Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic: With an Appendix on the Numerals by J.A. Emerton

88 Pages·1962·13.15 MB·English

by  W. B. Stevenson

Grammar of
PALESTINIAN JEWISH
ARAMAIC
BY
WM. B. STEVENSON, D.LITT.
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1924
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE 3
LITERATURE 8
•
Introduction
1. • • 9
Orthography
2. 11"
3. Persona] Pronouns (nominative forms ) . 15
•
4 • וו (,,s uffix forms ) • 16
5. Demonstrative Pronouns and Adjectives 18
6. Interrogatives 20
7. The Relative Pronoun . • 21
8. Nouns and Adjectives (general ) • 22
9. Classification of Nouns (declensions ) 26
•
10. Infiexion of Nouns (masculine types ) . 29
•
11." ,,(feminines) . 34
12. Pronominal Suffixes (,vith singular nouns ) . · 38
13. .. ,,(,v ith masc. plur. stems) 40
•
14. ,. ,,(\ vith fem. plur. stems ) . 42
• •
1 5 • ח,~י ,?.יח & c. •· 43
16. Verbal Stems 44-
• • •
ןד. Perfect Tenses • • • • • 46
18. Imperfect Tenses . • 48
19. Imperatives . 5r
• •
20. Infinitives . • • 52
21. Participles • 54
•
22. Compound Tenses . 57
•
23. Influence of Gutturals upon Verbal Forms . · 60
OF
TABLE CONTENTS
ך
PAGE
Verbs, )nitia1 N un
24 · • • • 61
25 · " initia1 Aleph • • • 63
26 • injtial Yodh and Waw
• • 65
"
fina1 Yo dh and Aleph · 66
2 ד· " •
28 • " perfect tenses • · 68
" " "
" impff.,imperatt., and infinn .
29 • ךO
" " "
30. " ,," " infiexion of particc . • •
ך2
q .
3 או;נ~, הוך!, א~ךז, ן:ל
1 • • ד3
32, MO תosy}labic Stems )ע"~( . • · ד5
33. " ,,(infiected forms )
דד
34. Partial.1y Monosyl1abic Stems )ע"ע( • ד8
35.:, ,. ,,(infiected forms ) · 80
36. Verbal Suffixes . . . 81
•
3 ".ד \(,,v ith ,'/א sten1s ) . 84
38." ,,(in OTA) 86
J)
Paradigm of Verb (O .. · 88
" "Ve rbal Suffixes
• · 90
Tables of OTA .
• 92
LITERATU RE
BXRLINER, A. Targum Onkelos (text, with introduction and notes. )
Berlin , 1884 .
Massorah zum Targum Onkelos. Leipzig, 18 דו.
BURNEY, C. F. Aramaic Origin ofthe Fourth Gospel. Oxford , 1922 •
DAL ז?זAN, GUSTAF. Grammatik des Judisch.Palastinischen Ara-
maisch. Z\veite Auflage. Leipzig, 1905.
Aramaisch - N euhe braisches Hand\vorterbuch zu Targum,
Talmud und Midrasch. Z\veite verbesserte und vermehrte
Auflage. Frankfurt a. Main, 1922 • .. ..
Aramaische Dialektproben ••. mit Worterverzeichnis. Leipzig,
1896 .
Worte Iesu. Leipzig, 1898. (English trans., T. & T. Clark,
1902 ).
DIETTRICH. Grammatische Beobachtungen zu drei .•• Hand-
schriften des Onqelostargums. ZAT W xx 19°0 (pp. '1 48-
59 ·)
KAHLE, PAUL. Masoreten des Ostens - die altesten punktierten
Handschriften des Alten Testaments uI ןd der Targume
( in Kittel's Beitrage, Heft 15). Leipzig, 1913.
LAGARDE, PAUL DE. Prophetae chaldaice. Leipzig, 1872 .
LANDAUER, S. Studien zu Merx' Chrestomathia targumica. In
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, vol. iii, 1888 (pp . 263-92. )
MERX, ADALBERT. Chrestomathia Targumica (with critical notes
and Latin glossary). Berlin, 1888 •
PRAETORIUS, FRANZ. Targum zu Josua in Jemenischer Uberliefe -
rung. Berlin, 1899. ' .
Targum zum Buch der Richter in Jemenischer Uberlieferung.
Berlin, 1900.
