06-09-2004, 03:29 AM
Guys,
Seriously, I shouldn't be posting this - but it is too hilarious for you guys to miss. OK - Prof. Sebastian Brock, at Oxford University - mind you - is involved in this debate I'm having with someone regarding the special name for God in Aramaic - Marya.
Only the seasoned professionals (like Larry, Dean and Andrew) will appreciate this - so if you're not a linguistics geek, press the back button here as you will be quite bored.
As as said - Prof. Brock, THE Prof. of Aramaic himself, writes back and supports my opponent by stating the following in response to a challenge I made asking him to provide an example where a lexical stem in the form of X-X-A (a stem containing a 3rd-weak radical - in this case, M-R-A) is altered to the form M-R-Y-A:
Now, what Prof. Brock is mistakingly referring to is substantivization of participles (see Thackston 20:3). The word "raya" is, incidentally, treated in that section very thoroughly by Thackston. The summary of the grammatical rule is that the emphatic participles of verbs which contain a weak 3rd-radical (such as the Aleph) are formed on the pattern Xa-X-Ya, with the -Ya representing the weak 3rd radical (in this case, the Aleph in M-R-A).
This would indeed form M-R-Y-A from M-R-A - If M-R-A was a participle based on a 3rd-weak radical verb. HOWEVER, the lexical stem M-R-A (or, the proper title variant of M-R-Y) is NOT a participle derived from a verbal root, M-R-A is a noun - hence this rule does NOT apply.
Both the B-R-A and R-(-A roots that Brock mentioned are in fact verbal roots, with the participles "bare" and "rae" (respectively) being derivatives of those verbs. Hence, even Payne-Smith identifies both "Barya" and "Raya" as SUBSTANTIVES, exactly according to the rules specified in Thackston 20:3. In fact, "Raya" is used as one of the examples in Thackston 20:3.
M-R-A, however, is NOT (I repeat, NOT) a verbal root - nor does it have a participial "mare" derived from it. Hence, the rule as Brock suggested does NOT apply.
These are the people sitting on the "chairs" at the universities, folks. Honestly, most 10-year old Assyrian Sunday school students know this much Aramaic. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Seriously, I shouldn't be posting this - but it is too hilarious for you guys to miss. OK - Prof. Sebastian Brock, at Oxford University - mind you - is involved in this debate I'm having with someone regarding the special name for God in Aramaic - Marya.
Only the seasoned professionals (like Larry, Dean and Andrew) will appreciate this - so if you're not a linguistics geek, press the back button here as you will be quite bored.
As as said - Prof. Brock, THE Prof. of Aramaic himself, writes back and supports my opponent by stating the following in response to a challenge I made asking him to provide an example where a lexical stem in the form of X-X-A (a stem containing a 3rd-weak radical - in this case, M-R-A) is altered to the form M-R-Y-A:
Prof. Sebastian Brock Wrote:I don't really want to waste more time with this, but you could cite ra`e, with emphatic ra`ya (shepherd), bare, with emphatic barya (creator) (and quite a number of other such cases).
Now, what Prof. Brock is mistakingly referring to is substantivization of participles (see Thackston 20:3). The word "raya" is, incidentally, treated in that section very thoroughly by Thackston. The summary of the grammatical rule is that the emphatic participles of verbs which contain a weak 3rd-radical (such as the Aleph) are formed on the pattern Xa-X-Ya, with the -Ya representing the weak 3rd radical (in this case, the Aleph in M-R-A).
This would indeed form M-R-Y-A from M-R-A - If M-R-A was a participle based on a 3rd-weak radical verb. HOWEVER, the lexical stem M-R-A (or, the proper title variant of M-R-Y) is NOT a participle derived from a verbal root, M-R-A is a noun - hence this rule does NOT apply.
Both the B-R-A and R-(-A roots that Brock mentioned are in fact verbal roots, with the participles "bare" and "rae" (respectively) being derivatives of those verbs. Hence, even Payne-Smith identifies both "Barya" and "Raya" as SUBSTANTIVES, exactly according to the rules specified in Thackston 20:3. In fact, "Raya" is used as one of the examples in Thackston 20:3.
M-R-A, however, is NOT (I repeat, NOT) a verbal root - nor does it have a participial "mare" derived from it. Hence, the rule as Brock suggested does NOT apply.
These are the people sitting on the "chairs" at the universities, folks. Honestly, most 10-year old Assyrian Sunday school students know this much Aramaic. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan