Talk:Samaritan Hebrew

message: please,samaritan hebrew is even more reduced than ashkenazi hebrew,lacking even more gutterals
also you seem to thing that samaritan script and ancient hebrew(paleo Hebrew) are the same, your wrong Samaritan has changed just as much since even the Aramaic alphabet used from hebrew evolved from paleohebrew which also used to write aramaic,samaritan script is different.
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/aramaic.gif
vs
http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/samaritan.gif  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  to the person below 

message: Surely the grammar section should be renamed "parts of speech"?  It in no way addresses the grammatical rules of the language. Ataru 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I don't think it's accurate to call Samaritan Hebrew a Jewish language. In fact, since there is SAMARITAN Hebrew, I don't think it's accurate to call Hebrew as a whole a Jewish language. I think it would probably be more accurate to say that most DIALECTS of Hebrew are Jewish. Gringo300 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly that is right: Jews and Samaritans are two branches of the Israelite people and religion.  However, to have a category "Israelite languages" would be very awkward, and linguistically the two Samaritan languages are very close to the strictly Jewish ones; though not Jewish languages, they are languages of Jewish interest.  To cut them out of the category would mean that they were not linked to from anywhere (or else drowned in a sea of Semitic languages including Arabic, Ethiopic, Assyrian and all the rest).  So I would recommend leaving things as they are for the sake of accessibility, even if it is not quite accurate. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange, I see the word "Israelite" used as both an noun and an adjective, but I would have thought the adjective form would have been "Israelitic". Gringo300 (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  Also, it looks to me like Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic would more accurately be called "Samaritan DIALECTS" rather than "Samaritan LANGUAGES". As in Hebrew and Aramaic are LANGUAGES, but Samaritan Hebrew and Samaritan Aramaic are DIALECTS. Gringo300 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish language?

message: Since there is Samaritan Hebrew, it appears to me that it would be accurate to say that there is such thing as Jewish Hebrew. Any opinions and/or comments from anyone else? Gringo300 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Hebrew and Samaritan Hebrew

message: In the article, "ellêm" is translated as "the meat".  However, it looks to me like it's the rendering of הלחם, which would be "the bread", no?  If not, what's the Hebrew word that's being rendered phonetically here? BeIsKr (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's borrowed from the Arabic لحم /laħem/ TFighterPilot (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Laħem, in Arabic, is meat. However, this fact is irrelevant, since in Hebrew, laħem/leħem means bread; non meat. Many Arabic and Hebrew words do sound the same, but not this one. Eddau (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat or Bread? 

message: https://archive.org/details/samaritanischest00kohn
Rajmaan (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samaritanische Studien : Beiträge zur samaritanischen Pentateuch-Uebersetzung und Lexicographie (1868)  

message: https://archive.org/details/institutioneslin00uhleuoft
Rajmaan (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institutiones linguae samaritanae ex antiquissimis monumentis erutae et digestae, integris paradigmatum tabulis indicibusque adornatae; quibus accedit Chrestomathia samaritana maximam Geneseos partem et selecta reliquorum Pentateuchi librorum capita compl 

message: The article uses a mixture of IPA symbols, fairly standard Semitistic symbols, and others that seem to be made up ad hoc. Please define your symbols! Any symbol that is used differently from the way it's defined in the IPA should be defined. Even better, the symbols throughout the article should be used in a uniform way.--Linguistatlunch (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription symbols 

message: The previous edition of this article said: "Between 1815 and 1835, Wilhelm Gesenius wrote his treatises on the original of the Samaritan version, proving that it postdated the Masoretic text." But the article on the Samaritan Pentateuch contains a longer discussion under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch#Evaluations_of_its_relevance_for_textual_criticism that shows there is no unity among scholars about this. Rather different views seem to dominate now. The reference for the original text above does not take this into account.
I want to change the original "proving" to "claiming" and add a link to the Samaritan Pentateuch Evaluation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.153.19.114 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence, which is highly misleading without more information. The matter is definitely not considered settled, and it certainly wasn't settled forever by a 19th century writer. Gesenius was obviously not aware of the Dead Sea scrolls, which prove that many variants in the Samaritan Torah are much older than Gesenius knew. Zerotalk 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of Samaritan Pentateuch and Masoretic text