> Thank you, Shai. But are these from pointed texts, or
> transcriptions in
> languages which have vowels, or are the vowels reconstructed
> by the editors?
The text of the talmud is on the whole unvocalised; the forms I
mentioned appear as ryglwy, qwmwy, etc.
The vowels were added by me (although on basis of the sporadically
vocalised forms in the Geniza manuscripts); of course, I should have
mentioned that. Sorry.
> It is interesting that in at least three of these four examples the
> suffixed noun is plural: days, feet, eyes. So it seems that this -oy
> ending is the combination of a noun plural and a first person
> singular
> possessive suffix, cf. -ay in Hebrew. But of course the
> Aramaic word for
> God is not plural, so this -oy suffix would not apply. The
> Hebrew word
> is usually plural, so the suffix would be -ay - or simply -iy if the
> underlying word is the singular Eloah.
>
> I continue to hold that Greek -WI is highly unlikely to represent a
> final diphthong -oy, but much more probably two separate
> syllables -o-i
> or perhaps o-ay.
>
A triphthong oay! I didn't think of that. This is very interesting.
But if you take ELWI as hebrew, how do you expalin "shebaqtani"?