User talk:334a

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our format guidelines
• Criteria for inclusion
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Have a nice week and god bless :) --La gloria è a dio 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, we only use translingual for symbols and characters. A word/spelling that is in two or more languages gets two language sections. Even if it seems a bit redundant when they are simple, because as examples/citations, usage notes etc are added they have to be separate. So just add an Aramaic section. (languages go in alphabetical order, and there is a ---- between sections) Robert Ullmann 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you might want to take some time and go through your old edits and fix the translinguals. I just split up ישוע. I know it's tedious, but....there you have it, it's tedious. But, fantastic work on all the Aramaic, I'm very happy to see it. Keep up the good work. Atelaes 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am sorry for editing the Aramaic word. I mistakenly thought it was a Hebrew word. Today, I edited only the Hebrew section of the page and also added explanaton on the discussion page. Liso 15:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice you add (for example)

<div style="font-family:serif;">
:<font size="15">בשילא</font></div>

above the part-of-speech header for Aramaic entries. This is not standard practice, and people keep removing this information from your entries; you might as well save them the trouble by not adding it in the first place. If your concern is that the normal-type Hebrew-script characters in the inflection line (headword) is hard to read, you can use {{Hebr|headword}} to make them a little clearer.—msh210℠ 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you come across problems that you can't resolve yourself (like the pronunciation for discipulus), you can mark the page with the template {{la-attention}}. I check that category every so often to deal with the problems people find. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure this is an I-stem noun? --EncycloPetey 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd never heard such a simple rule applied to this group, and certainly didn't know about -al nouns. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

...and you did notice that Template:la-decl-3rd-B2C is a redirect to Template:la-decl-3rd-PAR? ==EncycloPetey 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The separation of templates is historical; it's how they were originally done. I'm not sure wether we should combine them or not. I can imagine times and places where we would want to display the declension pattern, but not the declension details above it (such as in an Appendix). However, I can also imagine the templates being set up with an optional argument like details=no (or yes) that could turn that feature off (or on). --EncycloPetey 05:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Would you be kind to provide transliterations for your Aramaic entries when you create them? Generally, those are required for entries written in non-Latin script in the headword lines, translations and when being mentioned by {{term}}. It's no big deal for those fluent in a language, but for everyone else.. :) --Ivan Štambuk 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan,

The problem with Aramaic transliterations is that, keeping in mind Aramaic's long history and large number of dialects, there could be any number of ways to pronounce any given word. Even some of the most common words have wildly varying pronunciations between the dialects. I gave up trying to transcribe the pronunciations a long time ago (both because of time/effort and lack of knowledge of all the possible pronunciations, not wanting to favour one dialect over any others). --334a 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's really bad that no dialect was "standardized" over some period of time, or preferred in literature.. Thanks for your input. --Ivan Štambuk 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would timidly suppose that Syriac is the "standardised" or at least the one, whose cultural tradition is most renown. The two prominent writers in the Aramaic language are Saint Ephraem Syrus and Aphrahat, both of them writing in Syriac. Well, there is also a Nabataean branch, but... I hope that 334a will not try refuting me, since I am also interested in the language. Bogorm 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I generally agree, Syriac is probably the most standardized and widespread of all the Aramaic dialects. I've already added phonological pronunciations based on Syriac to Aramaic articles since Ivan posted this to me some months ago. But there might be room for improvement: take, for example, Ancient Greek articles which have pronunciations for three phases of the Ancient Greek language (Classical, Koine, and Byzantine), and Spanish generally distinguishes Castilian from Latin American pronunciation. I'm entirely open to the idea of including more than one pronunciation method as long as that method is widespread and isn't some small lesser-spoken dialect, since there are too many of those to count. --334a 15:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a transliteration based on the most common/important/coolest dialect, and then pronunciation for all the major ones is truly ideal. If you're interested in a scheme similar to Ancient Greek, I'd be quite happy to provide any help with that, should you need any. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your offer to help, Atelaes. I will definitely need it when the time comes, but I'd have to figure out which dialects are the most common first. --334a 19:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know it has been over a year since the last post in this discussion but I have a suggestion. The most important dialects seem to have Syriac, Mandaic, Babylonian, and Galilean so I suggest you consider including all four. I do not know much about the difference between these dialects but if any of them are similar enough, you could combine them into one to save time. Also, the pronunciation itself is not so important compared to a simple transliteration so that people who do not know Aramaic could at least see what phonemes are in the word. A transcription such as this does not need to be based on any real dialect. For example, in Ancient Greek, Ἑρμῆς can be transliterated as Hermēs (even Hermes would be sufficient) just so that someone who is not familiar with Greek letters would still be able to read it even though this does not provide any information as to how it is pronounced in any real dialect. A closer example would be the Arabic word جمل, which can be transliterated as ǧamal regardless of whether the vowels are pronounced or and regardless of whether the ǧ is pronounced or . I therefore recommend using a system similar to the Tiberian system for Hebrew for a parenthetical transliteration right after the Aramaic headword and you can go into more detail of pronunciation in the pronunciation section. My suggestion would look somewhat like this (the example is Hebrew):

Pronunciation

• (Israeli):
• (Ashkenazi):
• (Yemenite):

Noun

שָׁלוֹם m. (šālōm)

1. peace

In this example, šālōm is the transliteration while everything under the "Pronunciation" section is the dialectical pronunciation. Keep in mind that this is only an example and I solely intend it to illustrate and clarify what I have said. --wikitiki89 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

And it comes with a request too! --Ivan Štambuk 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a lone Aramaic word without categories אבדנא that was found during cleanup. Could you tend to this? --EncycloPetey 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea if you'll have any idea about this, but since you're the only one working on a language which uses the Syriac script, I thought I'd ask you. So, I recently created the above category. However, as I look into it, it appears that unicode includes some characters in their Syriac section. Do you know if these extra characters allow one to write all of Sogdian? Should the entry in the category be moved to Category:Articles which need Syriac script? Any help is appreciated, but if you have no idea, I'll understand.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is actually the first time I've heard of Sogdian being written in Syriac. As far as I know, Sogdian has its own script ultimately deriving from the Aramaic script (like Syriac) possibly via Syriac, so I don't know if Sogdian and Syriac are sister scripts or if Sogdian is the child of Syriac. I'm not too sure about the unicode characters either. There are a fair number of errors/annoyances with the Syriac unicode script to begin with (like the standard font size being two times too small, certain dots not working where they should, etc.), so I wouldn't be surprised if some Sogdian characters got mixed up in the Syriac section. I wouldn't be too hasty to merge the two categories together simply because, as of right now, the two scripts seem to be different. --334a 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll keep the category for now, and try and do a bit more research. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in cleaning up/improving entries in that category. I decided to be brave and create some entries on the basis of CAL, so you might see some of my stuff inside (which may be misspelled, that's why I tag it with {{attention|arc}}). Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

To your knowledge, what is the common lemma format employed for Aramaic-English dictionaries?

How do you like the idea of adding abs=, cons= and emp= parameters to the {{arc-noun}} template, which would then generate in parentheses in the inflection line links to entries of nouns in other two states?

The choice is either to 1) treat all three states as equal, containing duplicate information (which is not necessarily bad) or 2) treat one of them as a lemma which the other two would just link to (via {{absolute state of}} or something..).

BTW, I read on WP article on Syriac: "However, very quickly in the development of Classical Syriac, the emphatic state became the ordinary form of the noun, and the absolute and construct states were relegated to certain stock phrases (for example, ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ/ܒܪܢܫܐ, bar nāšâ, "man", literally "son of man").", while the article on Aramaic just states absolute as basic form ("The 'absolute' state is the basic form of a noun (for example, kṯâḇâ, 'handwriting'). The 'construct' state is a truncated form of the noun used to make possessive phrases (for example, kṯāḇaṯ malkṯâ, 'the handwriting of the queen). The 'emphatic' or 'determined' state is an extended form of the noun that functions a bit like a definite article (which Aramaic lacks; for example, kṯāḇtâ, 'the handwriting'). In time, the construct state began to be replaced by other possessive phrases, and the emphatic state became the norm in most dialects. Most dialects of Modern Aramaic use only the emphatic state."). Would making emphatic as a lemma form mean giving prominence to some dialects over another, or all of modern dialect in disfavour of Classical Aramaic (and before)? --Ivan Štambuk 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. It appears that every Semitic language has it's own quirks on noun states and lemmatization forms. I'll try to enter only emphatics from now on, with {{attention|arc}} tag as a notice that it needs checking. --Ivan Štambuk 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

it's being discussed on how to reduce the space used by translations of languages written in two scripts in translations tables, by putting them all in one line (following the logic already applied to logographic/syllabaries-based scripts). Since you're apparently regularly adding Aramaic translations in Syriac/Hebrew spellings in two separate lines, this would also concern you, so I thought of dropping you a note. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 06:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd give you head's up on this convo, just in case you had anything to add. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your thoughts are requested at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:Jastrow. Thanks!—msh210℠ 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you add the romanization for צום and any other Aramaic entries you create? Thanks, 24.29.228.33 04:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an easier way to do this, and it's on my list of things to do. I just have to finish three Latin projects (all close to completion), and then I plan to revise all the Latin noun templates, which need the overhaul desperately --EncycloPetey 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to take a look at this entry? I'm attempting to rid Wiktionary of etymology templates (e.g. {{Gr.}}, {{L.}}) which don't have ISO codes. Do you think this entry could be fitted with an {{etyl}}, using one of the many Aramaic ISO codes? Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to set this guy straight please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

And would you cease musing upon how to refute as much as possible of mine edits? When the scientifical sources are in full accirdance to the written, then such efforts are doomed. Bogorm 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ruakh asks that you be given the opportunity to comment here; please do so. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This would be better handled as an appendix. See Category:Latin numerals and Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals (still ongoing). --EncycloPetey 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

