07-11-2011, 05:46 PM
bar Sinko, that is an interesting observation.
Numerous times, I have attempted to use "having" for the Aramaic word "iyth". True enough, it works fine in many instances, but not in some others. I do believe strongly that "being" is the intent of the Aramaic word. Even though it may not be the best fit in all instances (vs. "having). But never-the-less, "being" does fit all contexts, whereas "having" falls short in some.
So for the sake of consistency, and of my own belief on the subject, I render "iyth" as "being"; but your point is well taken.
Numerous times, I have attempted to use "having" for the Aramaic word "iyth". True enough, it works fine in many instances, but not in some others. I do believe strongly that "being" is the intent of the Aramaic word. Even though it may not be the best fit in all instances (vs. "having). But never-the-less, "being" does fit all contexts, whereas "having" falls short in some.
So for the sake of consistency, and of my own belief on the subject, I render "iyth" as "being"; but your point is well taken.