11-28-2013, 06:58 PM
So happy Thanksgiving !
We have more than one inscription in old Syriac (more than ten) and if we make a difference between two states of "tongue", it's because there is some differences... If a modern Aramaic-speaker can easily understand both old and classical Syriac, it's because the lexica didn't really change for 4 Centuries. There are maybe more greek and persian loan-word s than actually in the Peshitta, but it's not really important. And as I said, Israeli ( who speak 19c articicial language) can easily understand the Bible written more than 2'000 years ago (and their tongues are (very) differents)...
I 'll let the dialectal "problems" to Steve. I don't speak at all of whether Syriac call be called Aramaic or something.
The question is : is the Peshitta written in old (oS) or in classical Syriac (cS)?
Yes. I talk about the difference between oS and cS.
The first I have give, was the morphology change of the preformative y- into n- which have occured in the beginning of the 2nd century AD. It's not an argument "a silentio" because there was the y- preformativ instead of the n- one.
The second one I've given was the phonemic change of the - s' - sound into the s sound (as Steve say). In old syriac several words written with a shin, will be written with a semkath in classical syriac. The reason was the existence of a 2nd fricative (other than our well-known "s" sound") written by means of "shin". Classical syriac doesn't know the phoneme anymore.
For Konway here an example : in old Syriac ten was written ($r[yn] with a shin, in classical syriac it is written (sr with a semkath. That phenomena happened in galilean, judean etc too. The lost of the s' sound was a world wide event ^^
The third difference is orthography. Old syriac was written how it was pronunced. That means : assimilated -n were not written, the short "o" or "u" was often not written in closed syllables. And we find some deffectives spellings as "b-t" instead of "b-y-t" The classical syriac instead, writes the letters unpronunced. And even if the linea occultans appears in latter manuscript it represents the coloquial pronunciation : wife is written )nt) while the "n" have been in early time assimilated, and wasn't still pronunced.
You can guess which is the tongue (cS or oS) of the Peshitta...
Quote:Those two you listed aren't anything that differentiate the "Old" Syriac from the "Classical" Syriac. You find one inscription from 6AD that was from another city, at another time, that has a slight variation on how the 3rd-person imperfect is formed, and you've created a mountain from a mole hill.
We have more than one inscription in old Syriac (more than ten) and if we make a difference between two states of "tongue", it's because there is some differences... If a modern Aramaic-speaker can easily understand both old and classical Syriac, it's because the lexica didn't really change for 4 Centuries. There are maybe more greek and persian loan-word s than actually in the Peshitta, but it's not really important. And as I said, Israeli ( who speak 19c articicial language) can easily understand the Bible written more than 2'000 years ago (and their tongues are (very) differents)...
I 'll let the dialectal "problems" to Steve. I don't speak at all of whether Syriac call be called Aramaic or something.
The question is : is the Peshitta written in old (oS) or in classical Syriac (cS)?
Quote:He's referring to the Shin/Sin distinction. In Classical Syriac, Sin is written with Semkath. In Old Syriac it's written with Shin (same with most early Jewish dialects; and -- as it's my focus -- Galilean does this, too, and there's strong evidence it was preserved in speech).
Yes. I talk about the difference between oS and cS.
The first I have give, was the morphology change of the preformative y- into n- which have occured in the beginning of the 2nd century AD. It's not an argument "a silentio" because there was the y- preformativ instead of the n- one.
The second one I've given was the phonemic change of the - s' - sound into the s sound (as Steve say). In old syriac several words written with a shin, will be written with a semkath in classical syriac. The reason was the existence of a 2nd fricative (other than our well-known "s" sound") written by means of "shin". Classical syriac doesn't know the phoneme anymore.
For Konway here an example : in old Syriac ten was written ($r[yn] with a shin, in classical syriac it is written (sr with a semkath. That phenomena happened in galilean, judean etc too. The lost of the s' sound was a world wide event ^^
The third difference is orthography. Old syriac was written how it was pronunced. That means : assimilated -n were not written, the short "o" or "u" was often not written in closed syllables. And we find some deffectives spellings as "b-t" instead of "b-y-t" The classical syriac instead, writes the letters unpronunced. And even if the linea occultans appears in latter manuscript it represents the coloquial pronunciation : wife is written )nt) while the "n" have been in early time assimilated, and wasn't still pronunced.
You can guess which is the tongue (cS or oS) of the Peshitta...