Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT bigfoot.com>]

Shalom b-hebrew

Liz wrote:
> It is extremely unlikely, that the poet would use ben in one
verse
> and a few lines later use bar.

Trevor Peterson
Is that because poets don't vary the words they use?

Schmuel

Touche :-) 
I was thinking about this driving back..
Hey dad... c'mon let's go pop....  to the kosher deli.. this is my
father, can we help them..
How does that sound compared to dad, dad, dad... 

Now this may draw gasps here, but, even in translation, the KJV 
deliberately used various words (in the target language) to express
the same Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic word) .. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Your other post, below, with the explanation about the grammar and
the construct 
was exactly what I was looking for, a moderately precise explanation of
the "squirelliness" of making claims about how the grammar of a
word 
in one language would move into another... and with enough of the
actual Hebrew and Aramaic that the claimants (who know much less)
might see that the issue is more of an art than a science.. 

Very much appreciated.. the problem is that "grammar claims"
"this is a deliberate mistranslation <blah blah>" are
made
not to really understand the language, but for spiritual agenda..
I just happen to be operating in a realm where I see that most every day
:-)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Schmuel wrote:
> >>  > In Aramaic, bar is used only as a construct "son
> of" (Proverbs 31:2;
> > Ezra 5:1-2, 6:14), >  > whereas the absolute form of
> "son" in Aramaic is ber'a.
> >  > the verse should have read nash-ku ber'a, "kiss the
> son," not nash-ku
> > bar, "kiss the son of." >> I know that
> cross-language "rules" are very dubious..
> >> What do you think of this claim ?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trevor,

The claim is somewhat muddled. Aramaic, like Hebrew, has three states for
nouns (more than that, if you count forms with suffixed pronouns as distinct
from construct): absolute, construct, and determined. An oversimplified
picture for "son" would be:
        Hebrew  Aramaic
abs.    been            bar
csr.    ben             bar
det.    habbeen braa

Of course, those are only the singular forms. The plural in Aramaic actually
changes stems to match Hebrew. The plural construct, for instance, would be
exactly the same in both. Anyway, what I wanted to say about this issue is
that the claim above--that the absolute state in Aramaic is braa--is
somewhat misleading. It is true that the determined state is much more the
default in Aramaic than in Hebrew. Whereas we normally think of the
determined state in Hebrew indicating definiteness, we could almost think of
Aramaic as the opposite situation--the independent noun regularly appears in
the determined state, unless it is explicitly marked for indefiniteness by
appearing in the absolute. In the Aramaic of the Targums and in Syriac, the
absolute state is quite rare and pretty heavily marked for nouns.

So where I'm heading with this is that I have to wonder whether the
objection is legitimate. True, the absolute state may be rare and indefinite
in Aramaic, but does that mean that an Aramaic word used in Hebrew poetry
would have to follow the same patterns? We know that Hebrew avoids its own
determined state in poetry, even where the sense is clearly definite; so
wouldn't it make sense to see the same thing with an Aramaic word?

Schmuel AT bigfoot.com

Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/