And in case you weren't aware of them, you made also find useful {{cardinalbox}} and {{ordinalbox}}. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do believe that I've brought these things to you before.....but what can I say? There aren't many folks with Aramaic background here.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am also announcing a second request for a translation in Aramaic here. I guessed that faith and hope are respectively ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ and ܣܒܪܐ, but I have not got the ligature ܬ + ܐ in mine Aramaic script. As for love I have come across two words, ܚܘܒܐ and ܡܟܬܪܢ , which is the difference between them? Bogorm 09:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Syriac taw-alaph ligature is optional (usually seen in older manuscripts) in its unconnected form, and renders automatically in its connected form. I've never heard the word "ܡܟܬܪܢ" in the spoken language and, when I looked it up, seemed to be an adjective meaning something along the lines of "enduring" and "slow". Apart from that, the other words are correct. --334a 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have copy-pasted the wrong word. If the ligature is optional, is one allowed to create entries without it? Or only with the ligature? Or it does not matter whether ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ is created with or without it? Bogorm 14:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can create entries without the unconnected ligature. In fact, I don't even think there's a keystroke available for it since, like I said before, it's usually only found in manuscripts. The connected ligature, however, is considered mandatory (by most standards), and you don't need to worry about it since it shows up automatically (try typing ܒܝܬܐ ,ܟܬܒܬܐ, etc.). Of course, the ligatures will show up depending on which specific Syriac font you have your preferences set to, and some fonts don't have any ligatures at all. --334a 06:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you verify whether I managed to render the citation from the Peshitta ܠܐ ܬܪܡܘܢ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܟܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܚܙܝܪܐ in the main form sucessfully as ܬܪܡ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ ܩܕܡ ܚܙܝܪܐ(removing your and adjusting the verb). I decided to increase the font, because otherwise the Estrangelo letters appear tiny. I would also appreciate a transliteration, since I am perplexed about how the stuff is pronounced regarding mainly the vowels. Bogorm 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You had it almost completely right, except for the verb: "ܬܪܡ" should be "ܬܪܡܐ." I'm thinking you thought "ܬܪܡ" was the main root of the verb and "ܬܪܡܘܢ" was a masculine imperative plural, with "ܬܪܡ" being the masculine imperative singular. Really, "ܪܡܐ" is the root of the verb, and "ܬܪܡܘܢ" is the masculine imperfect plural, so "ܬܪܡܐ" is the masculine imperfect singular. It's an easy mistake to make, you would normally expect an imperative there instead of an imperfect indicative, but even in the modern dialect we flip back and forth between the two.

The small fonts are a pain, and there are many things wrong with them besides being too small. Maybe one day someone over at Unicode or something will get off their ass and actually fix it, but until then I don't think there's anything we can do. --334a 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. I managed also to find out the Akkadian cognate (or originary word?), but I am unable to write it in Cuneiform. How do you think, do many terms in Aramaic come directly from Akkadian, or in this case it is simply a cognate? (P. S. The blunder about the Latin infinitivus was inadvertent... due to distraction) Bogorm 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I cannot move the "swine" after "before" in the first citation, sorry. The brackets in the right-to left scripts are too perplexing for a novice like me. Bogorm 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to say exactly. I only know of a handful (maybe four or five), and dictionaries usually don't give the etymology if it's an Akkadian word, probably because they're very old borrowings.

One more thing: I didn't catch it at first, but you confused the dalath with resh in ܩܕܡ (probably, again, since the fonts are so small). A trick I use to remember which is which is this: "resh" means "head", so the dot/line is on top. "Dalath" means "door" (in Phoenician and Hebrew), and a dalath in Estrangela looks somewhat like a door without one side, so the dot is like a doorknob.

resh: , dalath: . --334a 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the font is really too tiny. I shall settle for cf. for the words which I find out in my Akkadian-Russian dictionary; there Lipin gives the Shumer origin, if any, but not the descendants in other languages (I suppose it would have been much more voluminous, if he had decided to). Bogorm 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was nice of you to try to create a template, but your new inflection is incorrect. The numeral unus does not inflect according to the regular patterns. Specifically, the vocative is different for this one word. The "-ius" adjective/pronoun/determiners look correct. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the correction. I was going around other pages and using the same template (like solus and the other -ius adjectives) and I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to how each one was declined, but it's good that you caught that. I also replaced the text at the top with template:ladecl1&2ius, so feel free to make any changes to that too. --334a 02:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've started phasing out those one-line declension pattern templates. If we want them, then there's no reason not to add them to the inflection tables directly. It's silly to have to add two templates when a single one can do the same job. I've already done this with the verbs, but haven't yet done so with other parts of speech--mostly because there is a lot of other associated cleanup involved in revising those templates, and I'm still not finished dealing with the verbs. I've found that there is a category of verbs that don't have a complete passive conjugation, but which do have the thir-person forms (either just singular or both singular and plural). I've realized this means that we might need an additional set of verb templates to handle that, but I haven't decided how to keep those tables from looking odd (for missing so many forms). I may do something like what the Spanish templates do for such situations, where the theoretical (but unattested) passive forms are grey and unlinked. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I didn't realize that one was missing or I'd have added it. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. :) --334a 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

>>Hey AugPi,

If you're having trouble viewing Syriac fonts, may I suggest switching your font settings instead of increasing the font size in templates? There are many fonts out there to choose from (some of which are smaller and harder to read than others, but you can find decent-looking ones if you look hard enough). --334a 05:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)<<Reply

