Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<cmeadows3 AT verizon.net>]

Thanks Trevor!  

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.

C Meadows
> 
> 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
> CUA/Semitics
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>