On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:03:11 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:58:14 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> Maybe in Palestinian Aramaic of NT times(? But I don't know. what's
> your source?) But not in Talmudic Aramaic. It's still -u-. See for
> example, Kiddushin, 66a ( http://images.e-daf.com/DafImg.asp?ID=2758&size=3
> ) in the middle column, middle of the line that's one line below where it
> says "Mai" in big letters on the left column.
zoi zoi. prucim .zoi xebro sordaivla .ije lo drata valsi bene'i le vlali'i cu
xebro .iku'i lo drata vlali'i cu vasru lo .armaio valsi
I have the Aramaic English New Testament
oise'i u'i seja'e lonu mi tcidu di'u kei mi pu ze'isai jinvi lo du'u do ralte lo jetnu krasi fukpi be la'o gy New Testament gy noi lo se ctuca be la'oi ישוע pu ciska ke'a
, which is the 1905 Peshitta cross-
edited with the Khabouris Codex; footnotes indicate where the texts differ.
It's in square script, but the nequdot look like they were transliterated from
Syriac script. There are no schwas, and /o/ and /u/ are written as qamats waw
and qubuts waw instead of cholam and shuruq.
> > mi tatpi lo nu zukti so'ida .i le ckana bene'i le bu'uzda cu denpa tu'a mi
>
> xu do skudji zo zukte
go'i .i mi pu tatpi
mu'omi'e .pier.
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci