Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT my only reply (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically) & Re: OT, and religeous)

From:Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
Date:Friday, December 3, 2004, 8:37
On Dec 3, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 12:10 , Steg Belsky wrote: >> I don't know about Muslims' relation to translation, but Jews have had >> translations of the Tanakh - from Unqelos/Onkelos's and Yonatan ben >> `Uziel's Aramaic translations (c.100-400? CE), and R' Sa`adya Gaon's >> Arabic (c.900 CE), to medieval Judeo-Arabic, -German (Yiddish) and >> -Spanish (Ladino), to the contemporary JPS translations into English.
> Indeed so - and the Septuagint, a translation of the scriptures the > made > by the Jews of Alexandria in the 3rd BCE.
Ooops, forgot that one ;) . Oh wait, i mean, no, i didn't forget it, i just thought it was so obvious it didn't need mentioning! Yeah, that's it... :P
> Also I was under the impression that the original Jewish scriptures > were > not all the same language either. Many of them are in Hebrew obviously, > but are not some of the scriptures, such Daniel, in Aramaic?
Yup, that's why i wrote "language(s)" later on in my post. Much of Daniel is in Aramaic, as are a few words and phrases scattered in the rest of the Tanakh, as well as sections of Ezra-Nehemia. What's cool about Daniel (besides the fact that it's just so *weird* in general) is that it switches from Hebrew to Aramaic in the middle of a narrative, in Daniel 2:4 - "And so the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic...", after which point the rest of the book up until the end of chapter 7, are all in Aramaic - long after the Chaldeans' Aramaic statement to the king has been long finished. -Stephen (Steg) "verbing weirds language" ~ calvin (& hobbes)