STRACK, H. L. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen, mit ...
Texten nd einem Worterbuch. 6te Auf1age. Munich,
~
1921 •
P ALESTINIAN JEWISH ARAMAIC
§ INTRODUCTION
1.
DALMAN'S GramllZar of Jewish-PaleslznZlzlZ Arallzaic (Leipzig,
1894) opened a new period in the study of the Aramaic dialects .
1t 5eparated clearly for the fir5t time tbe dialects of tbe Targums, :
Talmuds, and Midrasbim, and it supplied a coherent and correct
v calization of the grammatical forms of tbe Targum of Onke1os
ס
and of tbe related dialect used in the Palestinian Talmud. The
vocalization was based upon Yemenite MSS., which employed
supralinear vowel·signs. The second edition of Dalman's grammar
905), along with his dictionary (1901), suppIemented and revised
( I
his early work, but did not cbange its fundamental character•
It was now made clear that the Targums of Onke]os (Penta-
teuch) and ]onatban (Prophets) \vere written in practical1y the
same Aramaic dialect (0]), somewhat modified by the infiuence
of the Hebrew origina1s, and that the Palestinian Tal ud and
~
Midrashim preserved the remains of another diaIect (PTM), closely
re1ated to the former. BecaU5e of this relationship Dalman sup
plied the unvocalized texts of PTM with voweIs determined for
the most part by the analogy of the supralinear tradition of the
- Targums. In this whole literature he saw, with good eason, the
ז
beSt avenue of approach to the Aramaic speech of Palestine in
the time of Christ and a valuable help to tbe study of the language
and thought of the N ew Testament.
The ongin, character, and variations of the supralinear MSS. of
2'1C6 :B
10 § 1. INTRODUCTION
the Targums have been greatly elucidated by the patient and
extensive researches of Paul I{.ahle (published in 1913). His
conclusions may be summarized as follo\vs. The oldest and best
tradition of the Aramaic of the Targums is contained in MSS.of
Babylonian (i. e. Mesopotamian) origin. The Yemenite MSS.
represent this tradition modified by the principles of the school of
Tiberias i Palestine. The measure of Palestini'an infiuence in -
מ
creased' as time \vent on, so that the older Yemenite MSS. are
near r to the Babylonian tradition than the later. The sublinear
~
vocalization of Berliner's edition of Onkelos goes back ultimately
to a MS. \vhich used the supralinear system. The forms ·of. .
Berliner's edition are not real Aramaic forms, but through them
\v e n ay reach a supralinear tradition similar to that of the MSS.
נ
which employ a supralinear vocalization .
The texts of PTM are to a large extent stories \vritten in. a
simple popular style. The language, according to Dalman, is that
of Galilee in the third and fourth centuries Part of \vhat is
A. D.
contained in the Midrashim may be dated as late as the sixth
centur There re some differences of vocabulary bet\veen the
}ז . ~
Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, but no very obvious differences
of grammar. The Aramaic of these Targums has a more literary.
character than the language of the Galilean stories, and is supposed
to have been moulded first in Judea. The Targums themselve
~
ay not have received their .final literary form before the .. fifth
ת;l
century, but the idiom in \vhich they are \vritten probably goes
back at Ieast to the second century and perhaps earlier. DaJman
ו~
interpretation of the phraseology of the N e\v Testament in the
light of Aramaic usage proceeds on the vie\v that we have in 0 J
and PTM, respectively, close approximations to the literary and
popular forms of the language of Palestine in the time of Christ •1
1 See especially Dalman's W01'ds ofJ eStIS, Introduction, .section viii. The
most ·recent attempt to ' sho,v the infiuence of Aramaic upon a NT writer is
11
§ ORTHOGRAPHY
2.1
1. In unvocalized texts (PTM) א, ח, ו, and י are freely used to
jndicate vo\veIs. Wa\v and yodh frequentIy denote short voweIs,
as \vell as long \'o\veIs. Typical examples are : חליס = ?;)לה ,
= = =
יוביא ו~פt;t , לטקיס ,~~~ל א;ניע = אודע, ;יתיא = ,~r:ויו ריליתיא
= =
רי..ז~t;t י ראבונ = ,~~דא הילונ ,~~.יjף אמיח אfיז::ו, א~ןj or fיאס. The
ste ~ vo\vel of the 'i ~ flected form ~ of segholat~ nouns (אלגיע) and
the preformative vo\vel of verb ::ן. l refiexives (ריליתיא) are commonly
indicated in this \vay. The insertion ofv owel signs into texts original1y
unvoca1ized accounts for the existence of forms like ,~יפ~; ,~י~~ל & c•
In unvocalized texts and may be \vritten for consonantal \vaw .
יו די
=
a ~ d yodh in the middle o~ a \vord (e. g . ;יוליל ,)?.י~וו and יי for ·
diphthongal ai or for pronounced as a doubIe consonant, with
י
daghesh (e. g • = and both represent a :final Iong
םייק .)~:ם א ה
J
vo\vel, especially ii. , In PTM and 0 א is the more commonIy
is
used. In OTA א 'preferred in some cases, e. g. to represent the
emphatic ending א §( 8 ,) ה in other cases, e.g. in the feminine
termination הד. In ואס \(v ho?) and לאע (h e entered ) א denotes
a,
the short in order to distinguish these \vords from the preposi-
tions ~ and ל!ג. But;~ and ל!ג are generaIly used. Final diph-
thongal a'i is often denoted by
יא.
2. The punctuation of the 1\'1SS. of Babylonian origin pubIished
by Kahle is by no means uniform, varying through several stages
from a quite simple system to one \vhich is highly complex. The
system of the Yemenite MSS. is a variation of the simple BabyIonian
system, and the resemblances and differences of these are,
t\VO
prjncipal1y, what is explained in 1he fol10\ving notes .
C. F. Bu.mey's Aramaic Origi1Z ofthe Fozerth Gospel (1922). It gives a most
valuable synopsis of the Aramaic idioms and consuuctions \vhich may be
looked for in the Greek of NT.
Tbis section may be omitted when the grammar 1S being read for the first
1
time. A knowledge of the ordinary Iiebrew alphabet is presupposed.
B2
12 § 2. ORTHOGRAPHY
3. In the simple Babylonian punctuation there are signs for
"1,
daghesh (a supralinear נ or)\) and raphe (supralinear ק or \vhich ,
however, are seldom used (Kahle, p. 167). Some Yemenite MSS .
do not employ daghesh at al1 (as in Merx, pp• 5 ff.), others regu -
ד
larly use the Palestinian sign (so in Judges and Joshua as edited by
Praetorius). The supralinear MSS. of OTA in Strack occasionally
exhibit the Babylonian signs for daghesh (Dan. 4. 24, 5. 8, 12, &C) .
and raphe (Dan. 5. ד, 12 .)
4. The supralinear punctuation at first bad no sign equivalent
to the Palestinian silent she\va. Some Babylonian MSS., ho\vever,
which use a complex system of punctuation, employ the sign for
00 •
vocal she\va ambiguously as in the Palestinian system. In Yemenite
MSS. the she\va sign usual1y represents only vocal shewa, a though
~
in some fe\v cases it may represent Palestinian silent shewa aIso .
5. Patha furtive is seldom represented in either the Babylonian
ן\
or the Yemenite MSS., but was, presumabl)" pronounced in the
positions indicated by the Palestinian tradition, and so may be
introduced into a sublinear transliteration of the supral.inear signs .
The suffix וקי. • §( 4) is, however, to be excepted from this treat-
ment, in accordance \vith the analogy of OTA .
6. Tbe fol1owing vo\vel signs are used in the supralinear system
of the simplest type :
.
Qame Holem
~ <י
Patha and seghol Shureq •
ן\
Jo
$ ere • V ocal shewa . • "
( including נlatephs )
I:Iireq
The first six of these signs denote regularly both long vo\vels
and short vowels. Qame~ at first had only the sound of ii in
' psalm' (approximately), not that of ii in 'ball ו, and ~o Iem repre•
sented both PaIestipian 0 and Palestinian ן\olem. The later
Yemenite MSS., however, use qame ~ for Q, so that, at different
§ ORTHOGRAPHY 13
2.
\
periods, both לכ and לכ vere pronounced as Hebre\v .#ר N
0
distinction is made in the representation of pathal} and seghoI,
although, presumably, both sounds \vere used in actuaI speech. In
transliterating the supralinear pathal} into sublinear \vriting, the
analogy of OTA and of Hebrew will determine -our choice between
sublinear pathal} and sublinear seghol .
7. In Babylonian and sporadical1y in Yemenite MSS., pathal} is
used for l}ateph pathal}, follo\ving and and sometimes fol1owing
א ע
and (e . g• for for This usage occurs
ה ח ~~ר ,~~ר ~~~יר .)~~~יר
in the supralinear MSS. of OTA (Dan. 3. 12, 3. 3 , 4 . 28 , 4 · 29, )
J
but not consistently (Dan . 4 . 32 ,~~ךו;ו 5· 5 .)~~סה
8. Some supralinear MS5. have forms like ,~י~ש א~לי~, םיז.r1 י~
=( Hebre\v רשב~, םיi!, ~'ל ,)~ר.r.ים instead of forms commencing \vith
or . It is possible that this orthography represents an alterna-
~ ~
tive pronunciation of the \vords in question, but more likely that
yodh, with ere, simply represented ... :' just as pathal} stood for _. :
~
Similarly י.~זיג ( Chresl. 29. 21) \vas neither a phonetic variant nor
a grammatical equivalent of י.~זד ( plur. impf. Pael), but was ,
1
originally, precisely the same' \vord, differently spelled. This use
of yodh (with ere) to denote vocal she\va occurs in the supralinear
~
MSS. of OTA , and it throws fresh light on the Hebre\v forms
referred to in Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 23 h ;ר( r~ = .)~ז;ר
9. Some supralinear 1\'155. write ~ instead of :, especia11y at the
=
beginning of ,vords, but also in other cases (e. g. in
יגייי~~ יגיי;~,
Deut. 9. 28-Kahle, p. 14). This alternative orthography may
also be understood to imply an alternative pronunciation--yz or t
( cf. Syriac)-but it should rather be regarded as an alternative way
-of representing the sound that is usually written as vocal she\va .
10. I:Iateph qame ~ is sometimes explicitly \vritten in Yemenite
MSS., especially in those of later date and espc€ ially in certain
words, such as
.:~רם
11. With the exceptions already noted, the 1)atephs of the sub -
14 § 2. ORTI-IOGRAPHY
Iinear system are not specialJy represented in the supralinear
writing. Still the distinctive sounds of the 1)a!ephs ,vere no doubt
employed by those ,vho \vrote the supralinear system. The forms
( \(
and) and vho, \vhich), which re used before certain con -
ר בי ~
sonants followed by vocal she,va, may be taken as proof that
these follo\ving consonants were pronounced with ·1)a eph patha1) .
ז
}:Iatephs may therefore be employed in transliterating the supra-
linear into the sublinear system .
12. In Babylonian MSS. and in the supralinear MSS. of OTA
( Strack) is the form of the conjunction 'and ' before ,vords com- .. ..
י
mencing ,vith a consonant follo\ved by vocal she\va (Dan . 3.21 ,
4.29,5.20,6.5,6.17), even,vhen that fol1o,ving consonant iS
ב,
or (D an. 5. 6. Before and not followed by
מ, פ 1 1, 11). ב, מ, פ
vocal she,va, the form of the conjunction is implicitly, at least,
ו,
since the vo\vel is general1y not explicitly represented. In the
Yemenite ISS. of 0 J is used in all these cases, as .in sublinear
l\ו ~
Hebrew texts (so in Praetorius's edit·ion of Joshua and Judges and in
Berliner's 01zkelos. )
13. When the initial consonant of a ,vord is followed by vocal
she\va simple, the supralinear punctuation does not indicate its
presence if it is preceded by the conjunction י or \ (Gen . 1 • 10,
1. I ד, Judg• 1 • ןד, 1.22, Dan. 3.21, 5.11,6. I ך, & c.). This may
imply that the vocal she,va in these cases, as in Hebre,v לb ~ל and
,
,ר~י~ vas no longer pronounced (so Dalman, P.240). Some MSS .
treat words that commence with and in the same ,vay so that, for
ח ח
example, א!~י may perhaps be an alternative for א!.Ql (cf. Heb. רS י:יל).
In the Babylonian lVISS. and in the supralinear MSS. of OTA
( Strack), ho\vever, vocal she\va follo\ving an initial consonant is
frequently unrepresented in writing, especia)ly in association with
particular forms or words, such as the particles ב, ב, ל, and ו.
This implies that the absence of the sign of a hurried vo,vel (vocal
shewa) is not a certain proof of its absence in speech, and makes