| | | Document Type | : | Latin Dissertation | | Language of Document | : | English | | Record Number | : | 52962 | | Doc. No | : | TL22916 | | Call number | : | 3361330 | | Main Entry | : | Mark Robert Meyer | | Title & Author | : | A comparative dialectical study of genitive constructions in Aramaic translations of ExodusMark Robert Meyer | | College | : | The Catholic University of America | | Date | : | 2009 | | Degree | : | Ph.D. | | student score | : | 2009 | | Page No | : | 414 | | Abstract | : | Aramaic offers some of the richest sources of dialectal variation within the Semitic language family. Yet comparative dialectal studies in Aramaic syntax are virtually non-existent. The purpose of this dissertation is to exploit the fact of multiple Aramaic translations of the biblical book of Exodus to explore the similarities and differences between five Aramaic dialects in the use of genitive constructions. (1) Targum Onqelos (TO). (2) The Syriac Peshitta (P). (3) Three corpora of the Palestinian Targum (Cairo Geniza fragments, Targum Neofiti I [TN], and the Fragment Targums). (4) The Samaritan Targum (Sam J and A). (5) Newly published fragments of a Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) translation of Exodus. There are three primary Aramaic genitive constructions that translate the construct phrase in Hebrew: the construct phrase, the genitive adjunct phrase with d- , and the genitive phrase with d- anticipated by a possessive suffix on the head noun (cataphoric construction). One important finding is that all the Aramaic dialects, except Samaritan Aramaic, use the adjunct genitive construction when the second member denotes the material composition of the first member. There are different approaches when the divine name is the second member. TO always uses the adjunct genitive while TN uses both the adjunct genitive construction and the cataphoric genitive construction. P, on the other hand, always uses the cataphoric genitive construction when 'the Lord' is used as a second member, as does CPA. Table one shows the distribution of types of genitive construction across Jewish literary Aramaic (represented to TO), Eastern Aramaic (represented by P), Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (represented by TN), Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and Samaritan Aramaic.* It appears that the later the writing, the larger the percentage of adjunct genitive constructions and cataphoric genitive constructions. Regarding geography, since P has the lowest percentage of construct genitive constructions (with the exception of CPA which appears to have been translated from the LXX), there may be a tendency to use more adjunct genitive constructions and cataphoric genitive constructions in Eastern Aramaic than in Western Aramaic. *Please refer to dissertation for diagram. | | Subject | : | Philosophy, religion and theology; Language, literature and linguistics; Hebrew; Genitive constructions; Aramaic; Exodux (book of); Comparative dialectical study; Aramaic syntax; Ancient languages; Middle Eastern literature; Biblical studies; 0321:Biblical studies; 0289:Ancient languages; 0315:Middle Eastern literature | | Added Entry | : | E. M. Cook | | Added Entry | : | The Catholic University of America |
| | | | | |
| | |  |
http://lib.clisel.com/site/catalogue/52962
| | | |
| | | |
|