Contact and change in Neo-Aramaic dialects

Author(s):  
Geoffrey Khan
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-116
Author(s):  
Steven E. Fassberg

Abstract The ethical dative (dativus ethicus) has been attested without interruption in Aramaic dialects from the Official Aramaic period down through Neo-Aramaic. The extent and durability of this linguistic feature is discussed. Though its frequency differs from corpus to corpus, it is alive in some Neo-Aramaic dialects and its distribution in Modern Aramaic suggests that it was more widespread in pre-Modern Aramaic than the written texts show. It is most probably a colloquial feature that penetrated written texts to a limited extent. In the only real evidence we possess of spoken Aramaic, namely, Neo-Aramaic, it has, in different dialects, become an integral part of some verbal forms and does not express any identifiable nuance. Its precise meaning and use in pre-Modern Aramaic remain elusive.


1933 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 777-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. H. Rowley

Nearly six years ago, G. E. Driver published a paper in the Journal of Biblical Literature, in which he examined some of the arguments dealing with the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel, which had been presented by Charles Boutflower in his work In and Around the Booh of Daniel. Three years later, in the course of an examination of the relation of Biblical Aramaic to other early Aramaic dialects, I took the opportunity of replying to a number of inaccurate or misleading statements and untenable hypotheses on the subject of the Aramaic of Daniel which appeared in the writings of certam defenders of the traditional date and place of origin of that book, including Boutflower. A rejoinder has now appeared from Boutflower's pen, dealing with a limited area of the field, in the form of a brief monograph, published under the title, Dadda-'idri, or The Aramaic of the Booh of Daniel. In this little book Boutflower replies to Driver and myself, and presents what he feels to be new light on the subject. A superficial reading might leave the impression that there was some ground for his theory, but a little examination reveals such omissions and assumptions and such misuse of evidence as to vitiate the argument. Indeed, the real issue is that of the validity of the evidence we possess, for fundamentally Boutflower seeks to set aside the evidence that has survived in favour of the evidence he assumes to have perished.


1965 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-232
Author(s):  
Konstantin Tsereteli

Of the nominal syntagms in modern Aramaic, the one in which one substantive is determined by another substantive is deserving of special notice. This kind of syntagm may be classified as follows: (1)a substantive determinedby another substantive in the genitive case; (2)a substantive determined byanother substantive with a relative particle; (3)a substantive determined by a possessive pronominal suffix and a relative particle with another substantive; (4)a substantive determined by another substantive with the aid of a pronominalsuffix; (5)a substantive determined by another substantive without recourse todot; any morphological element whatsoever.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document