
peculiarities of the Galilean phonology...a sort of quest for the vox
Iesu.
>
I should have mentioned this earlier, but I'm reading Aramaic Sources
of Mark's Gospel (SNTS Monograph 102), by Maurice Casey, which looks
like it might interest you if you haven't seen it already. Michael
Wise reviewed it in JNES 62 (2003) 66-68, which is worth looking at
in itself. You can see the review online at

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JNES/journal/issues/v62n1/621034/6210
34.web.pdf

You might need to cut and paste to get the whole address.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

At 05:44 PM 7/14/03 +0200, you wrote:
>--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Peterson<06PETERSON@c...> wrote:
>
>>...
>>Are you going to be making explicit comparison between the
>>syntax of the Targum and that of the Hebrew text?

speaking of the targumim, Christian Brady has just published (Brill) a
volume on the Tg of Lamentations.

Listers may want to take a look.  For a Brill volume its inexpensive!  (65$-
which for Brill is bargain basement).

Jim

oh and PS- thanks for the list Trevor!  Why didnt someone do it before????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West
Quartz Hill School of Theology
Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies

Biblical Studies Resources
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, "Kuty, R.J." <R.J.Kuty@l...> wrote:
> Making explicit comparison between the two, however, does not seem
to me the
> most interesting approach. It would not make justice to TJP to
treat it as a
> mere translation and, justice aside, it simply isn't true. I rather
regard
> the Aramaic of TJP as a particular type of literary Aramaic in its
own
> right.

Of course, as would be the case with any translation. But there is
also the tendency in translation to adapt the target language to that
of the source text.

> In this connection it may be useful to consider that word order is
> not the only issue covered by syntax; many more grammatical aspects
belong
> to (morpho-)syntax and await linguistic investigation (so much the
better,
> BTW, otherwise I would be out of business :-)

Good point. And I did think of that even as I responded. There
certainly are features of the grammar that are clearly independent
from the Hebrew source. All the best on your project, and please keep
us posted as it progresses.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

>...
>PS: In a previous post you mentioned an online version of Jastrow's
dictionary
>and considered to add a link in the Bookmarks...

Sorry, I didn't notice you already have.

Renaud

Research School CNWS
Nonnensteeg 1-3
P.O. Box 9515
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)71-527.29.86
Fax: +31 (0)71-527.29.39
Email: R.J.Kuty@...



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

--- In aramaic@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Peterson<06PETERSON@c...> wrote:

>...
>Are you going to be making explicit comparison between the
>syntax of the Targum and that of the Hebrew text? In my
>experience, the word order at least in Jonathan is rather
>closely tied to that of the underlying BH.

Given the nature of the Targums (i.e. they originated as
translations/paraphrases of the Hebrew text), you can hardly leave the
Hebrew text aside; in many ways the Hebrew original has to be taken into
account, and many textual/grammatical intricacies of TJP seem to find an
explanation in the fact that, as you point out, TJP follows closely (not to
say slavishly) the Hebrew original.
Making explicit comparison between the two, however, does not seem to me the
most interesting approach. It would not make justice to TJP to treat it as a
mere translation and, justice aside, it simply isn't true. I rather regard
the Aramaic of TJP as a particular type of literary Aramaic in its own
right. In this connection it may be useful to consider that word order is
not the only issue covered by syntax; many more grammatical aspects belong
to (morpho-)syntax and await linguistic investigation (so much the better,
BTW, otherwise I would be out of business :-)

Best wishes to you and this list,
Renaud

PS: In a previous post you mentioned an online version of Jastrow's
dictionary and considered to add a link in the Bookmarks. Please do, I'd
love to know where I can find it online when I am not anywhere close to my
library ...

I've just posted a link to the online journal of Syriac studies,
Hugoye. In case you're wondering, BTW, this list is not intended to
compete directly with hugoye-list (also on Yahoo groups) or any other
list that pertains to Aramaic, for that matter. Our purpose is
somewhat different, although there is legitimate overlap. Because
Hugoye treats Syriac studies in general, including interpretive
analysis of Syriac literature, there are significant aspects of its
discussion that we are not set up to address. Because we deal with
Aramaic in general rather than limiting ourselves to Syriac, there
are also significant aspects of our discussion that fall outside the
range of Hugoye. Indeed, if your particular area of interest is
Syriac, I would advise participating with both lists. Their subject
matter should be complementary.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

>===== Original Message From "Kuty, R.J." <R.J.Kuty@...> =====
>My research field is Aramaic linguistics, and my Ph.D. bears on the
>(morpho)syntax of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (for those of you who
>would be interested: http://www.cnws.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=48
><http://www.cnws.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=48> ).
>
>I wish us all interesting exchanges,

So do I. As I mentioned, I'm reading 2 Samuel in Targum Jonathan this summer
for my exams. Maybe we can bounce some ideas off each other. Are you going to
be making explicit comparison between the syntax of the Targum and that of the
Hebrew text? In my experience, the word order at least in Jonathan is rather
closely tied to that of the underlying BH.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Dear list members,

A short message to introduce myself to the list.
My name is Renaud, and I'm a Ph.D. student at Leiden University, the
Netherlands.
My research field is Aramaic linguistics, and my Ph.D. bears on the
(morpho)syntax of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (for those of you who
would be interested: http://www.cnws.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=48
<http://www.cnws.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=48> ).

I wish us all interesting exchanges,

Renaud J. Kuty
Research School CNWS
Nonnensteeg 1-3
P.O. Box 9515
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)71-527.29.86
Fax: +31 (0)71-527.29.39
Email: R.J.Kuty@... <mailto:R.J.Kuty@...>


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

In case anyone's interested, I've posted a link to Michael Sokoloff's
review of HALAT (the German edition that preceded English HALOT) in
the links section. If you're like me, it shouldn't take too long
before you notice that just about every entry in the Aramaic portion
of HALOT (Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament)
references "Sokoloff DSD 2000." Curious, I went looking for the
article, and it turned out to be this review. He provides general
remarks as well as an extensive list of corrections, some of which
were accepted in HALOT, some not. Anyway, I find that it's handy to
have the review nearby when I'm using HALOT, so I can see where they
disagree. It just so happens that the review was published in the one
free issue that's available on Brill's Web site. The link takes you
directly to the reviews section. Sokoloff's is the first.

BTW, in case anyone's not familiar with these names, HALOT currently
has the most up-to-date lexical treatment of BA (Biblical Aramaic)
and is so much an improvement over anything that's gone before, that
you really shouldn't be without it (if you're interested in BA, that
is). As one of my seminary profs used to say about book
recommendations, sell your shoes to buy it. Michael Sokoloff's
opinion also cannot be ignored in this area. He's single-handedly
responsible for moving Aramaic lexicography forward more than anyone
else in the past few decades. (Well, "single-handedly" may be an
overstatement--he might not have achieved so much without proper
training under one of this century's masters.) Aramaic still awaits a
comprehensive lexical treatment. (That reminds me--I should post the
link for CAL.) In the meantime, Sokoloff has produced two solid
dialectal dictionaries--DJPA (Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic, now in its second edition) and DJBA (Dictionary of Jewish
Babylonian Aramaic, brand new late last year). When you look at the
list of people who have died in the process of putting together just
the Aramaic portion of HALOT (and remember that BA is a very small
corpus), it's no small accomplishment for one man to put out two such
dictionaries in his own lifetime. (And he still looked pretty healthy
to me last November.)

Depending on your standard, all of these dictionaries are reasonably
priced (each on the order of 100 USD) and well worth the investment.
Of course, they can't compare with Jastrow in price (now free on the
Web--I should post that one too). But they're also much more up-to-
date.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Jack wrote:

> This will require some thought but at first blush I would think Syriac
> would
> be a launching pad since the materials, Peshitta and OS texts, are
easily
> available to anyone on the list.  Materials for J or CPA and for the
> Western
> Aramaic dialects of Jesus' day are harder to get and then most in
German.

Jewish Babylonian texts are also pretty easily available. A possible
advantage to Syriac, though, is if it's actually somewhere in the middle
of the regional dialects. (That happens to be the opinion of my teacher,
Doug Gropp.)

[snipped]


> Western Aramaic dialects during the time of Jesus were Judean,
Southeast
> Judean, Samaritan, Old East Jordanian, Damascene and Orontes.
>
> Judean Aramaic can be divided into two dialects over time.  Old Judean
> from
> about 40 BCE to 135ish CE and Middle Judean after that.  During Jesus'
> lifetime I would not call Galilean a separate dialect but just a
separate
> pronunciation scheme.  Galilean would develop into a dialect, IMO, by
> about
> 200 CE or so.  I think statements by some that Jesus spoke "Galilean
> Aramaic" is an anachronism.

Would you be able to cite some texts that you think represent these
dialects? If you would prefer to point people to a published work that
lays them out this way and cites the relevant sources, that's fine too.

Thanks,
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06PETERSON@...>
To: <aramaic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: [aramaic] Great idea


> Jack wrote:
>
> > I think this list is a great idea and am pleased to join.
>
> Glad to have you aboard.
>
> [snipped]
>
> > I look forward to discussions of syntax and grammar and would even
> suggest
> > a weekly "vocabulary list."
>
> Probably not a bad idea. How do you think the list should be selected?
> (It would be hard to go strictly by frequency, since there's no fixed
> corpus to follow. Then there is also the problem of having to work with
> various dialects. I could see starting with words that are common across
> the dialects, but even then we'd have to make some decisions about
> nuance and vocalization.

This will require some thought but at first blush I would think Syriac would
be a launching pad since the materials, Peshitta and OS texts, are easily
available to anyone on the list.  Materials for J or CPA and for the Western
Aramaic dialects of Jesus' day are harder to get and then most in German.

