Talk:Jewish Babylonian Aramaic

message: This article isn't very good.
However, the majority of those who are familiar with it, namely Orthodox Jewish students of Talmud, are given no systematic instruction in the language, and are expected to "sink or swim" in the course of Talmudic studies, with the help of some informal pointers showing similarities and differences with Hebrew.  For this reason, insights based on grammar or philology tend to be received with bewilderment in Orthodox Talmudic circles (see Chaim Potok's novels The Chosen and The Promise).
No footnotes or references (other than two of Chaim Potok's works of fiction...without page numbers I might add). How about some substantive footnotes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal0687 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled Section

message: Three of this articles four inline citations reference Wikipedia pages. There are some interesting claims in the article like "However, the majority of those who are familiar with it, namely Orthodox Jewish students of Talmud, are given no systematic instruction in the language, and are expected to "sink or swim" in the course of Talmudic studies". The citation at the end links to similarities between the languages but spends most of the article talking about how different the dialects are. The only sentence in the article which supports "with the help of some informal pointers showing similarities and differences with Hebrew." is "I knew a fair amount of Hebrew when we came to Israel because it was taught in our Jewish schools. And partly thanks to my Aramaic, I was able to speak like a sabra in no time." which still doesn't mesh with the "sink or swim" part.
Suggest adding citations, perhaps by someone has access to material noted in the bibliography? Chrissd21 (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise it's a "Start Class" article but the 4th citation isn't what is stated in the article and the other references aren't actually references, just wiki links which lead to redirects. It's possible they're citing a paper but they would need to be a tad more specific than author-year. Chrissd21 (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: this revert have erased good content. i am pretty buusy so i don't have the time to go over the edit and put back accurate content. i'd be grateful if someone would take on himself the mission. thanks ahead. melo kol haaretz kevodi (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: user:מלא כל הארץ כבודי Look at the book of Yitzhak Frank: Grammar for Gemara and targum onkelos: An Introduction to Aramaic, Ariel Institute, Jerusalem 2011 . The content is based on this book. It is all right. I don't understand the action of this german user --EthanLc (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Schulhofpassage admitted he dosen't know if the informaion that he erased is correct. And i believe if someone makes sure it's accurate he'll aprove putting it back. I myself don't have time to check but i asked in the Hebrew wiki for someone to go over it. melo kol haaretz kevodi (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @melo kol haaretz kevodi: Note that user EthanLc is also a sockpuppet of Messina, the same user that added the information to the article. But you are correct, if a trustworthy user verifies the additions I've got nothing against putting them back. --Schulhofpassage (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Schulhofpassage i assumed that was the case. That's why i said "someone" and not "you". melo kol haaretz kevodi (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  a reverted, possibly good edit  

message: I do not know every single book and article about Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, but enough to doubt the passage on vernacular, Law French, and so on. I have no idea where the comparison to Law French comes from, but I have to assume original research. On the contrary, the apocopated and syncopated forms, the loss of pharyngeals, and so on are signs of a vernacular (whereas Syriac, for instance, kept the letters that are not pronounced and are therefore not written in Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic). The sentence about the influence on modern Hebrew is questionable, too. Various dialects of Aramaic have left their mark, from ancient Hebrew (archaic poetry [depending on which scholar you ask and how you interpret things], post-exile books of the Bible [no doubt about those]) to Amoraic Hebrew (Galilean or Babylonian Aramaic influences depending on origin, obviously), but the way the sentence is written implies these terms have influenced modern Hebrew as a language, which is a dubious claim. Some terms like those mentioned here are listed in Hebrew and Yiddish dictionaries though, but still the sentence has to be changed. --46.114.4.117 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law French and other dubious content