Talk:Biblical Aramaic

message: Since when does Biblical Aramaic have anything to do with the New Testament? (Unless you mean the single verse by Jesus on the cross quoted in Aramiac?) Dovi 06:54, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a rewrite of the Aramaic language article. I think we shall need to rewrite a family of related articles:
* Articles on Aramaic languages (e.g. Mandaic language).
* Broader themes in Aramaic, like:
** Biblical Aramaic, referring to the Aramaic of the Hebrew Bible only.
** The 'Aramaic of Jesus', dealing with various, difficult issues about his language and Aramaic words and phrases found in the New Testament.
** An article titled 'Jewish Aramaic', or some such, to deal with the Aramaic of Targum, Midrash and Talmud.
I feel that it would be more helpful to have a single article on Aramaic that deals with the broad historical and linguistic details, and then have these seperate articles for more information on specific areas of interest.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Are there any good suggestions for the names for 'Aramaic of Jesus' and 'Jewish Aramaic'?
: Gareth Hughes 20:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If possible, can someone direct me to what the word and numbers for "Matthew 27:51" would look like in Aramaic?  We don't need the actual verse ... only the reference.  Thank you.65.100.181.100 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Aramaic language found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. The most important version of the Bible, including the New Testament, in Aramaic is the Peshitta (which is in the Syriac variety of Aramaic). In the Peshitta, the heading for the Gospel according to Matthew is ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܟܪܘܙܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܝ, which is transliterated as Ewangeliyāun qadišā kāruzuṯā d-Mattay. This is often simply shortened to ܡܬܝ (Mattay, Matthew). The number 27 is usually written ܟܙ, and the number 51 is written ܢܐ. Therefore, Matthew 27.51 would be written ܡܬܝ ܟܙ.ܢܐ. Get back to me if you need any further help understanding this. — Gareth Hughes 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "Matthew 27:51" into Aramaic - not the verse 

message: I added in the needed citations so someone can take down the warning message.  But I think this article still needs a lot of work especially the section on Aramaic and Hebrew.  I'm not sure how much of that info fits under the section that wouldn't be better handled by referencing the main Aramaic article. But, I didn't want to make major changes without discussion because I am fairly new to this process. I also cleaned up a bit by making the distinction between disputed and undisputed instances and modifying the introduction. Alpha0r (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some help 

message: "Chaldaic" comes to this page, which does not use the word. Is it simply a synonym of "Biblical Aramaic"? Would there be any harm in clarifying? --81.83.204.128 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldaic 

message: The article states, "Aramaic attaches the definitive construct state at the end of a substantive."  Can the author kindly clarify what he means? Is the author alleging that the formation of the construct differs in Aramaic vs in Hebrew???  Hebrew changes the ends of nouns to indicate construct.  So what is the alleged difference relative to Aramaic? (EnochBethany (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew and Aramaic both have three states for nouns. 1. The basic form; 2. The construct, which is a form with most of the vowels reduced as far as the phonology permits, used as the first element in a genitive construction and before possessive suffixes; 3. The definite form (which can't occur as a construct, rule against 'double definition' similar to that in the modern Celtic languages). In Hebrew a noun is made definite by prefixing the definite article ha- which geminates (doubles and hardens) the initial consonant of the noun where this is possible. In Aramaic OTOH, a noun is made definite by adding a suffix -ā written with an aleph. This extension will often lead to reduction of vowels earlier in the word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.69.4 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramaic vs Hebrew:  Differences

message: Proverbs 31:2 is also said to use Aramaic bar for "son" .  Should this be added to the list of possible Aramaic usages in the Hebrew Bible? --Amble (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proverbs 31 

message: Under "Similarities", the reasons are odd. Three refer to the written languages only. The other three refer to points common to all Semitic languages. Actual agreement does exist. Both have simplified the grammar of the noun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:C94B:311A:670C:1118 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd reasons