> Well, I accept that Greenspahn knows his Aramaic. But does he actually
> explain how ELWI can be Aramaic? I suppose the Aramaic form could be
> ELAY and this just might have been pronounced something like ELOY. But
> this is the kind of argument I was expecting from you, rather than
> citing endless authorities who simply copy from one another. And is
the
> long A in ELAY became omega, why are none of the other long A's in
this
> verse transcribed as omega?
I agree with you ELWI could be taken both as hebrew and aramaic. But I
would like to note, that in Galilean Aramaic the suffix -oy is sometimes
used alongside -ay as 1.p.s. possessive suffix. I encountered this
phenomenon when writing my MA thesis ("morphology of the aramaic in the
palestinian talmud according to geniza fragments"). This might offer an
explanation for this peculiar form.