I have now instead used the {{Syrc}} template much in the same way that, say, {{Deva}} is used in {{hi-noun}}. Also, the {{Syrc}} didn't really specify anything, so I told it to use font size 1.3 em: this is similar to {{Hebr}} using size 1.15 em. Then I looked at several articles in Category:Syriac nouns and found that the inflection line script was now pleasant to behold, certainly more so than with my original edit of <font size=5>...</font>, which was certainly too big (my apology). The inflection line Syriac script is now large enough that I can clearly distinguish individual letters, and, by comparing with the transcription, I can learn (and have been learning) what the individual letters transliterate to. It is far easier for me to learn foreign scripts by browsing dictionary entries with transliterations or transcriptions, than to look at transliteration charts for the alphabets, such as are available in Wikipedia. Hopefully you won't find my latest edits objectionable. By the way, the Syriac script is beautiful IMHO, so hopefully you, or somebody, will add more of such entries. —AugPi 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there any specific reason the {{Syrc}}-type templates exist? I don't really understand the need for them. Here's what the Hebrew, Estrangela, Eastern Syriac, and Western Syriac fonts look like on my computer before and after the use of the templates (after on top, before on bottom). To me, the Hebrew looks like it's too big and sloppier (like someone wrote it out by hand with a fountain pen with too much ink). The Estrangela, while the edges appear smoother and easier to read, still looks too big to me. The Eastern Syriac is also easier to read, but that too is too big and looks sloppy. The only real improvement I see is in the Western Syriac.

So, there you have it. It seems to me that increasing the font size only benefits the person who actually did it, with adverse effects for people who were already fine with their font settings. I don't think the solution is to change the font settings in the template itself (which alters the font for everybody), but change the font settings on an individual basis. Or maybe I just lack the fonts that make them nice for everybody else? I don't know. --334a 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

A thorny question has just arised, as I remarked this edit, changing Aramaic caption to Syriac (ܚܕܘܬܐ). I immediately opposed it, but when I asked the contributor, he presented three other entries all created by you, where the caption you inserted was "Syriac". As Syriac and Jewish Aramaic are both dialects of Aramaic, I suggest either adhering to the "Aramaic" caption in both cases or (which would be more difficult, since the alternative non-Estrangelo spellings are outnumbering the other) introducing "Jewish Aramaic" caption in the alternative spellings. The only thing I would vehemently contest against is leaving the alternative spellings with "Aramaic" and preserving "Syriac" on the Estrangelo ones, as though Jewish Aramaic were the more widespread dialect, when it is just the opposite. What do you think? Bogorm 11:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is certainly a thorny issue. SIL divides Aramaic into no less than 19 dialogues. I am curious as to what your thoughts are on the ideal division on Wiktionary. Specifically, we will want to come up with a plan of action for when the Imperial Aramaic script is encoded on Unicode (perhaps 5.2?). Some languages which are split into many languages by SIL are , in my opinion, best served on Wiktionary by a single language (e.g. Arabic), whereas other times their divisions are really the ideal divisions here. Knowing basically nothing about Aramaic, I'm certainly not the right person to advocate any view, but I am curious as to your thoughts on the matter. This is an issue which will undoubtedly come up repeatedly, and I think it prudent to have a well-reasoned position. Additionally, may I ask what your background is with the language specifically? Native speaker? Second language? Just curious. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Superficial knowledge, which means that I am familiar with the script (only Estrangelo), some dozens of words and some basic grammar, but not enough to include Template:User_arc-1 on my user page. Bogorm 21:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the question was intended for 334a, but that answer was nonetheless interesting. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Somewhere he mentioned that he speaks an Eastern variant close to Syriac, but I cannot recall the page where it was. I conceived your :: as a response, I did not mean to be importunate. Bogorm 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a good thing that User:Vahagn Petrosyan changed the title from "Aramaic" to "Syriac" on that page to make things consistent; that was a mistake on my part for forgetting to change it. Here's how I see it: there is no singular "Aramaic language", Aramaic is divided up into a large number of "dialects". Some of these dialect distinctions have existed for thousands of years, therefore they've evolved enough so that not all Aramaic dialects are mutually intelligible. Hence, the term "Aramaic languages" is being used more and more, even though the dialects/languages share some intelligibility and an obvious common origin. Syriac is one of those dialects, and it's also the only one commonly written in the Syriac script. In other words, the Syriac script is only used for writing the Syriac dialect of Aramaic (and its descendants). The other dialects use other scripts (Hebrew, Mandaic, and Imperial being the big ones).

The name "Jewish Aramaic" is ambiguous, because that could refer to a handful of separate and distinct Aramaic dialects all spoken by Jews. Also, many of the Neo-Aramaic dialects—like Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (of which I am a native speaker), Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, and Turoyo—are relatively unstandardized but share a common relation with (the very standardized) Classical Syriac. If it were up to me, I would divide the major dialects/phases of the Aramaic language like this (in no particular order):

• Syriac (written in Syriac script)
• Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (written in Hebrew script)
• Imperial/Biblical Aramaic (written in the Imperial or Hebrew scripts)
• Mandaic (written in Mandaic script)

All the other dialects can be categorized as too small or not standardized enough. So, to sum up, I think it's fine the way it is for now: Hebrew script articles use "Aramaic" (since several dialects use the Hebrew script) and Syriac script articles use "Syriac" (since only Syriac uses the Syriac script). You'll also notice that every Syriac page also contains its corresponding Aramaic page (e.g., links to both the categories Aramaic nouns and Syriac nouns), since Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic but not vice versa. --334a 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I agree with many of your points, but I think some need some work. It was my suspicion that some compromise between a single Aramaic and 19 Aramaics was the best way to go. I think that the four group system sounds like an exceptionally reasonable idea. However, there is a problem. Wiktionary does not do macrolanguages. Either we need to put all Aramaic under the L2 header "Aramaic", or we need to stop using it all together (that is, unless it used of a specific Aramaic language, like Greek is used to refer to a specific Greek language, i.e. modern). However, if we're going to divide this into multiple languages, we need to be consistent about it. An entry with the L2 Syriac cannot categorize under Aramaic nouns. It can only categorize under Syriac nouns. It might be worthwhile to only make an Aramaic/Syriac split for now and not worry about the other divisions til later, but whatever divisions you make need to be treated consistently. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added quotes from the book of Daniel, and started the etymology, but then recalled that these weren't their Hebrew names. Do we still consider them to have come to us via Hebrew from their (Chaldean? Akkadian? ??) original word, or what? Can you provide any assistance with adding proper etymologies to these entries? --EncycloPetey 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I'm not an expert in Biblical studies, but I guess it would all depend on whether the Aramaic/Chaldean portion of Daniel had ever historically been translated to Hebrew. If it had, then I don't think it would be completely ridiculous to assume that the English names came via Hebrew. I'm not entirely sure whether the names are Aramaic or Akkadian, but I'm assuming the Aramaic spellings would look very similar (if not identical) to the Hebrew spellings. Sorry I couldn't be much help. --334a 03:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're doubtless best equipped to help with this, if you so choose.—msh210℠ 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have not hoped to find Aramaic written with matres lectionis as I just did in 𒉈 (ܐܵܒ in lieu of ܐܒܐ) (that sign above ܐ in ܐܵ is mater lectionis, right?). However, it obviously hampered the connection between the entries and I should adjust it, so that the Akkadian entry be connected to the Aramaic one. What do you think about the possibility to create an entry ܐܵܒ next to ܐܒܐ? Should the one redirect to the another? Anyway, I am not able to type Aramaic with matres lectiones, do you have any idea how this is done? I am not asking about the definite form with final ܐ, just about the matres lectionis. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. No, the question had not been answered before your response. Are there any differences in the pronunciation of ܢܗܪܐ (which I created today)? If so, could you mention them in the article? Could you check ܫܡܥ for errors, if this is not importunate? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, there was a translation requæst for Aramaic and I and Msh210 seem to propose different versions - he quotes Ezra and I - ܡܬܝ. Is it possible that the Targum and Peshitta are composed in defferent kinds of Aramaic? Well, my knowledge of Aramaic may be scarce, but I am sure the possessive particle ܕ is indispensable. I am also curious what ܗ stands for. Would you be so kind as to use Estrangelo, as I am not conversant with the square script. RSVP. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Er, would you be so kind as to use Hebrew script, as I'm not conversant with Estrangelo?  :-) —msh210℠ 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

334a, if you are not hampered, could you verify the transliteration of ܫܡܥ as well? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi 334a what is the right IPA pronunciation for the neo-aramaic version of english "angel"? is it "malak", "malax" or any other pronunciation? thanks— This unsigned comment was added by 83.238.234.136 (talk) at 14:50, 15 March 2010.

334a has not been around for a while now. However, you can find him on Aramaic wikipedia, where he is a regular contributor. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, 334a. Are you back? If so, could you please take a look at Category:Entries which need Syriac script? Those are mostly my requests, Armenian words borrowed from Classical Syriac of Edessa. --Vahag 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I noticed that the majority of entries for Aramaic verb created by you (in the Hebrew script) do not include a final ālap (ܐ), but that dictionary seems to præfer their ending in -ܐ. Why is that so? Were the Aramaic verbs written in Jewish Aramaic without final ālap, and in all other varieties with it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That site you gave is mostly Neo-Aramaic, in which they give the basic form of the verb as the gerund, which has an Alaph at the end, rather than the 3rd person masculine singular perfect form, which is standard for all forms of older Aramaic (including Syriac) as well as Hebrew and Arabic. --334a 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why are you speedy deleting Aramaic entries? Please stop, now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

To put it another way, instead of moving an entry from one script to another then changing the language code, simply create the entry and mark the other one for speedy deletion. I take it you're saying you created these years ago and you were wrong, they don't exist at all in Aramaic, is that right? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun,

Yes, those words do not occur in dialects which use the Hebrew script (as far as I know). Is there a good reason for not redirecting the page to the spelling in the correct script? I thought it would preserve the history better. If it's conflicting with something though, then I'll follow your suggestion. --334a 22:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right, perhaps I overreacted. It's a bit odd to move an entry to another script then change the language, you effectively end up with an entirely new entry with the history of an entry that no longer exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right about the entries being entirely new. It actually turns out to be a little easier and less confusing for me to mark the page for deletion and make a new entry rather than move the entry to a different script. It's probably less confusing for the recent changes patrollers if I use your method too, so it's all good. :) --334a 19:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here are two interesting facts:

1. When a category 200 or less members, all the members are shown in exactly one page, so a TOC is unnecessary.
2. When a category has more than 200 pages, and a boiler like "poscatboiler", the TOC of the respective language (such as "Template:syc-categoryTOC", which you created for Syriac) appears automatically.

So you don't need to add TOCs manually at all. --Daniel. 23:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you for pointing that out to me, Daniel. I actually knew that TOC templates were included in boilers, I guess that I've been out of it for so long that I just forgot.

So I'm guessing all of those templates should be removed from the category pages, otherwise the boiler will kick in at 201+ entries and you'll have a duplicate TOC (like this), no? Does somebody run a bot that does that removes those templates or something? --334a 23:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I don't know any bot that removes reduntant TOCs. (However, this function can be very easily programmed into a hypothetical bot eventually if necessary.)

Yes, these manual TOCs will have to be removed sooner or later in favor of letting only automatic TOCs appear when necessary. However, while two identical TOCs are certainly a poor choice of webdesign, the current manual TOCs are harmless (especially while the automatic ones don't appear), and the predicted problem can be extremely easily fixed when the time comes, so I don't think we need to hurry for now. --Daniel. 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wish everyone, including myself, can know about the IPA pronunciations of the Syriac alternative forms like ܟܫܛܐ (Etymology 1). Some other pronunciations don't have that. Is there any time for that? For their declension tables? --Lo Ximiendo 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Lo Ximiendo!

I usually don't include the pronunciation for an alternative spelling since it's pronounced the same way as the main spelling (like œsophagus, an alternative spelling without an IPA pronunciation for oesophagus). It's the same story with etymologies; those can be found in the "real" article. I've created most of the main articles (with the pronunciation) for their corresponding alternative spelling, and the ones I haven't created yet are going to be made eventually once I work out a few kinks with them. I do try to include pronunciations for alternative forms though, since their pronunciation differs from the "main" form.

And you're right about the inflections. I should add those too. :) --334a 01:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please create the Syriac entry for qaṭābān? It is the title of the Armenian governor of Melitene, but you probably know that. --Vahag 12:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed by chance that some templates bold Hebrew script. I'm told that this is undesirable as it negatively affects readability. How would you feel if we removed the bolding? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't really have a preference for either. I guess it's more consistent if all the headword lines are bolded for all languages, but I could see how some people would have a harder time reading the Hebrew script (especially if niqqud markings are used). If there are a lot of people pushing to remove the bolding, I'd be fine with that. --334a 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I preferred bolding for all languages too; it was msh210 and Ruakh that advised me against it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am aware of this issue, however not adding vowels would mean that the same words will have different spelling and meanings. I would have preferred using the western Syriac diacritical system but they are not supported by the css script. btw I have created some templates in wikipedia for the three different scripts though they rely on the Meltho fonts. How would you feel if we export them here? One more thong... Which ISO standard is best for Syriac ISO_233-2 or ISO_259-3? I personally prefer the Hebrew one but I have noticed that the Arabic has been more popularised in a way or another.--Rafy 11:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please see this discussion. Do you think we should treat Classical Syriac and Neo-Aramaic varieties under one header in Wiktionary? --Vahag 14:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The translation adding tool (which creates the forms at the bottom of translation boxes in English entries) is currently set so that translations added in Classical Syriac (syc) will not be nested under any other section. From the translations I've seen you add (at least while it was still being called "Syriac"), it appears that Syriac translations are usually nested under "Aramaic" (* Aramaic:\n**Syriac: ...). Do you think the tool should be set so that translations added in Classical Syriac are placed under Aramaic? (*Aramaic:\n**Classical Syriac: ...) --Yair rand 05:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, most definitely. Though, originally, the nested entries "Syriac and "Hebrew" I added under "Aramaic" were meant to be the Syriac and Hebrew scripts, not dialects or languages. I was trying to keep it all under one language ("Aramaic") written in different scripts, like what Serbian does with Cyrillic and Roman. In hindsight, that was a pretty futile attempt. Aramaic should be split up into different dialects/languages, like Chinese is with Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. --334a 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi akhon, care to take a look here? Also can you have a another quick look to this list? I'm a bit unsure with the peal and pael verb forms and they might need some minor tweaks.--Rafy 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tawdi akhon, the list looks much better now. I will be returning there every now and then to correct pronunciation and add better words if I find any.

BTW do you recommend using "Classical Syriac" in translations like this one?--Rafy 07:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's good. --334a 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

While you're working on Syriac....it would be good if someone could check the etymology section of Melkite, and hopefully turn some of those red links blue...? Ƿidsiþ 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Shlama, Could you take a look here? This should apply to all Garshuni letters.--Rafy 15:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what your native language is (would you like to use Babel-something for your user page?). How much do you know about Classical Syriac? --Lo Ximiendo 05:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm a native English speaker and probably a low level 3 in Classical Syriac. :) --334a 05:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you add a BabelBox to your userpage please? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your input would be welcome at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Aramaic policy, if you have a chance. —Ruakh_TALK 15:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you take a look at this proposal? Your opinion is of great value there.--Rafy (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your input is requested here. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like to feature a Classical Syriac word as Foreign Word of the Day (see here, for Jan 7). I assume you have the necessary fonts installed to view the text correctly; I just see boxes. Could you please upload a screenshot to Wikimedia Commons so we can feature the word? Thanks so much! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done: File:Syriac-Payza.png. You also might want to change the transliteration from paizaʼ to payzāʾ. :) --334a (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I also appreciate the translit (I don't know why we don't include them in entries...) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is Tyy the correct spelling for Ṭayyāyē? --Z 14:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sort of. You got the basic spelling right, you just didn't use the lemma form (which would be Ṭayyāyāʾ rather than Ṭayyāy) and transliterated using the plural form (Ṭayyāyēʾ). I've fixed it for you. :) --334a (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) --Z 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you think? --Z 11:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I like the idea of putting pronunciations next to the plural forms since the current system I have (like at ܐܕܢܐ) is ambiguous. I'm wondering, though, if it would be better to stick with an IPA transliteration in the pronunciation section and a plain non-IPA transliteration next to the headwords (like at ܬܐܡܐ). Then I can finally get around to creating Wiktionary:Classical Syriac transliteration to match everything up. --334a (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we should do the latter, that is keeping the both transliterations. Many readers may be uncomfortable with IPA, and prefer a non-IPA transliteration. Moreover, when editors want to mention/link to a Syriac term in other entries, they need to have its non-IPA transliteration, which are currently not given in Syriac entries. --Z 16:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure about the Arabic transliteration kāʾs for كأس? I know the Canaanite ô and the Syriac ā suggest an ā in Arabic, and I haven't heard the Arabic word, but āʾ is written as ـَاء, while ـَأ is aʾ. (أ is used when hamzah is preceded or followed by an a). --Z 17:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

1) I've sort of been holding off on putting transliterations in Syriac articles because of the different transliteration schemes that exist. For example, ܟܣܬܐ could be kessəṯāʾ or kesṯāʾ, or not have the final ʾ, or have θ instead of ṯ, and so on. There really is no single scheme that is the most commonly used and, for the ones that seem to be used more often, I don't find completely accurate.

2) I am not an expert on Arabic at all, so no, I am not sure. :) I thought it was a letter-positioning thing, though; is ء ever found in the middle of a word? I seem to recall only seeing it at the end. --334a (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

1) I understand, there was the same problem in Wiktionary for transliteration of Persian and Arabic. I think you should just start the Wiktionary:Classical Syriac transliteration and things will be solved through discussion. For example, I think we should not add ə and the final alaph, because transliterations are not supposed to be the phonetic representation of words, especially when we already have a section in all Syriac entries for phonetic pronunciation.

2) Yes, when ـاء āʾ is in the middle it usually becomes ـائـ, although use of the former when it is in the middle is not wrong, it's just an archaic form of spelling; e.g. قراءة (qirāʾa) (اء instead of ائ), also قرءان (qurʾān) (ءا instead of آ). --Z 03:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you send me an email? I need your help in a linguistic matter.--Kathovo (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. --334a (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Iggarta ho lah mshuddurta, khoni. :) --334a (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bassima raba.--Kathovo (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Can you check if a form layš is attested in Classical Syriac beside ܠܝܫܐ (layšā, “dough”). It is needed for լավաշ (lavaš). I know layš is found in other Aramaic dialects but I specifically need Classical Syriac. --Vahag (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Vahag, so layš (or lêš) is the "absolute state" of layšāʾ, so it's an inflected form rather than a variant. The absolute state is kind of like an indefinite form and is used less frequently in Syriac than it is in other Aramaic dialects (which is why the form with -āʾ tacked on at the end is often used as the lemma form in Syriac dictionaries), but it should still technically exist. :) --334a (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was helpful. Apparently we often borrow from this absolute state, as in տղայ (tłay) and տերեւ (terew). What is the transliteration of the absolute state of ܥܪܘܒܬܐ? Also, can you research the Syriac word in հեթանոս (hetʻanos)? It is found in Robert Payne Smith glossed as populus, natio. What is the correct spelling, transliteration and meaning according to modern sources? I couldn't find the word in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. --Vahag (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The absolute state of ܥܪܘܒܬܐ is transliterated as ʿərūḇāʾ (feminine nouns tend to end in -tāʾ or -ṯāʾ in the emphatic state and -āʾ in the absolute). As for the Syriac word in հեթանոս (hetʻanos), I've been looking for it for a while but is apparently very rare because I can't find it in any other source besides Robert Payne Smith either. Even the spelling of that word is slightly off from the facsimile of the circa 10th-century dictionary he cites (hāṯnōs, with a long "ā", changed to haṯnōs). I'm not entirely sure if both spellings do actually exist or one is just a typo. Other dictionaries he cites seem to indicate it being spelled heṯīōs or heṯêōs, though that might be a typo as well ("ī/ê" looks an awful lot like "n" in Syriac). I'll let you know if I ever come across anything else for that word. :) --334a (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I did some research. It is possible Syriac mediation was not involved, especially if the word was so rare. If you find anything new on this word, please add the script and transliteration to ἔθνος (éthnos). --Vahag (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm looking for a form ṣōm “fast” in Syriac. Is it an alternative form of ܨܘܡܐ or is it its absolute form? --Vahag (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Vahag. It is indeed the absolute form. :) --334a (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! We need transliterations in inflection tables. --Vahag (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I hear you, brother. I'll try to get on it when/if I have time. :) --334a (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I always wanted to ask. Are you а Neo-Assyrian or are you a Westerner learning Syriac? --Vahag (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm an ethnic Assyrian. My Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is still better than my Classical Syriac, actually. :) --334a (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool! Nice to meet a fellow autochthon of our region. PS You might want to check Category:Assyrian Neo-Aramaic terms needing native script. --Vahag (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have seen some Malagasy interwiki links to the Aramaic entries you marked for deletion. Is it okay to delete those entries in that version as well? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Malagasy name for Aramaic is Asirianina, BTW. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if the word is translated with the same English meaning. However, the spellings I'm marking down could possibly have another, legitimate meaning, so care should be taken so as not to delete it in that case (though, by my estimation, the odds of that happening are extremely low). And I had no clue about the Malagasy name for Aramaic--good to know. :) --334a (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here's the category: mg:Sokajy:asirianina --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should the entry mg:פשילא, for example, be deleted or not? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Do all those translations mean something along the lines of "twisted"? --334a (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know a single thing about the Malagasy language (the language's name is pronounced "mall-gash", I think). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Haha, at least I knew that it's spoken in Madagascar and it's an Austronesian language (which is weird and interesting, considering it's completely geographically removed from other Austronesian languages). Other than that, we're in the same boat. I'd say leave it for now--maybe we can send a message later to a native speaker on that wiki to sort all those entries out. --334a (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You gave the readings qenṭrōn, qanṭrōn for ܩܢܛܪܘܢ. Can you give me a published reference for qenṭrōn'? CAL only has qanṭrōn. I am asking, because if the reading is correct, it would explain Armenian կենտրովն (kentrovn) better than Greek κέντρον, where short -ο- would not give Armenian -ov-. Also, can you find the Syriac name of Καππαδοκία? If it has a long -ō-, that would explaing Կապադովկիա (Kapadovkia). --Vahag (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Vahag!

For qenṭrōn/qanṭrōn, there's J. Payne Smith's dictionary, p. 510b (you can use Template:R:Payne Smith 1903). Also, the "o" in "Cappadocia" is long in Syriac (I've added the spelling and transliteration to the Old Persian entry). --334a (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! But why do you transliterate as e/a? The spelling given by Payne Smith can be read both ways or does he too give two spellings? Also, do you have a published source for the reading Qappaddōqīyā? This is needed for research, that's why I want published sources. --Vahag (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yup, Jessie Payne Smith--a she, actually--gives two vocalic spellings. The older edition of the dictionary (written in Latin by her father Robert Payne Smith) gives more consonantal spellings as well. Evidently, there are always more than one way of writing foreign words in Syriac. Qappaddōqīyā (again, only one of several spellings/transliterations) can be found here (Louis Costaz, Syriac-English Dictionary, 1963, p. 418b -- you can use Template:R:Costaz 1963). I should note that both long and short "o" are written the same in Syriac. They're also only distinguished by length in their underlying forms, so they're actually pronounced the same in their full surface forms--the only difference is that an underlying long "o" cannot be reduced to a schwa when inflected. "Cappadocia" is a proper noun and pretty much can't be inflected, so it has a long "o" by default. --334a (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That was very helpful, thanks! --Vahag (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see that you added דקנא with the meaning "beard". It makes sense etymologically, but I cannot find an example in texts.

Where does it appear? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Amire80

"Beard" is a pretty straightforward and common meaning; did you mean you couldn't find the meaning "chin"? I've added CAL citation. It's highly likely that "chin" is a Syriacism (I created many Syriac entries in Hebrew script back in the day when we just labelled everything as "Aramaic"). If you did mean "chin", feel free to remove/modify it (Jastrow lists a definition as "bearded chin"). :) --334a (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that edit, it clarifies it! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, do you have a source for this Aramaic entry? I can't find it confirmed in any Aramaic dictionaries and am wondering if it may have gotten mixed up. Cheers, --Jayen466 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Jayen466

I've added a CAL citation. It could be a Syriacism (the CAL entry lists the spelling as דות in Jewish dialects); if so, feel free to remove the entry or make it into an "alternative form of." :) --334a (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @334a! I am a native English speaker (and non-Aramaic speaker in any fashion, I should note) who has (of late) developed an interest in the multiform varieties of "Aramaic language". I have a couple of questions which I would like to address to yourself regarding the above-noted "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" (by which term, I assume is meant "Suret" (ܣܘܪܝܬ), am I correct in so thinking?) words, about which I find myself curious since coming across them a few months ago. One thing which I am curious about pertains to a possible etymology for these. Have you any sense what the origin of these terms might be? One Arabic speaking fellow indicated to me that ܐܘܐ‎ and ܐܝܐ might derive respectively from the Arabic expressions ها هو hā hwa ("here he is") or ها هي hā hiya ("here she is"), or from connative expressions to these within Aramaic itself, or from a common ancestor (Proto-Semitic?). What is your opinion of these ideas? If this seems false to you, then what might you conceive the origin of these to be? In addition, I am wondering how wide the distribution of these terms is across the field of Aramaic dialects. Are there any cognate terms to these in any variety of Syriac Aramaic, or in Western Aramaic, in Turoyo or Mandaic, or are they only used within Eastern Aramaic dialects? For that matter, are there connate terms of which you are familiar within Hebrew or Arabic? Most generally, my interest would be to gain a sense of the 'landscape' of "Aramaic language", a sense of how much variance there is between the various dialects, and I would love to have somebody to whom I might address specific questions, such as the instant one. In general, I would like to have some understanding of the Aramaic speaking peoples as a whole, about which I know next to nothing. Hey...thank you for your time and attention! 144.121.24.154 22:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply