cmeadows3 at verizon.net
cmeadows3 at verizon.net
Sat Mar 12 17:41:23 EST 2005
My biggest problem is that I don't have access to any of these - and they seem uncommon enought that I cannot find book reviews whereby I might get a basic idea of what they contain. For instance the "Galilean Aramaic" by Levias - is that a later form of Aramaic?
My main interest would be the Bible, DSS and the early targums.
Thanks again. That was very helpful.
> From: Trevor Peterson <abuian at access4less.net>
> Date: 2005/03/12 Sat PM 02:36:51 CST
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic
> cmeadows3 at verizon.net wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > Anyone here familiar with David Marcus' grammar or the volume on "Galilean Aramaic" by Caspar Levias? Perhaps the Bergstrasser and Brockelmann give a good overview of Aramaic?
> Are you talking about Bergstrasser's Introduction to the Semitic
> Languages? It's good, but obviously not as thorough as you'd get from a
> book-length grammar.
> > I feel pretty confident with Hebrew and I'm mostly concerned with the biblical era (non-Syriac) Aramaic. It seems that most of the available grammar just concentrate on the small portions of Aramaic in the bible and ignore the DSS, Targums, and other important writings.
> There seems to be some confusion here. (Maybe it's on my part.) You ask
> about Brockelmann (his grammar of Syriac, I assume), then you say that
> you're not interested in Syriac. You're interested in the biblical era,
> which you clarify by saying "non-Syriac," but Galilean Aramaic would be
> roughly the same era as Syriac. You also reference the Targums, which is
> a bit vague, since the Targums span a rather wide period of time,
> overlapping quite a bit with Syriac. I would classify BA as a type of
> Standard Literary Aramaic, which also includes Qumran material and the
> Targums of Onqelos and Yonatan. Bauer & Leander is the only real
> reference grammar on BA, and that's about as good as it gets for SLA in
> general. There are some good articles you could read to fill in some of
> the gaps. Also, I wouldn't completely discount studying the later
> dialects. Since they tend to have the largest bulk of evidence, they
> provide a lot of useful comparisons. That's actually a lot of the reason
> that I didn't restrict the Aramaic list (already referenced by Peter) to
> any subset of Aramaic.
> Trevor Peterson
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew