Talk:Aramaic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jesus

Jesus spoke a western Aramaic dialect? Leaving aside the occasionally raised question of whether he was a real person at all rather than an allegorical figure or suchlike, are we sure? That's an awfully confident assertion considering he left no writings or, um, audio recordings.

I'm not trying to be contentious, it just seems to me there's, if not an NPOV issue, at least a question of evidence here. I'm not saying we (archaeologists as a group, Biblical scholars as a group, the West, whoever) aren't as certain as one can be about this sort of thing, but the way it's worded now the reader has to take it, as it were, on faith.

Would "Jesus is believed to have spoken...." or "Jesus most likely spoke...." be too weak or offensive or non-neutral? --Calieber 12:48, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Changed phrasing to: "A Western Aramaic dialect was the spoken language in Roman Judea in Jesus' time". Corrected name of village. -- Jeru

In fact, we do know that Jesus spoke a form of Aramaic; the gospels, though written in Greek, give several quotes from him in Aramaic specifically, most famously "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?) and "Abba" (Father) and "Talitha cumi" (Arise, girl.) So the original statement was justified. - Mustafa

However, the "Aramaic" on Cyprus is in fact an Arabic dialect, and has no place in the article - Mustafa

Why does it say "a professor" without saying who it is? Michael Hardy 00:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Garzo, much has changed since the scholarship of the early half of the last century. Now Hebrew linguists believe Hebrew was a spoken language during the Roman Period of Israel. For example: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that once said in 1958 in its first edition, Hebrew 'ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC', now says in 1997 in its third edition, Hebrew 'continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period'". Hebrew was a spoken language during Jesus's lifetime. Haldrik 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

An interesting FYI, this article has been linked to from Yahoo News at http://movies.yahoo.com/news/fc?d=tmpl&cf=fc&in=entertainment&cat=the_passion I don't know if this has or will be done for other wikipedia articles, but I think that is really pretty cool. Congratulations to those working on this page... Brettz9 21:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) Link is not working as of September 22, 2008

Jewish Aramaic: To-do

The following texts should be mentioned: The Targum Onkelos (and maybe also the other Targumim) and the place of Targum in Torah study; legal declarations/documents like the ketubbah, the "Kal nidré"="Kol nidrei", Erub declarations, Bi'ur chamets declaration; and prayer texts like the Ashkenazi "Yequm purqan" and Cabbalistic (mainly Ashkenazi) "Berikh Shemeh demara alema" (or maybe not, since the Zohar is mentioned already)... -- Olve 04:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Towards a more structured approach

The current article does not make the relation between different Aramaic languages very clear. Unfortunately, it is often the case that 'Jesus Aramaic' can take over (perhaps it needs a separate section or page), and the breadth and history of the language is lost.

I reckon that Ma'lula Aramaic is quite clearly a Modern Western Aramaic, but I often see it described as 'Syriac' or 'Eastern'.

I hope nobody minds if I attempt to put some more structure and scope into this article over the next couple of days. Of course, all feedback is welcome.

Gareth Hughes 23:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. I've often thought the article could use some expansion, but never gotten around to it... - Mustafaa 23:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have started a subpage in my userspace. If anyone would like to have a look at what I am proposing for the 'Aramaic language' article, or has any comments, sources or extra information, please go to User:Garzo/projects.

Gareth Hughes 23:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 20:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've uploaded a completely new article for 'Aramaic language'. I'm sorry that I deleted most of the content from the previous version, but I felt that it didn't have enough structure to it. I think that this new article is too long, so it could do with some pruning. I just hope you're not too offended.

Gareth Hughes 23:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, this is great! An excellent rewrite, which I much appreciate. - Mustafaa 11:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I would like to nominate this article to be a featured article, but it lacks images. Does anyone know of any images of texts written in Aramaic? Or are there any other pictures that would illustrate the article well? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:59, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Tomorrow or the day after, I may be able to take a picture of an Aramaic magic bowl (wot, no article?) at the British Museum. There's a Syriac sentence pictured in Syriac language. - Mustafaa 20:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice pic, Ganzo! I look forward to yours as well, Mustafaa. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just added the Bar-Rakib ingot... I've also got some more magic bowls and some short Palmyrenean inscriptions, but I think they might be overkill at this stage. - Mustafaa 00:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great photo, Mustafaa, the writing is nice and big and legible. Gareth Hughes 18:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sound changes

Great section, but I have doubts over two points:

• especially those influenced by the pronunciation of Western dialect Modern Hebrew : I'm not sure what you're saying here.
• Dental/sibilant shifting — This is a process that has been going on for millennia. Dental consonants (t, d, θ, ð) shift into sibilants (s, z and sh) and back again. surely this is three unrelated sound changes: the decay of PSem th, dh, followed by the rise and fall of the spirant allophones of plosives? - Mustafaa 13:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good call, Mustafaa! I was trying to fill out that section off the top of my head. I wanted to say something about the loss of emphatics, but wasn't quite sure (hence the vague comment). I also wanted to point out the Proto-semitic fricative correspondence to sibilants in Hebrew and dental stops/fricatives in Aramaic, and tie it in with a shift to sibilants in Neo-aramaic. It was all a bit of a muddle: thank you for clearing it up.

Do you think the vowel-change section could be expanded? I just thought it was too big to deal with in the article.

I notice that the article is very long now. Do you think some of the material here could be shifted into sub-pages? I was thinking along the lines of Biblical Aramaic, the Aramaic of Jesus (which I've made a rough start on), 'Jewish Aramaic', and something on the Neo-aramaic languages.

Gareth Hughes 16:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The vowel-change section? Man, if we just did the Tiberian vowels for Biblical Aramaic that would be an article in itself! But other dialects might be easier to summarize. Such a section could start from the vowels of Proto-Semitic and work forward... Certainly some material could be shifted to subpages; Neo-Aramaic, for instance, could easily be expanded into an article in its own right, and as you said, the Aramaic of Jesus could be shifted into that article. But it's hard to decide what to cut. - Mustafaa 17:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addition of a template of Jewish links

I don't feel that the addition of this template is useful to an already overlong article focused on linguistic and historical matters. I have suggested a page on 'Jewish Aramaic' (or something like that) to go into the place of the language in Jewish religion and culture. My suggestion has been made on various related talk pages. I know that the removal of someone's work isn't to be done lightly, but I do feel that this addition is really unnecessary. I suggest that appropriate text could link to appropriate articles on Jewish Aramaic, or a new one to cover that subject. Please feel free to air thoughts on this matter here.

Gareth Hughes 12:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Lord's Prayer

The latest edit was the addition of the Lord's Prayer, the text is below. I'm not happy with it for a number of reasons:

1. The article is already very long: new material has to be worth it.
2. No explanation of the text is included.
3. The Peshitta is in Syriac, and Jesus is presumed to have spoken Old Galilean Aramaic.
4. The text here is given in square script: the Peshitta is written in the Syriac alphabet.
5. The Peshitta version is based on Greek texts.
6. The English translation is over simplistic (particularly in the translation of Syriac tenses).
7. Matthew or Luke?

In its present state, this addition is misleading. All sorts of things are claimed about Aramaic, particularly by ill-informed Christians. This makes it important that the linguistic facts are presented clearly, and not in such a confused manner. A possible solution would be to include the text in a more relevant article (Lord's Prayer, Peshitta or Aramaic of Jesus), use Syriac script and either a standard English translation of the Lord's Prayer or an accurate one. Gareth Hughes 14:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text is as follows:

The Lord's prayer in aramaic as per the Syriac Peshittâ

אַבּוֻן דּבַשמַיָא Our Father who is in heaven,

נֶתּקַדַּש שמָך Your name will be sanctified,

תִּתֶּא מַלכּוּתָּך Your kingdom will come,

נֶוֶא צֶביַנָך Your will will be (done),

אַיכַּנָא דּבַשמַיָא As that which is in heaven,

אָף בּאַרעָא Also on the earth,

הַב לַן לַחמָא Give us bread,

דּסוּנקָנַן יַומנָא That we need, today,

ושבוּק לַן חַובַּין And forgive us our debts,

אַיכַּנָא דּאָף חנַן Also as we,

שבַקַן לחַיָבֶין Forgive our debtors,

ולָא תַּעלַן לנִסיוּנָא And don't cause us to enter into temptation,

אֶלָא פַּצָן מֶן בִּישָא But rather deliver us from evil,

מֶטֻל דּדִילָך הִי מַלכּוּתָּא Because you own the kingdom

וחֶילַן ותֶּשבּוּחתָּא And the power, and the glory,

לעַלֶם עַלמִין Forever, eternal,

אַמִין Amen (Truly)

Mea culpa. I shoud have look for a better article for this. I will move the text to Lord's_Prayer#Aramaic. And BTW, it is Mathew's. --Zappaz 16:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Zappaz. I can get a little shirty where Aramaic is concerned. A certain film has made Aramaic popular, and I believe that it's important to get as much good, factual information about on the web. You must have put in a good deal of time with the unicode. If you're interested, the Syriac unicode escape code values start in the 800s. I like small animals and smile rainbows. Gareth Hughes 17:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4,000-year history?

The opening sentence says Aramaic has a 4,000-year history. Wouldn't 3,000 be a more accurate figure? Or am I missing something? --Iustinus 00:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa! The recorded history of Aramaic runs for fewer than 3,000 years; there is evidence of Aramaean settlements that date from before the earliest extant inscriptions, but that evidence does not go back as far as 4,000 years ago. Good catch! Augustinus Gareth Hughes 10:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any thoughts about how this article might look on the Main Page?

As this is now a featured article, it can appear on the Main Page. What do you think of this abstract? Gareth Hughes 16:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Silver ingot of Bar-Rakib son of Panammu, king of Sam'al

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It is the original language of some parts of the Bible; it has been the language of administration of empires, and the language of divine worship. It was probably the language of Jesus, it is the language of the Talmud, and it is still spoken today as a first language by numerous small communities.

During the twelfth century BCE, Aramaeans, the native speakers of Aramaic, began to settle in great numbers in modern-day Syria, Iraq and eastern Turkey. As the language grew in importance, it came to be spoken throughout the Mediterranean coastal area of the Levant, and spread east of the Tigris. Jewish settlers took the language with them into north Africa and Europe, and Christian missionaries brought Aramaic into Persia, India and even China. From the seventh century CE onwards, Aramaic was replaced as the lingua franca of the Middle East by Arabic. However, Aramaic remains a literary and liturgical language among Jews, Mandaeans and some Christians, and is still spoken by small isolated communities throughout its original area of influence. The turbulence of the last two centuries has seen speakers of first-language and literary Aramaic dispersed throughout the world.

---

Excellent. Go for it. --Zappaz 17:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The lead section

I really don't like the two edits that have been made to the lead section: they are simply bad English. I want to keep the lead section as a good bit of prose, and these edits tear into it in some search for a hidden bit of neutrality. The lead section originally read:

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It is the original language of some parts of the Bible; it has been the language of administration of empires, and the language of divine worship. It was probably the language of Jesus, it is the language of the Talmud, and it is still spoken today as a first language by numerous small communities.

I think that is fine and good. ZZyXx changed it to:

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It is the original language of some parts of the Tanakh, the Talmud and the Bible. It has been the language of administration of empires, and the language of divine worship. It was probably the language of Jesus and it is still spoken today as a first language by numerous small communities.

The change is obvious: the simple word Bible is replaced by the list of Tanakh, Talmud and Bible. Whether Jewish, Christian or other, most readers will understand what is meant by Bible. I did not use the phrase Hebrew Bible because of the clash that comes when the meaning is openned up: some parts of the Bible written in Hebrew were written in Aramaic. Tanakh is really just an acronym for the same thing, and is understood by few non-Jewish readers. I felt that Bible was the right word, as we're talking about the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra, really. Those books are in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, so why split hairs?

The compromise revision by Jayjg is:

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It is the original language of some parts of the Tanakh and most of the Talmud; parts of the New Testament may have originally been written in Aramaic as well. It has been the language of administration of empires, and the language of divine worship. It was probably the language of Jesus, and it is still spoken today as a first language by numerous small communities.

The term Tanakh is used again, and we have made New Testament visible. I think that this is worse. Bringing Aramaic primacy theories of the New Testament right into the lead section is wrong to me: I'm happy just to say "probably the language of Jesus" on the Christian side of things.

I hope I don't get accused of being anti-Jewish: I wouldn't appreciate that at all. I am trying to write a good encyclopaedia article on the Aramaic language. I looks like the Bible argument has spilled over into this article, and I don't like it. Let's hear a range of comments on this, please. Gareth Hughes 22:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can live with "some parts of the Bible"; my concern is that it actually gives too much weight to the "New Testament in Aramaic" theory. The part about the Talmud was wrong, though; most of it is written Aramaic, but a lot is in Hebrew, particularly in the Jerusalem Talmud. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The body of the article does make it clear that the Talmud is in Aramaic, and actually goes into the different layers of Aramaic that are built into it, with some pieces of Hebrew. I still think it's fair to say that the Talmud is in Aramaic: it is its main language, and the language of its architecture. Hebrew is only used in Biblical quotations, and some of these are from Targum, and some older midrashic material. Perhaps it would be easier if we say what we mean: "It is the original language of a large section of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra" and "It is the main language of the Talmud". Then, at least, we are all clear about what we are saying and what we are not saying. Gareth Hughes 23:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew is also used in the Talmud for all of the Mishnas and Baraithas, which is a significant amount of material. Also, the Jerusalem Talmud sometimes uses mixed Hebrew/Aramaic. In any event, I like your latest idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too like that latest edit, I would now just swap two sentences so it would become:

Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. It has been the language of administration of empires, and the language of divine worship. It is the original language of a large section of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra. It was probably the language of Jesus, it is the main language of the Talmud, and it is still spoken today as a first language by numerous small communities.

ZZyXx 23:34, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this edit is a lot better. This article has featured status, and it is on hold for the main page, so I feel that it most important to get the lead section worded correctly. I'll edit in the last suggestion. Gareth Hughes 12:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Turkish persecution?

I know this is controversial, but it is also important. When I completed the timeline, at the end of February, I included an event in 1915 marked Turkish persecution. Having set up the articles on various Neo-Aramaic dialects, I realised just how important this event was. It is part of the controversial Armenian genocide. This reference was recently removed as "propaganda". Feeling that the used hadn't properly addressed the issue enough to warrant the deletion of the event, I reinserted it with the slightly less controversial title Persecution in Turkey. I am not anti-Turkish, in fact I am going to be in eastern Turkey this August, but I do feel that controversial issues should not simply be deleted. Can we reach a consensus? --Gareth Hughes 15:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest linking it to Assyrian Genocide (if you can get that article into shape...) Certainly this has to be mentioned; several dialects became nearly extinct as a result, if I recall correctly. - Mustafaa 03:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course we can reach consensuses? (consensi? I don't know :) There is no mention of the "persecution" in the article text, it is all I object to. If it was a landmark event in the development and/or extinction of Aramaic, you have all the reasons in the world to include it in the timeline. But this also begs the question, why isn't there a mention in the article text if it was "an important event"? On another note, what most people fail to realize is the land was not called "Turkey" then. It was "the Ottoman Empire". This is in no way to deny or ignore the wrongdoings of the Empire, but we as Turkish citizens (attention: not "Turks"), at least the more educated ones, try to distance ourselves from the wrongdoings and misdeeds of a monarchist/feudal regime that was toppled by Ataturk and the nation. Turks are the majority of Turkish Citizens, which also includes Kurds (nearly 20% of population of Turkey), Armenians, Levantines, Greeks and Arabs. For all practical intents, we can assume Turkey was founded on October 29, 1923, with the declaration of the Republic, whereas the abovementioned peoples were already mixed and lived in harmony for centuries, and continue to do so up to this day. With respect, mu5ti/talk 05:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lakota Aramaic

I recently had the opportunity to discuss with several Lakota (aka Sioux -- but try to say Lakota) their shock and surprise that for certain parts of the Aramaic dialogue in the film Passion of the Christ they did not have to look at the subtitles in order to understand.

They addressed this to their local council, and they, in turn, contacted Icon, Mel Gibson's production company. The reply was also very surprised in tone, as the filmmakers had not at all looked at Lakota language, but instead to scholars, linguists and modern Aramaic-speakers in order to as accurately as possible present the language as spoken at the birth of the Common Era.

Any chance of someone looking into this further, and possibly adding something to the main article?

Benn M. 08:17, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

It's a nice story, and, until they say which words and phrases are similar in the two languages, it will remain a romantic story. It might be better to add this to the other stuff on the Passion of the Christ article. We could talk about Welsh being just like Hebrew — well, some words sound the same if you're half deaf! --Gareth Hughes 09:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klaus Beyer

Recently the following was added to the article. It might have a place there eventually, but I think this point needs discussion first, I think.

[NB: This article represents one scholar's opinions on Aramaic dialects (Klaus Beyer, Die aramäische Texte vom Toten Meer, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. The most relevant sections are in the English edition The Aramaic Language (1986). Beyer is an authority, but his views are disputed.]

The problem is mainly that the crucial phrase 'his views are disputed' should be substantiated before adding a serious-looking caveat like this. — mark ✎ 22:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was fair to point out that this article uses Beyer's classification system: the article says so, and the references give the source. However, that is different from saying that the article's content is based on Beyer. I used Beyer to start with because his system of dividing Old/Middle/Modern Aramaic is clearly based on whether the language is no longer used, an extinct literary language or a modern spoken tongue. There are other classification systems, but they all use quite odd choices for the division between Old and Middle dialects. Beyer is generally disliked for placing the end of Old Aramaic's period later than other classifications. I feel that stating which system is being used is sufficient: the article doesn't need to be clogged with all the rival ideas. I think this works. --Gareth Hughes 23:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic word for God

The Aramaic word for God is alôh-ô (Syriac dialect), which comes from the same Proto-Semitic word (*'ilâh-) as the Arabic and Hebrew terms; Jesus is described in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 as having used this word on the cross (in the forms elô-i and êl-i respectively).

Twice I have removed this paragraph from the article. The first time it was in the lead section, I think. I've just removed it from the Jesus section. I removed it for a few reasons:

1. The Aramaic word for god is not very interesting, and the fact that it similar to that in other Semitic languages is not significant: so are many other words.
2. That's a West Syriac pronunciation, and for no reason.
3. Those words from the gospels are in Greek transliteration: that is a significant point.
4. The texts in question are given a reasonable coverage in Aramaic of Jesus and another article, which I can't remember.
5. This paragraph is saying nothing more than, "Here's an Aramaic word, in a pronunciation a few centuries later than we're talking about (probably, who knows?); it's a bit like some other words, and a bit like some words written in Greek letters spoken by Jesus", or am I missing something?

--Gareth Hughes 23:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points all. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fully concur. — mark ✎ 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Aramaic

Shouldn't it be noted that present day Levantine "Arabic" is an offshoot of Aramaic? Or would this discomfort the many pan-Arabists who only see it as a "dialect" of Arabic? The relationship between Aramaic and the Levant language has even been pointed out in the article on Lebanese Arabic, so it might make the page on Aramaic a little more complete and interesting if it mentions that a form of Aramaic is actually still spoken by several million people.

Well, it is an interesting point, but Levantine Arabic is still Arabic. I've bumped into a few Aramaic words in Levantine Arabic, but this is all one would expect for an Arabic dialect that displaced widely-spoken Aramaic. The influence of Syriac-speaking Maronites probably enhanced this feature in Lebanese Arabic. However, it stretches the point to call these dialects 'forms of Aramaic': the bulk of their grammar and vocabulary are still very securely Arabic. Gareth Hughes 08:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, then this article contradicts the Wikipedia article on Lebanese Arabic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_arabic

Which seems to be echoing what is argued on this page: http://www.abcleb.com/lebanese/article.htm

- Habibo

Well, I disagree with both articles. The Wikipedia article is flagged as needing attention. It is obvious that Lebanese Arabic is different from classical and standard Arabic: enough to say that they are different languages. However, that doesn't mean that Lebanese is not Arabic: many colloquial Arabics differ more from the standard. It is absolutely wrong to say that Lebanese is Aramaic: the only features of Aramaic grammar that can be seen are those shared with Arabic anyway. However, it is reasonable to point out the importance of Aramaic in the formation of Labanese dialect of Arabic. Gareth Hughes 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds: The article says "In general, older dialects tended to have a richer phonology than more modern ones. In particular, some modern Jewish Aramaic pronunciations lack the series of 'emphatic' consonants." This isn't so. Those modern Aramaic pronunciations (Christian, such as Urmi, as well as Jewish) that lack "emphatic" consonants have "emphatic" words or syllables, which isn't less, just different. Those dialects that have emphatic consonants, most of them, have more than just the two or three of classical Aramaic. A number of the most widely spoken dialects have distinct aspirated and unaspirated stops (see especially Edward Odisho's book). In all dialects the old stop~fricative alternants (spirantization) have become separate phonemes (e.g. /be:ta/ 'egg', /be:θa/ 'house') -- incipiently so in Syriac, but fully in the modern dialects. Most, as the article says, also have other consonants not known in older Aramaic, such as alveolar and alveopalatal affricates, and palatal stops. Many dialects have more vowels than some older Aramaic. Many have both stress and vowel length phonemes, which few if any documented older Aramaic varieties do. Come to think of it, I'm going to remove this sentence from the article.

Nearly all of the section on vowels is simply general phonetics, with very little of the information being specific to Aramaic. In fact, only three sentences contain information that is specifically about Aramaic sounds, that is, neither general, universal phonetics nor about orthography rather than sounds: "‎ There is some evidence that Middle Babylonian dialects did not distinguish between the ‎short a and short e. In West Syriac dialects, and possibly Middle Galilean, the long a ‎became the o sound....The so-called 'emphatic' consonants (see the next section) cause all vowels to become ‎mid-centralised.‎" This section needs to be rethought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.64.79 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did Aramaic become a lingua franca?

The Arameans themselves never held an empire. So why did their language become the lingua franca of the Ancient Near East? Or were the Assyrians ethnically Arameans? It would be helpful to have information about this in the article. RCSB 14:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic reached what could be called lingua franca status in the 8th century BC. The total domination of the Assyrian Empire over Aram/Syria was in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, but parts of the region were under Assyrian control before his time. It is very unhelpful to introduce comments about ethnicity into this picture: ethnicity is a rather subjective feature after all. Assyrians spoke Akkadian, which, although it is a Semitic language like Aramaic, is completely incomprehensible from it. Inscriptions from Gozan indicate that, perhaps from the 11th century, eastern Aramaic had developed a powerful, flexible phonetic orthography. The versatile language of the majority of the population of the Assyrian Empire led to Aramaic's use as a lingua franca, and the eventual relegation of Akkadian cuneiform. --Gareth Hughes 16:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Why don't you add this to the article? RCSB 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The language of divine worship

It has been…the language of divine worship.

I'm just wondering - is there any language, anywhere, at any time, that hasn't been a language of divine worship? This is poetic for the lead paragraph, to be sure, but superfluous. And to say the language... gives kind of short shrift to all that non-Judeo-Christian worship out there. I'm not going to change all the hard work that went into this, but still. -EDM 21:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The definite article in the first clause seemed to make sense when I wrote it, so I mirrored a definite article in the second clause. I can see your point though. --Gareth Hughes 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More Movie Trivia

(doesn't seem to be mentioned yet - feel free to remove this clutter if it is); There are at least two other movies that have references to the (ancient) Aramaic language (w/r religeous elements):

- Fallen [1] where the demon Beelzebub manifests itself and speaks in Aramaic

- Stigmata [2] where the reincarnation of Father Gianni Delmonico speaks in Aramaic (and there are references to the "original Gospels by Jesus Chris" in Aramaic).

- Already extensively mentioned of course was "Passion of the Christ" Martixer

I wouldn't say that the Gibson film has 'extensive' coverage in the article: it is mentioned in one short paragraph halfway through the article. The other films you mention are not really significant to the language: they are significant to their fans. I feel it more appropriate that the article covers the historical fact of the language than some cobbled together fiction. --Gareth Hughes 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern languages

Sorry about adding the graf on the modern languages at the top. I went looking last night for a list of them and couldn't find them. I hadn't seen the box at the bottom.--Cam 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian

aramaic language is a big error all these socalled aramaic language are derivation from the assyrian language which is known by the assyriologists as akkadian language. the akkadian language expression is used to indicate both accents of the assyrian accent(northern accent) and thebabylonian accent (southern accent), who are very similar (dictionary of akkadian language in arabic). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.175.172.138 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2006.

No. That is completely wrong. The Akkadian is a different Semitic language to Aramaic. Aramaic supplanted Akkadian as the administrative language of the Assyrian Empire, and some Akkadian words are used in the Aramaic of the period. However, you are correct to say about Babylonian and Assyrian dialects of Akkadian. Tagging a true statement onto the end of a false one, does not make the false one correct. --Gareth Hughes 10:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

May I aske where did you guys come up with the figure of 445,000? Chaldean 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of total speakers

I would like someone to add sources for the number of total speakers (445,000). I, myself, calculated the number of speakers, according to ethnologue, and I got between 542,000 and 544,000. CG 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue just looks inaccurate to me. And there numbers is based on 1994?

Hi, i have found two sources about the number of speakers of the Aramaic language. the one repeats the worlds of a professor in California [3], and the second has general information about the language [4]. they both estimate the number to be around 1 million. i do not know if they can be considered more reliable than ethnologue, but i thought they are interesting... --Hectorian 05:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The numbers game for Aramaic is a difficult one. Modern Aramaic has splintered into many mainly mutually unitelligible dialects spoken by small communities in remote places and throughout a diverse diaspora. Also, many people use various Middle Aramaic dialects for religious purposes: religiously educated Jews, Syriac Christians and Mandaeans often could be described as fluent in these effectively extinct dialects. The Amarauna site above is completely misleading as it only deals with Christian Neo-Aramaic, and it does not give sources. The other estimate, even though it is only mentioned in passing, is given by Yona Sabar, who is in a good positon to give a fair estimate. I would support his estimate, which is more likely accurate than adding the various figures on Ethnologue. — Gareth Hughes 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Assyrians speak the Syriac dialect and they number over 3 million worldwide. Nrosskothen 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What are these scripts?

Could someone clarify me what are those four scripts used at the top of the infobox in the yellow part? CG 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please could someone clarify the four scripts used to name Aramaic: ארמית Arāmît, ܐܪܡܝܐ Ārāmāyâ, and the IPA pronuncations. CG 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic history: candidate for merger?

Shouldn't Aramaic history be merged into this page? Todowd 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this is a bad idea. The article on Aramaic history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was thrown together with bits from this article and a few others. — Gareth Hughes 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mergers should be done if and only if the two topics truly overlie each other. Fix the poorly written article on Aramaic history rather than merging. Williamborg 15:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think with a little work it could make a good stand-alone daughter article.--WilliamThweatt 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with William, it needs works.סרגון יוחנא

Time to remove merge notice. — Gareth Hughes 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The first body paragraph

"the native speakers of Aramaic, began to settle in great numbers in modern-day Syria, Iraq and eastern Turkey. " - Some sources please? And was it by their will or were they forced by the Assyrian empire? You can't just migrate into an area without an empire knowing about it, right? Chaldean 03:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph mentions that this is a twelfth-century-BCE settlement of people identified as Aramaeans in the area that is today occupied by Syria, Iraq and eastern Turkey. Assyrian sources first mention Aramaeans in 1112 BCE, which places it in the reign of Tiglath-Pileser I. The Assyrian records depict the Aramaeans as coming from the north and settling in areas west of the Euphrates. The Assyrian Empire clearly knew about the Aramaean settlement and documented it. It seems that the migration took place over an extended period. — Gareth Hughes 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Aramaic language → Aramaic … Rationale: An article about a language should not have "language" in the title unless it is meant to disambiguate … Please share your opinion at Talk:Aramaic language. — Lemegeton 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Strong oppose. Current name follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) so it should not be moved. Vegaswikian 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. It reads: "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language" (...)". The adjective of Aram/Aramaeans is "Aramaean", "Aramaic" is only used for the language of the Aramaeans. No need for disambiguation, let's keep it simple. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic is also used to describe a writing script that was the base for many other scripts. In addition it appears to be used in some other limited ways. So it is not clear that this is the only use. Vegaswikian 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Vegaswikian. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Vegaswikian and Calgacus seem to be misinterpreting the current guidelines (and I don't think the derivatives listed by William Thweatt below are sufficient to require automatic disambiguation, as the last two, at least, are not genuinely distinct usages - I'm sure there's an Esperanto New Testament, as well, and I think even the script would not be referred to as "Aramaic" on its own. That said, my devotion to this particular naming convention is limited, so I'm not strongly in favor of the move. john k 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - if where going to move this page then lets move all of the other language pages, starting with French language Chaldean 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's different. French is a disambiguation page, with lots of articles to disambiguate, whereas Aramaic redirects to Aramaic language. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind Aramaic being turned into a disambiguate page. Maybe list Aramaic Language, Neo-Aramaic and all of the dialects. Chaldean 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The OED says that either Aramaic or Aramaean can be used in the general sense of "belonging to Aram", although the first is specifically used of the language. And their first quote is "Translations of the Old Testament into the East-Aramaic language." I see no reason to spoil a standard pattern; most editors will link to [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] whatever we do here. I can be persuaded by a reason to change, but I don't see one. Septentrionalis 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment - I tend to agree with the move, however, "Aramaic" does have other uses besides just describing the language. Some possible disambiguation issues might occur with:

• Aramaic script/Aramaic alphabet
• Aramaic New Testament
• Aramaic Democratic Organization website

There are others but these are the most common. If nobody sees this as a problem or can address the issue, I'd prefer the language article to just be named "Aramaic"--WilliamThweatt 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aramaic preservation

Aramaic is an endangered language, but really its an endangered language family, how different are the different modern aramaic languages, and which ones have the most chance of surviving? I ask because I hope to learn one and teach it to my children, but if theres no hope, I'll teach 'em something more useful.

---

This should maybe be added:

"Preserving Aramaic, which nobody in Maaloula has written for tens of generations, has become something of a cause for Syrian president Bashaar Assad his government supported the establishment of an Aramaic language school in 2003.about 150 students between the ages of seven and 50 are now taught there by staff of 10 teachers."

http://www.syriatourism.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=367&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

--83.72.194.208 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If a language is spoken by hundreds of thousands of people how could it be considered endangered? I can only come up with the explanation the number of speakers is rapidly dropping: the large majority of speakers are bilingual and don’t rise their children in that language. How is the situation of Aramaic?

2007-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Hi Lena. A few hundred-thousand speakers does make a language endagered, especially when Modern Aramaic is really a group of related languages rather than a single, monolithic one. The various Jewish varieties, Modern Mandaic and Western Neo-Aramaic are seriously endagered. The Christian varieties are faring slightly better, but the effect of diaspora is making some negative impact on the language. — Gareth Hughes 14:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Appearantly, the word ”Aramic” standrs for a group of three languages: Mandaic, Neo-Aramic and Christian Aramic. How many speakers does the three languages have? Are their numbers rapidly dropping for the reason I mentioned? If a language has hundreds of thousadns of speakers and the number is relatively stable it is NOT endangered. You may as well claim that Icelandic is ”endangered” since it has 300,000 speakers. The Icelanders are wery protective of their language and their number have probably never been higher. Consequently, you don't have to fear the extintion of Icelandic.

2007-03-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

There seam to be more Aramaic languages than the three I mentioned. Here is a list of them and their approximate number of speakers:

Assyrian 210,200.
Bohhtan Neo-Aramaic 1,000.
Chaldean Neo-Aramaic 700,000.
Hértevin 1,000.
Hulaulá 10,000.
Lishán Dián 4,400.
Lishana Deni 8,000.
Lishanid Noshan 2,300.
Mandaic 100.
Senaya 500.
Surat 900.
Turoyo 112,000.
Western Neo-Aramaic 15,000.

Assyrian, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Turoyo and Western Neo-Aramaic are NOT threaten to extinction. Hulaulá might be depending on the demography of the speakers. If most of the speakers are elderly people it may be considered endangered since the number is gradually dropping. The other seven languages are more or less endangered. They may not be very useful for others than experts. Chaldean Neo-Aramaic has the highest number of speakers so it may be the best choice.

2008-10-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Will Shortz error calling Aramaic a dead language

Will Shortz made an error yesterday (2006-12-17) on NPR's Weekend Edition/Sunday's puzzle segment yesterday. For the two-word phrase "dead languages," Will gave the clue "Latin or Aramaic." This article shows that Aramaic is a language family, and it is endangered but not extinct. I referenced this article in my synopsis of this puzzle to point out this error.[5] Thank you. r3 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic is a group of closely related dialects that could be, and often is, considered to be a single language. You are correct that it is not quite dead. john k 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

not only that Aramic isnt dead, many words and terms in Hebrew are in pure Aramic, and some people in isreal (more then you would think) can read and talk this language perfectly, (just wanted to mantion) Omer.

Is anybody fluent

Is anybody here fluent in Aramaic; I would like to translate some angel names. Contact me through my talk page, and leave me a message. Thanks. Lighthead 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers is low

There are more Assyriuans and Chaldeans that speak Aramaic than 400,000 over a million at least. So with all over peoples it would make it at least 4,000,000 not 400,000 like the article says. Tourskin 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Assyrians and Chaldeans often say numbers are higher, but there is little evidence to suggest that this is true. In fact, the evidence is that many know the language, but not with a great deal of fluency. Take a look at Ethnologue — entries for Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. Even those these estimates are over a decade old, one could extrapolate by factors that would increase and decrease the numbers. My guess would be that there has not been a huge growth of numbers since then. — Gareth Hughes 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article scope

we have a separate article on Neo-Aramaic languages. The current spread and speaker number should be given there; this is our article on the ancient Aramaic language. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not Ancient Aramaic language, it's Aramaic language. Just like the article on English language is not Old English language or Modern English language. אמר Steve Caruso 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have questions, please help me!

I'd like to know about the degree of mutual intelligibility of the different dialects of Aramaic, and related languages.

Western and Eastern Aramaic are mutual intelligible?

Western and Eastern Aramaic are families of Aramaic languages. Not all Eastern Aramaic dialects are mutually intelligible to eachother (same with Western). The major differences are with pronunciation (vowels and a few consonants are rather different) and what vocabulary is employed which varied from region to region. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Aramaic and Ancient Hebrew are mutual intelligible?

Probably not. Again "Western Aramaic" is a family of Aramaic languages. All of them would not pass as Ancient Hebrew. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are mutual intelligible?

Certainly not. Modern Hebrew pronounces many letters and vowels completely different, and employs many loan-words and reconstructed words that would not have existed in Ancient Hebrew. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Aramaic spoken in Maalula is mutual intelligible with Syriac?

For the most part no. Syriac speakers and Ma`loula speakers have a great amount of difficulty understanding each other. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Aramaic spoken in Maalula would be understandable by Jesus Christ?

Absolutely not. There have been 2000 years of lingual drift and influences by other language such as Arabic. It would be as intelligible as Anglo-Saxon would be to Modern English. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The movie The Passion of the Christ, really show the "Aramaic of that time"?

No. The language used in The Passion was a mixture of Biblical Aramaic (like that found in Daniel and Ezra), Syriac, and Hebrew. In short, it was Aramaic from well before and well after that time, mixed together with a smattering of Hebrew words. אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and anxious for an answer!!!

No problem. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Robledo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.35.20 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Caruso, That's a great pity none of those languages are mutually intelligible, difficult to understand how they could communicate with each other at that time!!! And strange that in a region so small (fertile crescente), there were too many "unintelligible languages"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.35.20 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's rather common for great language diversity in small geographic areas that are separated by some travel or geographical difficulties, even within the same family of languages. See modern Italy and its languages for example. Go over the mountains and you're speaking a dialect that's almost completely different from where you started. Napuletano (Southern Italian) is nothing like Toscano ("Standard" Italian) both of which are nothing like Sicilianu (Sicilian Italian). :-) אמר Steve Caruso 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Issues

When Jesus walk upon Earth, it is said that the current language of daily usage was aramaic, and the eclesiastical language was hebrew, is that true? This hebrew was the same of Moses? If I want to study the closest language of Christ what it would be: Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic or Hebrew? What dialect of aramaic Christ spoken and what would be the closest dialect of aramaic (still live) of Christ's Aramaic? Thanks! Silva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.35.20 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although there is debate about which languages were used for what, the general consensus is that Jesus spoke a dialect of Aramaic and probably had some knowledge of Hebrew and a little bit of Greek. Unfortunately, we do not have very many written records from that timperiod and geographical location, so all attempts to get the exact dialect that Jesus would have spoken are ultimately exercises in hypothetical reconstruction. As such to make a call as to which currently living dialect would be closest to Jesus' mothertongue is also a tricky decision to make. Since it is believed that he spoke Old Judean or Old Galilean Aramaic with a Galilean accent, a Western dialect. The Western family of dialects, today, only survives spoken in three villages in Syria (Ma'loula, Bakh'a, and Jub'adin), but given the past 2000 years to evolve, it is a very different language than it once was. The same problem exists with any modern "living" dialect of Aramaic: They'd all be foreign to Jesus due to how much they have changed over the years. For example, "Our Father who is in Heaven, hallowed by your name":

In Ma'loulan Aramaic it is pronounced:

"Abunakh ti bishmoh yichkattash eshmakh"

In Classical Syriac (an Eastern dialect) is was pronounced:

"Abwun d'vashmaya nethqadash shmakh"

In Jesus dialect it was probably close to

"Abuna di beshmaya yithkadash shmah."

Hope this helps. אמר Steve Caruso 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not to be wise! But even in my opinion, these senteces looks very familiar and similar, if the differences are only in pronounciation and some vocabulary, I believe that does not represent an "unintelligibility". It looks and sounds for me like just Italian-Portuguese, different, not fully intelligible, but comprehensible if the listener wants to understand the speaker. In the middle of lots of variants of Aramaic they should have had a manner to understand each other, don`t you agree? Correct me if I am wrong. And I'll let you a question, the differences in the variants of aramaic, includes differences in grammar? If not perhaps, the should have understood each other.Ah, almost forgot, what about the language of Moses, what was that? Thanks Silva

well, I am not trying to hint at something that isn't my business as I don't speak aramaic, but I should note that the last sentence Abuna di beshmaya yithkadash shmah can easily be mistaken for an arabic sentence trasliterated in Latin script with minor misspelling, taking in consideration that dhi as a relative pronoun is archaic arabic. The sentence ilehi ilehi lima shabaktani is unquestionably an arabic sentence as well. I think most of semetic languages were mutually intelligible at that time; that's probably why the takeover of one language and the assimilation of the other languages were easily accomplihed through different stages of history.--Sayih 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I really do not know if all languages of that time were mutual intelligible, but they really sound so. I believe that if the language structure is similar, it´s a very close step for it to be mutual intelligible or at least "understandable", just because, words are really differents, in differents locations. The English spoken in The USA and in England are different, but they can understand each other, despite some differences in phonetics. Perhaps all varieties of Aramaic are not the same but similar at a great extent. I live in Brazil, and there is many differents dialect of Portuguese, but all are mutuall understandable, and they are also different in some words and in pronounciation. With the senteces above, it sound to me very similar when read out loud. Perhaps not equal, but really similar. Other day I was watching TV and it was talking about Maaloulan Aramaic. The major authority of Maaloulan Aramaic said it hasn't changed, despite arabic is spoken in daily use. Now what? What the man said was true or wasn't? Later I'll post this video with the link for the youtube, it´s in portuguese, but the man pray the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic. Silva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.35.20 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Living Son of God?"

Jesus is/was the living son of God? What exactly is the source of that information? idledebonair (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That was quick, I was just removing it also but you beat me to it :) 89.27.19.182 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, I might add, the opening paragraph seems to take the actual existence of Jesus in any historical sense for granted, which is, AFAIK, contestable. 89.27.19.182 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is kinda old but... Wikipedia is soppossed to be more "in-tune" with historical evidence rather than assumptions, and there aren't many that actually believe Jesus never existed (Unless you count Youtubers and that one guy who's name I can't remember). Being taken for granted, however, is I guess very problematic with this article.IronCrow (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of Genders

The article says "Aramaic has two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine", but doesn't Aramaic have a common gender? --334 (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is right: Aramaic has just masculine and feminine genders. Where a dictionary might list a word as 'common gender', it does not imply a third gender, but that the word is used in either genders. For example, the first-person pronoun ܐܢܐ is common gender, but is resolved in a sentence to be either masculine or feminine. So, 'I stand' is ܩܐܡ ܐܢܐ for a man, but ܩܝܡܐ ܐܢܐ for a woman: the pronoun can agree with both masculine and feminine participles. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "short" a in English

The cardinal open vowel is an open near-front unrounded vowel ('short' a, somewhat like the first vowel in the English 'batter', IPA: [a])

The pronunciation of short a in "batter" is IPA [æ], not [a]. Which sound does Aramaic use? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The description is left purposely vague, in fact there are a number of ways the a in batter is pronounced. Actual pronunciation depends on the variety of Aramaic with which one is dealing. It is generally pronounced in this area, generally more like [a] than [æ]. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is name of the article "Aramaic language", and not "Aramaic languages"? Shouldn't we change it? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Convention, really. There is no linguistic rule that says when a language with a number of dialects becomes a group of distinct languages. The convention is to speak of Aramaic as a single language. This is based on the methods of academic study of the wide number of varieties of Aramaic, and the fact that the varieties do not diverge as far as others. In practice, the split usually occurs for political reasons, as with Slavic varieties, rather than any clear-cut linguistic grounds. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right in some cases but Aramaic doesn't look like one of them. Maybe when talking only about Old Aramaic your words could be partially right but if include Middle and especially Modern Aramaic it looks too strange. See for example the first sentence: "Aramaic is a group of Semitic languages with a 3,000-year history." Or look at name in ru-wikipedia which is based on established consensus among Russian-speaking semitologists. So maybe let's try to vote for move? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my original text was Aramaic is a Semitic language until someone changed it to group. I didn't quibble, as linguistically the difference is meaningless. The Russian article looks like it's mostly based on this one. I'd be interested to know if it says anything particularly insightful. While it is true that divergence of varieties appears more advanced in the modern period, this is in part due to telescoping, and, after all, degree of divergence is no criterion for declaring the varieties to be separate languages. I've learnt a few different varieties of Aramaic, and I don't find it too start reading a variety I don't know. Academic literature refers to Aramaic language in the singular and not the plural, and the varieties are often referred to as dialects. I see no reason not to continue this usage. Non-specialists are often misled into thinking that Aramaic is a monolithic language because of this. I think that a better approach would be not to use languages in the lead, as this is not standard use, and revert to my original use. Then add something more about the varieties of Aramaic to make that clear. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice section about "Seven dialects of Western Aramaic were spoken in the vicinity of the land of Israel in Jesus' time..." Where is it taken from or based upon what? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The history is mostly based on Klaus Beyer's The Aramaic Language; p 38 of John Healey's English translation covers Western Aramaic during the 1st century CE. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it will help. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not call this article simply "Aramaic"? Isn't the use of "_language" only necessary to avoid ambiguity when the term has more than one connotation? --CAPMO (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right that our original idea of language nomenclature was that '_language' be added if the name alone could stand as an adjective with non-language meanings (e.g. 'French'). In the case of Aramaic, the adjective 'Aram(a)ean' is generally used for non-language applications, so we don't really have that issue. Of course, such a renaming would not answer the question of whether Aramaic is one language or a group of languages. However, as I've stated before, there is no linguistic distinction between the two statements, and that the customary statement is that Aramaic is one language with a diversity of varieties. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Intitute

It seems according to several news reports that a town called MAALOULA in Syria has a majority Christian population who have not moved to speaking Arabic and have retained Aramaic as their prime language. In 2007 they also opened something with the English name "Aramaic Language Institute". I have yet to actually find a website for the institute itself but I have found many news reports and some video about it.

This has an obvious connection to the topic of this article. I am not one of you guys so I will let you all to the actual writting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.45.221 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullying and Vandalism

There is no requirement for a non-locked article to be discussed prior to making improvements. The complaint by someone violates the entire procedures, policies, ethos, and concept of Wikipedia. Please do not do this again, or you will be reported.

Ifyou have a view on specific points -- which carry equal weight to my view and everyone else's view within the Wiki philosophy -- address the substance, and do not engage in antics.

On substance, the previous version was unsourced and plainly false.

I have corrected it with solid sources from the New Testament account of Jesus and the known history recorded from the Bible.

It is plain error to confuse the multi-lingual character of the society at the time. It is a foolish assumption that because a person speaks one language that is the ONLY language they speak. Such error should nto be introduced into an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.3.82 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Assyrians

At least as long ago as 5 June 2008, the nomenclature used for generally referring to speakers of Christian Neo-Aramaic was "Assyrians" without a laundry list of every group that wants to be called something else. 5 June was as far back as I checked, but the nomenclature goes back much further. (Taivo (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

You base this on what? The TriZ (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A simple click on the "History" tab at the top of the page and scrolling back a few screens to see what the wording was at any given point of time in the past. Go back and you will see the use of "Assyrian". Look at the pages from a year ago and more. (Taivo (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Ok, let's check the history. Chaldean (talk · contribs) added it in August 2006 [6], and it was removed by Garzo (talk · contribs) [7]. Again it was added by Chaldean [8]. Again it was removed by Garzo [9] and later Chaldean once again, reverted Garzo's edit [10]. Since then there has been edit-wars going on back and forth. You yourself Taivo said in your edit summary "Assyrian is the wikipedia name for speakers of Christian Neo-Aramaic", [11], let's say that it was the case before, but it's not anymore. This has been discussed and consensus has been reached by non-partisan users at talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. The TriZ (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Taivo this user is spreading lies and there has been no consensus reached. This bigot has gone as far as labling the people who disagree with him as sock puppets, he is trying to eliminate all opposition that disagrees with his incompentent views. He is upset because they deleted his villages page so he is trying to spread his false views elsewhere, Oh by the way labling users sock puppet just to eliminate them from discussion is very childlish and immature, so I suggest you get off you high horse and look at reality, Assyrian is and will always be the dominant term whether you like it or not bigot. Ninevite (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion he (The TriZ) refers to over at the "people" page was hardly a balanced discussion and no consensus was actually reached. Two highly partisan editors simply drove off all the other participants and called them names. The TriZ has been warned on his talk page about abusive language on different occasions. He basically has a trash mouth. Garzo is an extremely competent and authoritative editor on the issue of Aramaic language and culture, but the opinionated The TriZ and his crew drove Garzo away. Of all the editors I have seen on these Aramaic pages, Garzo was the most educated and authoritative. I would take his word any day, but The TriZ seems to think that being loud and obnoxious makes him right. In addition, it seems clear that the most vociferous advocates are expatriates, who are usually the least knowledgeable, but the most vocal and "mean". I have tried to treat The TriZ courteously, but he has none of my respect as a knowledgeable editor. (Taivo (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Two higly partisan editors? Which are these may I ask? Have you even looked at the discussion? It is the opposite to what you say! I mean, I drove Garzo away? Are you kidding me? Not that Garzo has choosen side or anything, but it was the Assyrian "crew" who drove him off with Chaldean (talk · contribs) and EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) at the front. I mean Garzo stopped getting involved in the naming issue long time ago, before I even was active in Wikipedia, wake up man, Garzo was the one who stood up against the Assyrian nationalists and tried to keep their POV out of the articles! Garzo is absolutely the most competent in this matter, no doubt, and as I've shown, he himself removed what you have been re-adding! Have you even looked at the diffs I provided? The TriZ (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, I carefully examined Garzo's edits and comments and have yet to see a single place where he advocated Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac instead of just Assyrian. I looked at his talk page and have read his comments here. Perhaps I just don't see his exact words where he advocates Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. And from my reading of his comments he was driven away by the petty bickering among those who claimed different nationalistic priorities. He didn't say X party or Y party drove him away (as you imply), but the combination of nationalists on both sides of the various issues. It wasn't just naming. (Taivo (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Listen, I'm not going to say that I know Garzo or where he stands in this matter, but the impression I've got, is that Garzo is here to write in a enyclopedic manner and that he therefore couldn't accept all the propaganda the Assyrians have and still are spreading, it resulted in him being the target of several Assyrian fanatics, and he was called an "Assyrian hater" more than once, which is a normal method the Assyrian fraction uses, they call everyone that doesn't agree with them for "Assyrian haters". Just like they called docent Bengt Knutsson for an "Assyrian hater" according to Kenneth Nordgren, just beacuse they didn't like the result of his work. ([12] pp. 98) The TriZ (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bad mouth my work. I have good article and feature article status to show for my work, while since the day you've arrived here, you have not contributed not once positively. You get into these Assyrian revert wars and accomplish nothing. I've previously tried to reach to you and you've rejected to work with other parties involvoed. Regarding the issue, the de facto name of the group is still Assyrian since that is what the most common English name for the group is. This despite the Assyrian people page being moved constastly to different names by nationalist soldiers like you Triz. Iraqi (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the most common name is evidently not Assyrian, and I've never moved the article, it was Dbachmann (talk · contribs), and I'm guessing you will say his a nationalist soldier to. And I didn't said that all your work is bad. The TriZ (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

User:The TriZ, you are in danger of violating the 3RR. (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

So why do you write it here if I am? The TriZ (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a courtesy warning. (Taivo (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

First of all, you don't need to warn me of anything. Secondly, I have a talkpage where you can do this if you find it necesserary. The TriZ (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

changed

I changed "10,0000 native speakers" to "10,000 native speakers" since I assume this is what the author meant (ie took out the extra zero). If the author wants to go back and add the zero, please ensure the comma is in the right place :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.128.155 (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2004 (UTC)

NPOV!

'dirty turkish bastards' is obviously not NPOV...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.137.26 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2004 (UTC)

Obviously right. I reverted to an earlier version - the recent changes were to the worse of the article. Not only the obvious POV of a greek cyrus nationalist, also the addition about language of Jesus are at least bad formatted. As I have no real knowledge about this language I choosed the last version which look obviously good - but maybe I removed some valid information by that, so feel free to look into the history and re-add what I deleted if I remved too much. andy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahoerstemeier (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 March 2004 (UTC)

Biblical Aramaic/Hebrew -- how close?

Does anyone know any reliable sources discussing the extent to which a speaker of Biblical Aramaic (e.g., the Late Old Western Aramaic dialects spoken in Jesus' time) could understand Biblical Hebrew without specific study? Richwales (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that there have been discussions of this kind of thing. A reader of Late-Old/Middle Western Aramaic would be able to get the drift of Biblical Hebrew texts. The Hebrew definite-article prefix would be awkward, a few words have quite different meanings, and some would be completely unknown. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

lead

hm..the lead makes me want to erase the entire page. It sounds as a brochure for an evening course Aramaic. Mallerd (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a more constructive comment might be more useful. I notice that you removed the fact that the language has a 3,000-year history with an edit summary consisting of little more than another quip. I have now added a reference to earliest attestation. Please do write any useful suggestions. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the actual information, I do care a lot about the style it is presented in. Aramaic is a Semitic language with a 3,000-year history. Let's take a look at Persian (including Old Persian, attested from what 2500 years ago?) Persian (local names: فارسی, Farsi IPA: [fɒːrˈsi]; or پارسی, Parsi IPA: [pɒːrˈsi]; see Nomenclature), is an Iranian language within the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. It's just not that brochure type text this article is. Haven't even read the entire article because I hate to read it. On wiktionary, certain people always want people to translate biblical texts into Aramaic because that's Jesus' language. It seems to me that those same people have made edits to this article. Mallerd (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

source?

I removed the sentences "Arsacid Aramaic was the official language of the Parthian Empire (247 BCE–224 CE). It, more than any other post-Achaemenid dialect, continues the tradition of Darius I. Over time, however, it came under the influence of contemporary, spoken Aramaic, Georgian and Persian. After the conquest of the Parthians by the Persian-speaking Sassanids, Arsacid exerted considerable influence on the new official language."! Any reasonable outcome of a google.books search disagree with this.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A Google books search is not a reliable source. I don't think that deleting a paragraph with such a vague comment is justified. Please elaborate on what you mean. (Taivo (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

"Arsacid Aramaic was the official language of the Parthian Empire (247 BCE–224 CE)." this is wrong. I do not need RS for this. (if so, what about the first encyclopedia available? [13]).--Xashaiar (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you do need a reliable source that says "X was the official language of the Parthian Empire". You can't just come along and say, "Y is wrong". But you've got a reliable source now, so all is fine. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure that Brittannia's such a complete description. There is a problem about what is and isn't an official language. Parthian coinage has legends in Greek, Parthian and Aramaic (not all together). The brick inscription from Uruk (c. 200 BCE) is in Aramaic. Also in Arsacid Aramaic are Armenian boundary stones, 2500 ostraca from Nisa, relief inscriptions from Arebsun, Shimbar and Farasa (the latter with Greek), a sales receipt from Awroman, inscriptions from Armazi, Garni and Tang-i Sarvak, a silver dish from Sissian, stone inscriptions from Bard-e Neshande, a letter from Dura-Europos, and relief inscription from Susa. This inventory is listed in Beyer The Aramaic Language, 28 n. 27. I suggest putting the paragraph back, but changing the wording to say that 'Arsacid Aramaic was a major official language of the Arsacid Empire'. Also, why are we linking Arsacid Armenia specifically? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

NO the sentence "Arsacid Aramaic was a major official language of the Arsacid Empire" is meaningless. Official language is official language. We know for fact that Aramaic was used in far-western part of Parthian empire. Indeed most Iranian empires followed Achaemenid tradition. The cambridge history of Iran does not mention anything but Parthian language. Moreover "Arasacid Aramaic" requires original research to define. You can not pick up two words and link accordingly. (see also, armenian studies page 22 for Parthian language as "official language")Moreover please be careful in concluding: We know from Kaba-e Zartosht that Sassanid Iran had Greek inscription. I do not think that's a reason to put "Sassanid Greek was a major official language of the Sassanid Iran". According to EIr and the Cambridge history of Iran, Parthian was the language of the educated almost from Artaxiads era which started the "Iranism" and (cf. Encyclopaedia Iranica, entry on Arsacid, etc.). The religion of Arsacid empire was Zoroasterian and, (cf. Boyce's Zoroastrianism), hence the "official" language should have been (Middle-)Iranian. Regarding imperial coinage, we know that Parthian followed Achamenian (and the Seleucid). And the whole article is source-less.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know where you get the idea that 'official language is official language': we have no Arsacid pronouncements on any official language. Thus, we must state that an official language is one that is used for official purposes. As far as I can tell, the journal you linked to doesn't say anything about official languages. Perhaps that's more a problem with doing scholarship through Google Books rather than quoting real books. From Encyclopaedia Iranica's article on Aramaic we have the quote "...the Eastern Aramaic dialects developed in the western part of the Arsacid and Sasanian realms or in contested border regions between Iran and Rome. Ctesiphon, the Persian capital, was located in the heart of the territory inhabited by speakers of Eastern Aramaic." It is certainly true that Aramaic was widely used in Mesopotamia throughout the Arsacid period. It is also true that Parthian revived the Achaemenid use of the Aramaic script and was heavily dependent on the language for technical terms. Now, how would you reword the statement? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Which journal? what scholarship? What are you talking about? I quoted very real books. If you do not have them, that's not my problem. Check above once more. Parthian language is the only language that "can be" called official language of Parthian empire. Even En. Britannica states it officially. 2. The religion of Parthian was Zoroasterian and hence the language should have been middle Iranian. 3. In the cited materials I already provided from the cambridge history of Iran+E. Iranica I do not see any particular attention to Aramaic language as anything more than the language of people who already spoke that language, that is: far-western regions of the Arsacid empire. 4. On the imperial coinage there is "only a slight" appearance of Aramaic language. (cf. EIr) 5. The only sentence that can be made about Aramaic language in Arsacid era would in my opinion: "The traditional homeland of Aramaic language (Central and western Mesopotamia) in both Parthian and Roman empires continued to use Aramaic as their language."--Xashaiar (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had to make numerous searches of the article you linked to find the text you mentioned. Because of the limitations with Google Books (i.e. not showing the whole text to everyone), you should quote relevant text as well as linking. I'm not sure that religion is significant, after all Zoroastrianism has been practised by many people who do not speak an Iranian language over history. Are you able to read Parthian? The chancellery in Ctesiphon continued to use Aramaic, and Pahlavi texts contain a lot of Aramaic words. Because of this, I think you go too far by claiming that Aramaic is little more than a traditional language in part of the empire. The paragraph you removed was problematic, but its removal is also problematic: you have removed all reference to an important phase in the history of the Aramaic language. Quite a popular book on the subject is Josef Wiesehöfer, Azizeh Azodi Ancient Persia: p. 118ff. "Aramaic scribes continued exercising their activity as translators and 'editors', as they had done under the Achaemenids, but in many parts of the empire there soon appeared natives who were also conversant with Aramaic... At first the mother tongue was entirely recorded in Aramaic words, but in the course of time, more and more Iranian words were interspersed with it, and Aramaic forms were gradually reduced to conventionally used symbols, to 'heterograms'... The Parthian script used so many Aramaic words at the time that this alone reduces the attested vocabulary... Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Achaemenid empire, became the vernacular tongue under the Parthians. The lasting effect of this language is witnessed by numerous inscriptions throughout the empire as well as its use as a model for Middle Iranian writing systems and the writings of the Babylonian Jews and Mandaeans." — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are turning this into a WP:FORUM but I do not care. 1. The point about mentioning google was that the sentence "Arsacid Aramaic was the official language of the Parthian Empire (247 BCE–224 CE).." that looks so strange that I even do not need any reason for its deletion. 2. Religion is significant much more than coinage. Note of the time we are talking about: some 2000+ years ago! (for the third time cf. Boyce's Zoroastrianism, or Arsacid religion in EIr). 3. Middle Iranian had more influence on Aramaic than other way around. (cf. EIr entry by J.C. Greenfield) 3. The ultimate authority on Iranian related matters is The Cambridge history of Iran and EIr. They certainly do not consider Aramaic as "official language" in Arsacid empire. (actually they avoid "official language" completely as far as I see) 4. You say "after all Zoroastrianism has been practised by many people who do not speak an Iranian language over history". This is "not even wrong". Please let us have a serious discussion. 5. you say "Are you able to read Parthian?" so what? what is the point? why are you asking this? 6. the phrase from "the popular book" does not imply anything like "officialness of Aramaic in Arsacid empire" does it? and even if it did, we can not write our conclusion per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. 7. Aramaic continued to be used in Western Arsacid empire and Eastern Roman empire. This should be enough and implies that "certain communications/coinage/religious practices/... were in Aramaic" (maybe useful to look at WP:LTRD?) After all, the term "official language" is just not applicable to the ancient world (my opinion). 8. If Aramaic had any statue near "official" in Arsacid era, we would have heard of it by now.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am using this talk page to reach an agreement on the text of the article: that is exactly what it should be used for. You have been aggressive in your responses so far, and your throwing of Wikipedia jargon at me doesn't mitigate your tone. Re-read my replies to see that it is I who have been having the serious discussion all along, and it is I who has been quoting books rather than waving hands at them. It is not sufficient to say that entire encyclopaedias support your view without quoting from them. For instance, I have the Encyclopaedia Iranica here, and Greenfield's article on Aramaic language does not say that Middle Iranian had more influence on Aramaic. You now agree with my first statement that 'official language' is rather meaningless here, but still fail to see that the quotes I have laid out for you show that Aramaic holds an important place in the official usage of the Arsacid empire. The point about being able to read Pahlavi is you know how many Aramaic words there are in it, that its script is Aramaic. Being able to read Pahlavi, you would know that the writing comes out of an Aramaic scribal milieu. I also ask the question because I want to know how well you know your subject (as for me, my user page should tell you that I know my subject fairly well). In the last line of your reply you say 'statue', do you really mean 'statute' or 'status'? The point is Aramaic is all over the archaeological record of the Arsacid empire, as a language itself and as a scribal tradition behind Pahlavi. I would hope your next reply is constructive, rather than more lambast. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Greenfield's article mentions Iranian influence on Aramaic and does not mention anything like that in other direction. But this is not the dispute. 2. What are you talking about? Parthian is not Pahlavi. Pahlavi is, strictly speaking, even different from Middle persian. So are you sure you know what you are talking about? 3. I am a wikipedia user that's it. 4. So far, I have removed "total non-sense" from the article. Instead of saying thank you, you are asking to change "official language" to "a major official language"? No, I am sorry. 5. I have already shown sources saying "Parthian language was the official language of Parthian empire" and "Amaraic language was used in its homeland during the era considered". What more should I say? 6. Shapur the Great wrote inscription in Greek, and a very very important one, so does that make Greek "an official language"? 7. I have already made my suggestion. I will not agree with any "officialness of Aramaic" for the reasons explained above.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new paragraph on Arsacid Aramaic to the article. If you measure magnitude of influence by Greenfield's column inches, you get the impression the influence is all one way. However, this is more a case of focus. The article is particularly interested in how Aramaic has preserved Iranian vocabulary from various periods, offering one of the best witnesses to the languages. Pahlavi is the written medium of Middle Iranian languages, it clearly doesn't map to any particular Iranian language, as its admixture of Aramaic loans and etymological spelling give it a distinct identity. The problem with your edit was not that the text you removed was good, but that you removed text that should have been edited to clean it up. Effectively, you removed reference to an important variety of Aramaic because you saw mistakes in it. I pointed out from the outset that 'official language' is problematic. During the Arsacid period there would have been many Greek speakers in the west. Transition from Seleucid rule meant that Greek still had some use, and its use on coinage is significant. Shapur settled Antiochene captives in Gondishapur, who used Greek locally for centuries. All these empires were multilingual entities. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pahlavi is the written medium of Middle Iranian languages, it clearly doesn't map to any particular Iranian language, as its admixture of Aramaic loans and etymological spelling give it a distinct identity." wrong. You may wish to ask yourself why a language is called Iranian and not Semitic. --Xashaiar (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before constructing your next post. (Taivo (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

What is uncivil about that? I am just concerned about WP:SYNTH (which made me make an edit and cite what I dislike deeply, but you did not listen to my criticism.)--Xashaiar (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled by your comments about Pahlavi. Your comments are often cryptic, which is unhelpful. You said "You may wish to ask yourself why a language is called Iranian and not Semitic". I'm pretty sure about Pahlavi, but you tell me what you think about it. I find it uncivil that you quote me, say I'm wrong and give no justification for your judgment at all. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you see that uncivil. I did not intend. --Xashaiar (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Xaxhaiar, Garzo's rewrite doesn't use the term "official language" and doesn't imply such. There is no need for the irrelevant comment about Parthian as an "official language". It's already been shown that the concept of a legally-established "official language" was foreign in the ancient world. (Taivo (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Please do not removed sourced materials. The addition by the previous editor is in my opinion WP:SYNTH and does give a "one sided over estimated" statue to Aramaic language. Therefore, I inserted Britannica's sentence. Of course according to WP:POV we can remove this reference very easily once you show me a reference to a top scholar in studies of Parthian era whose opinion contradicts Britannica's account. So far, I am not able to find a reference to such scholars with contradicting account. Thank you.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is an article on Aramaic, not Parthian, therefore the emphasis on Aramaic is perfectly relevant and well-sourced. Your comment on Parthian is irrelevant to the issue of the role of Aramaic in this instance. Garzo's comment is not overstated and doesn't involve the issue of "official language", which, as has been commented already, is not a legal issue in the ancient world. Pushing the "Parthian is official" line any further is POV pushing and pointy. This article is about Aramaic, not Parthian. (Taivo (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

The article is about ARAMAIC true, but the section I am editing is about Arsacid. Do not remove (RS+V) sourced materials. Before I came here and removed those things which you indeed complained about, there were lots of "officialness", now that what I am adding makes you believe that no "offialness" is necessary?--Xashaiar (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "official" has been edited out, so your complaint is now moot. The status of Parthian is relevant to the article on Parthian, but this is the article on Aramaic and the statements concerning Aramaic are now more accurate than before. (Taivo (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

You have violated WP:3rr.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the paragraph was rewritten by Garzo, you haven't shifted your insistence on the "official language" wording. Garzo's rewording does away with the wording and the need for the Britannica quote. Why do you keep on inserting it? (Taivo (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Contradiction

the Aramaic variety by which Eastern Christianity was diffused, whether or not those communities once spoke it or another form of Aramaic as their vernacular, but have since shifted to another language as their primary community language.

Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups of the Middle East[5]—most numerously by the Assyrians in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic—that have all retained use of the once dominant lingua franca despite subsequent language shifts experienced throughout the Middle East.

Ehh, what the eyyff? The first paragraph, without any citations raises an unqualified skeptical attack on whether aramaic was spoken by Eastern Christians.

Then the next paragraph says that Assyrians have always retained it despite language shifts. Ok so whats the deal here? And why do we have such a ridiculous attack on the idea that Eastern Christians haven't always spoken aramaic? How can they have adopted a new language when Arabic is made more dominant? In fact the truth is that Aramaic is disapperaing, afterall its "endangered" as the intro suggests. Gabr-el 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if

this whole section ( Aramaic word processors) really belongs here? Some of the corporate links includedin it are pretty (opinion) marginal too. Carptrash (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1955

In 1955, Richard Frye questioned the classification of Imperial Aramaic as an 'official language'.

Really? As recently as in 1955? Why, this was practically yesterday, and we all know there has been no good scholarship since the Russian Revolution (I mean the Russian Revolution of 1905, of course). It is a much more urgent necessity for the reader of this article to know what the mainstream academic position on the status of Aramaic was in 1842.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

... noting that no surviving edict expressly and unambiguously accorded that status to any particular language.

That's a good point. It would have been highly untypical for an Ancient Near Eastern state not to leave an official legally binding document proclaiming the status of a language as official. For example, we all know there are countless surviving clay tablets from the Third Dynasty of Ur proclaiming explicitly: "Sumerian is the official language of the Third Dynasty of Ur".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BCE/BC AD/ACE

Our calendar starts at Jesus' birth. If you want to lie to people and say we date it from a 'common era', then just conclude that; 'common era' is another way of dating from Jesus' birth, so call it what it is. Otherwise you will confuse a lot of people who then discover "Oh, that was when Jesus was born? Why does academia want to hide this fact from us?" I don't know, why do you want to hide the truth from people about Jesus' time on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.195.182 (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic studies as a field tends to use BCE/CE. As such, it is that convention we use here and it is against Wikipedia guidelines to change it. It has as much to do with Jesus and Christianity as it has to do with the Talmud and Judaism, Darius I and Zoroastrianism, or King Ashoka and Buddhism (all of which are prominent Aramaic-language related entities). :-) So in short, don't mess with it. אמר Steve Caruso 13:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case some readers might not be familiar with the BCE/CE convention, I've wikilinked the first occurrence of "BCE" in the article's lede. Regarding the more general issue of using BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, you might want to see Common Era#Opposition, but please remember that any editing needs to respect WP:NPOV and other core Wikipedia policies. Richwales (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

History, periodization

For the division of the history of Aramaic into periods, the article follows Beyer, but a lot more publications follow that of Fitzmyer; these include Creason's article in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (2004), Kaufman's articles in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) and in Hetzron's Semitic Languages volume (1997), and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/). I can't find a recent major reference book that follows Beyer. Should it be changed?Linguistatlunch (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Hebrew" Gospel of Matthew

There is an Asia Minor tradition starting in the early second century (Papias-Irenaeus-Origen) apparently picked up by Jerome that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic). Jerome even claimed to have found the "original", but had to backtrack, since the work he found had nothing to do with the canonical Gospel. Thus there was perhaps some Aramaic work in Jerome's hands, which might be noted, but it is highly misleading to include Matthew in a mere list containing works such as Daniel and Ezra.

Even when the Catholic Encyclopedia article was written, the question of the original language of Matthew was debated, but no modern scholar of any repute makes any claim today of an Aramaic origin for the book.

The first link that came up in Google: http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm cites noted scholars from the first half of the 20th c. disputing the claim. To modern scholarship, the whole discussion is a mere footnote. --Janko (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of speakers

The page says ~500,000 speakers, but Semitic languages says 2.2 million. Neither seem to have citations. Are the figures perhaps using different definitions? roguekheldar (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds: Vowels

This section should be introduced with a statement of which Aramaic language is being described. There can't be one description that is valid for most Aramaic varieties, so it's reasonable to choose one to form the core of this section. Syriac is one natural choice, since it's so well documented and studied. However, the chart as it stands isn't correct for Syriac, and most of the content of the following paragraphs are simply basic general phonetics, not specific to Aramaic.

Furthermore, the statement that "As with most Semitic languages, Aramaic can be thought of as having three basic sets of vowels" is problematic. It's true that proto-Semitic had three vowels, each long and short. To whatever extent that's true of any particular Aramaic language, it's true either because it descended from Semitic, or because the roughly triangular shape of the vowel space is a consequence of the structure of human mouths and auditory perception -- in other words, many languages around the world have a triangular-shaped vowel inventory. Looking at Syriac, it isn't particularly true. Most /e/ vowels have no special relationship with /i/ or /a/, and the long low back and perhaps rounded vowel /ā/ (zqapa) ([ɑ:], [ɒ:], or maybe even [ɔ:]) is quite separate from /a/ in all varieties of Syriac. I'll consider substituting this with a more up-to-date and accurate (and referenced) description.Linguistatlunch (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew

did Aramic is the same language such as Hebrew ? , becouse it it the same 22 alphabetic letters. פארוק (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They have the same basis, which is the Phoenician alphabet. 75.14.223.204 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

also Assyrian . פארוק (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

in Israel

in israel only the Jews of Kurdistan are speaking Aramaic every day. the orthodocs jews pray in Aramaic and study the holy books in this language. פארוק (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not true, many Christian Maronites, and other 'Arab'(some fight this label) Christians within israel speak Aramaic see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JiyQVt4_TU

ISO Codes

It doesn't matter whether or not ISO codes are supported by Ethnologue or not. Ethnologue is not the authority or determinant for ISO authority. The ISO codes are administered by a separate organization within SIL and there are many, many codes for extinct languages that are not, and may never be, incorporated into Ethnologue. That doesn't diminish their ISO authority at all or make them somehow "poor stepchildren". --Taivo (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ISO codes

Does anyone have any idea what are the exact ISO codes for the Jewish kinds of Aramaic - Daniel & Ezra, Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem Talmud, Targumim, Zohar?

The language of Daniel & Ezra is probably arc. The Babylonian Talmud is probably tmr. But what about the Jerusalem Talmud, the Targumim and the Zohar?

Neither the current list in the article nor Ethnologue make it clear.

Thanks in advance for any help. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic [jpa]; Samaritan Aramaic [sam]; Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE) [tmr]; Official Aramaic (700-300 BCE) [arc]. The language of Daniel and Ezra is probably [arc]. The Jerusalem Talmud is [jpa]; the Babylonian Talmud is [tmr]. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks. It makes sense.

Any idea where would the language of the Zohar be categorized? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether the language is more Palestinian or Babylonian. (Taivo (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

That's the problem - i don't know. I only know the Biblical Aramaic well and much less the Aramaic of the Talmuds. The Aramaic of the Zohar seemed to me quite different from that of both Talmuds, but i'm not an expert. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The language of the Zohar is "unique" in that it is rather synthetic, drawing from several dialects in a way that a number of scholars have questioned whether or not it is a constructed dialect (as opposed to a natural one). As such, I'm not sure it would really fit under any of the ISO codes neatly. אמר Steve Caruso 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Gershom Shalom, who is probably the most respected scholar of the Kabbalah (though somewhat outdated), the Aramaic of the Zohar is an entirely artificial language that attempts to imitate the style of Talmudic Aramaic, but was in fact written by the 13th century Jewish mystic Moshe de Leon. Leon lived in Spain before the Expulsion, and his Aramaic is heavily influenced by Medieval Spanish and - one presumes - the Ladino dialect of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.120.93 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

misidentified

Aramaic is not a northwestern Semitic language. Dr. Cornelia Wunsch tells me that in the 21st century, the language spoken in Nebuchadnetsar's time and later is being called the Neo-Babylonian dialect of Akkadian. Akkadian is not a northwestern Semitic language, they broke off from it about 2000 BCE. Reach Wunsch and Pearce's book Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer and update your article, but for now, you can change the description of Aramaic. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

also see the following article https://www.academia.edu/4723117/Aspects_of_Aramaic_and_Babylonian_Linguistic_Interaction_in_First_Millennium_BC_Iraq 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems we're confusing two languages here: Akkadian (an east Semitic language) and Aramaic (a Northwest Semitic language). In Babylonian times, both languages were spoken alongside each other: (the Neo-Babylonian variety of) Akkadian as the official language of the empire, Aramaic as an inofficial lingua franca widely used in everyday life, brought along with the peoples who migrated or were deported there. Drabkikker (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Israelite Christian Aramaic

I see that someone has created a neologism for this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language#Israelite_Christian_Aramaic

"Israelite Christian Aramaic" is not a term used anywhere outside of Wikipedia. A simple Google search reveals that the only occurrences of this phrase are on this page and other pages that link to it. The universally accepted scholarly term for this dialect, in Israel as well as among non-Israeli scholars, is "Christian Palestinian Aramaic" or CPA.

I presume that the editor in question took it upon herself/himself to make this change due to the contemporary political connotations of the word "Palestinian," but in doing so s/he has actually created misinformation and reduced the utility of this page.Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"something which it has never been"

This was nonsense. Languages can only be related because of common ancestry, so if it "has never been" a single language then it can't be a "group of related languages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aramaic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419223729/http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/ to http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aramaic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002734/http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf to http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518214139/http://meti.byu.edu/Brock_Introduction.pdf to http://meti.byu.edu/Brock_Introduction.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Aramaic/ Hebrew

Is Aramaic and Hebrew different versions of the same language? In many countries of the world, apart from English-speaking ones (South Africa excepted), people can speak 2 or more languages, and move between them effortlessly, examples are China, Slavic countries, Holland, Belgian, etc. Is/was this the case with Aramaic and Hebrew speakers? And also, how closely related is Hebrew and Aramaic? 86.178.174.199 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How did Jesus and Pilate communicate, assuming the Biblical account to be true? In the Bible and in film versions, it always seemed that they talk to each other directly without an interpreter. 86.178.174.199 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew was a dialect of Canaanite. Aramaic was a separate branch of Semitic, though similar. Greek was quite widespread, with Greek inscriptions in the sanctus sanctorum of more than one temple, so perhaps they both spoke Greek, but if they didn't it wouldn't make much sense for the Bible to mention translators, since they wouldn't add anything to the narrative. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any bilingual or multilingual speakers of Semitic languages who can tell us how close or distant these languages are? Are they related like Spanish and Italian, are they mutually intelligible? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:3993:1B49:C617:944C (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

maps

A map or two would be useful for those of us who don't have time to look at this subject more than superficially. Thanks. Vince Calegon (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References to Jesus speaking Aramaic are spurious and should be removed

As we now know that Jesus is a fictional character created in Rome by Emperor Titus he could not have spoken anything let alone in Aramaic. The Christian Bible is written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. So, references to Jesus speaking Aramaic are spurious and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally consider Jesus a shadowy figure at best, and (at least) agnosticism on the question of the historicity of this figure an entirely reasonable and even warranted position (I find myself convinced by Richard Carrier's argument that the evidence typically adduced isn't compelling, at the very least, which he stresses is not even controversial in the relevant fields of expertise) – the relevant articles on RationalWiki go deeper into the definitional problems that make this issue additionally thorny and intricate (and debates about it frustrating – beware of straw-man arguments and other logical fallacies). However, I do not think that Titus Flavius had anything to do with it: Price and Carrier, no doubt the current Jesus mythicists with the most solid scholarly credentials, denounce Atwill's hypothesis along with mainstream scholar Ehrman.

Regardless of the historicity issue, Aramaic phrases are actually present in the New Testament, at least one of which is actually attributed to Jesus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Aramaic language → Aramaic – Like Latin, Arabic, Sanskrit. The language is the primary topic and the base name redirects here. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCLANG as an incontestable primary topic (and arguably, the only topic with the name). Still, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current title: it's not as awkward as for example Sanskrit language or Hebrew language would be. – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps somebody would nominate Hebrew language along the same lines? Debresser (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone will have the patience to approach Hebrew after this. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support clear primary topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:CONCISE and WP:NCLANG. JohnThorne (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

lang|aro

I've commented out a word in the infobox which was assigned lang|aro which is the language code for the Araona language of Bolivia and which I'm pretty sure is not what was meant! I'm not in a position to know what was intended though. Le Deluge (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Transcription Confusion

What do vowels with circumflexes signify in the transcriptions/romanisations shown in the Grammar section? I can't find any explanation for how the language is romanised, nor does Aramaic have an IPA page that could shed light on it. I'm somewhat assuming it's a convention carried from Hebrew romanisation, but I can't find any explanation there either. In studying the originals, it seems like a circumflex is used to show the omission a mater lectionis, except for in "אכתב eḵtûḇ"... But I'm speculating. 174.16.34.146 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, so having dug a bit through Hebrew Alphabet#Transliterations and transcriptions and Romanization of Hebrew and neither of them have anything to say on the matter. The only resource I've managed to find that uses circumflexes is this which does state that they're used how I had assumed. What transcription scheme is this a part of, and why isn't it used universally? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) doesn't use it, and it isn't used by anything else discussing transcriptions... 174.16.34.146 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Found Talk:Romanization of Hebrew#Source for transliteration which points to "SBL Transcription", and lo and behold the linked article (in French) has it all. Still not quite sure which variant of the system is being used here, I'm assuming one of the variants, given the usage of underlining for spirantisation. I don't want to make any edits due to that uncertainty, but it's definitely worth putting down somewhere. 174.16.34.146 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It might be a Syriac alphabet system, not Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geshem Bracha (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Aramaic in Israel

I'm sorry, something went wrong while commenting on my edit. I deleted your addition because the two articles you cite (apart from containing many errors) are about Syriac, which is an Eastern Aramaic language, not Western (which is what the section is about). So I'm going to delete it once more. Drabkikker (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drabkikker: The Jerusalem Post doesn't specify what branch of Aramaic the article is about. Haaretz names it both "Western dialect of Aramaic" and "Syriac," for some reason. Here's other sources saying the language in question is Western Modern Aramaic: Al-Monitor, La Stampa. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

True, the JPost article doesn't use the word "Syriac", but it follows from "The campaigners are all residents of the village of Jish and belong to the Maronite Church", seeing that the Maronite Church is known to use Syriac as its liturgical language, not Western Aramaic. As for the Haaretz article (I'm happy to see you left it out in your new edit), it mixes up two different West-East distinctions: that within the Aramaic language as a whole (the Western branch of which includes the Galilean dialect Jesus allegedly spoke, and the the Eastern branch of which includes Syriac), and that within Syriac itself. Also, the examples quoted in the article are unmistakably Syriac, not Western Aramaic. Drabkikker (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: The other two articles you cite make the same mistake of confusing Western/Eastern Aramaic with Western/Eastern Syriac. The latter is a subbranch of the former: see, for example, this image. Drabkikker (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just want to thank everyone contributing to this fascinating article . F. L. (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Display of Aramaic in the article. Font missing?

The article displays Aramaic within it, but in my browser, it's just boxes, with no lettering. It would seem it requires a special font that may not be included in all browsers or OSes.

Should some mention of official sites for these fonts be made? (for MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc.)

Where does one get the missing font, officially? (See my follow-up comment.)

Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I found this, Google distributing fonts, ones that can work with Chrome, I presume: https://www.google.com/get/noto/ HOWEVER, after installing everything by searching for the word Aramaic, and restarting, it still did not display all fonts here in this article or in another article. :( Misty MH (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: Still not working after installing fonts mentioned just above. Misty MH (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Humm, that's odd. Is it all the characters that aren't showing? The first sentence of the article uses characters from several scripts: Latin (e.g. »Aramaic«), Old Aramaic/Phoenician (e.g. »𐤀𐤓𐤌𐤉𐤀«), Imperial Aramaic (e.g. »𐡀𐡓𐡌𐡉𐡀«), square script/Hebrew (e.g. »אַרָמָיָא«), and Syriac (e.g. »ܐܪܡܝܐ«). Do some of these display, or are they all just boxes? And which OS and which version of it do you use? Is it the same if you try with another browser? —Pinnerup (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section

This article was tagged as having a lead section that was too long. As suggested, I have moved some material from it into the body of the article. I believe the section is inclusive of all essential details but would be good for someone to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNEA8638 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite vowel section

The current vowels section is written very confusingly, and doesn't seem to be accurate (for example, lots of instances, perhaps most, of [ɛ] in aramaic go back to [i]; lots of instances of [u] are also short even in syriac times, and go back to short vowels). Aramaic can't really be thought of as having three classes of vowels, and neither can tiberian hebrew for that matter - both essentially have a qualitative 7-vowel system. It would be helpful if anyone could wholly rewrite the section. ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)