>
> > I am particularly interested in Old Judean
> > Aramaic and some of the peculiarities of the Galilean phonology...a
> sort
> > of quest for the vox Iesu.
>
> Since the terminology is still developing, perhaps you could explain
> what you mean by "Old Judean" and "Galilean."
Western Aramaic dialects during the time of Jesus were Judean, Southeast
Judean, Samaritan, Old East Jordanian, Damascene and Orontes.

Judean Aramaic can be divided into two dialects over time.  Old Judean from
about 40 BCE to 135ish CE and Middle Judean after that.  During Jesus'
lifetime I would not call Galilean a separate dialect but just a separate
pronunciation scheme.  Galilean would develop into a dialect, IMO, by about
200 CE or so.  I think statements by some that Jesus spoke "Galilean
Aramaic" is an anachronism.

Jack

Jack wrote:

> I think this list is a great idea and am pleased to join.

Glad to have you aboard.

[snipped]

> I look forward to discussions of syntax and grammar and would even
suggest
> a weekly "vocabulary list."

Probably not a bad idea. How do you think the list should be selected?
(It would be hard to go strictly by frequency, since there's no fixed
corpus to follow. Then there is also the problem of having to work with
various dialects. I could see starting with words that are common across
the dialects, but even then we'd have to make some decisions about
nuance and vocalization.

> I am particularly interested in Old Judean
> Aramaic and some of the peculiarities of the Galilean phonology...a
sort
> of quest for the vox Iesu.

Since the terminology is still developing, perhaps you could explain
what you mean by "Old Judean" and "Galilean."

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

I think this list is a great idea and am pleased to join.  During Yeshua's
lifetime there were about 8 dialects of Aramaic spoken in and around Palestine. 
Additionally, the later dialect known as Syriac, although not the language of
Yeshua,  would become invaluable as the first Semitic language into which the
New Testament works would be translated.  Some of these texts are intriguingly
fertile fields to "mine" for early readings.  The Aramaic texts of the DSS are
valuable tools for the 1st century idiom.  I look forward to discussions of
syntax and grammar and would even suggest a weekly "vocabulary list."  I am
particularly interested in Old Judean Aramaic and some of the peculiarities of
the Galilean phonology...a sort of quest for the vox Iesu.

shlama

Jack
-----

Dakma dabadton l'chad min haleyn achi zoreh ly haw abadton

Jack Kilmon
San Marcos, Tx
jkilmon@...


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

Welcome to the new Aramaic language list. Perhaps you would like a
little background as to how this list came about. I've been a
participant for several years now on the B-Greek and B-Hebrew lists. On
and off during that time, I've searched for a list to do essentially the
same thing with Aramaic, but I've never found it. Not that there aren't
lists out there that pertain to Aramaic, but some are quite inactive and
some are very agenda-driven. What I wanted was a forum in which the
Aramaic language could be discussed in terms of its linguistic features
and the texts that exhibit them. Since I didn't find a list to my
liking, I thought perhaps it was up to me to start one. (Presumptuous, I
know--but what else could I do?)

When I began my search, I looked specifically for a list about biblical
Aramaic. I have since discovered that this is probably a bad idea in
itself. The biblical corpus is too small and at the same time too
diverse to provide much of a basis for learning the language. Most of my
own study has been within the larger field of Standard Literary Aramaic,
of which biblical Aramaic is but a part. But even this broader category
has its limits, and I find myself pressing ever further in search of a
better grasp on the language. In light of my own experience, as well as
the realization that Aramaists are perhaps not as common as ice cream
stands in Upstate New York, I thought it best to provide an arena for
discussion of Aramaic as a whole. This strategy is not intended to blur
the distinctions between Aramaic dialects, but rather to embrace
discussion of all such dialects and their relationship to one another in
a convenient arena. It may happen one day (I can hope) that there will
be too many people interested in Aramaic to contain them easily in one
online discussion. At that point, perhaps a subdivision according to
dialects will be in order. In the meantime, I think we stand to learn a
lot from each other.

As for my own qualifications, as I said, my experience is mostly in
Standard Literary Aramaic, particularly of the Jewish variety, by which
I mean the Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible, the Qumran material, and the
Targums of Onqelos and Jonathan (quite a diverse bunch, but still
usefully grouped I think). I got my start in Aramaic with some work on
Syriac texts, and I've dabbled a bit recently in Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic. Currently, I'm reading for Ph.D. comps in Northwest Semitic
Languages, which includes (among other things) the biblical Aramaic
corpus, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Enoch literature, and Targum
Jonathan to 2 Samuel.

I hope this will be an enjoyable experience for us all. I have some
experience moderating, but this will be my first solo venture. Your
patience and cooperation are appreciated. Feel free to introduce
yourself or begin posting topics.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics