medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Previously Henk 't Jong wrote:
> > Yes I should have written the syllable as zar not ar.
> Come again?
Thinking about it I surely misunderstood V Kerry Inman's
reference, which was not to ar or zar but to the last syllable
of Azariyah, i.e. if Azari in Azariah forms one component
then the remainder -ah is a problem, but this is resolved if
the i, the yod, is understood as the poor remnant of an
original yod with dagesh forte, for then we have Azari + yah.
Rochelle's etymology requires the original yod to have a
dagesh forte no ?
Previously V Kerry Inman wrote:
>> While the Hebrew transcriptions do not mark a yod as doubled, in Arabic
it is always, when marked, marked double. Interestingly we also pronounce
the "i" as syllabic in English. <<
An Arabic translation of Tobit would prove useful
then, if you mean the ya in Arabic, when doubled,
always shows shadda even if there is no other pointing.
I think you must mean though that any letter which
can be doubled (which are all letters in Arabic - see
Wright's Arabic Grammar, pt 1, par 11, remark c) when
it is doubled shows shadda. Wright says however that
shadda is sometimes not written and irregularly written
in poetry (see index sub tashdid, p 449, col 2). Although
I don't find it expressly stated in Wright the implication
would seem to be that in prose shadda is regularly - but
not always (I find a counter example below) - written over
doubled letters in Arabic, as V Kerry Inman says. Looking
in Hans Wehr's Dictionary for an Arabic name `azariyah or
`adhariyah I found nothing but I did find, p 600, col 1, bottom,
an Arabic sentence the last word of which is transliterated
tatawwur (second t is tet, i.e. should have an underdot in trans-
literation) but is written in unpointed Arabic without shadda
over the waw.
Mata
- -
Mata Kimasitayo
Kimasita~aT~Bloomington~In~Us
_________________________________
"Wer sich selber nicht glaubt, lügt immer."
-- Nietzsche- Also sprach Zarathustra
2. Teil; Von der unbefleckten Erkenntnis
_________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Henk 't Jong
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [M-R] RE RE V. Kerry Inman's remarks & appendix (etymology of
Azariah)
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
If I understand you you are saying the yod should
be pointed with dagesh and that "Azariah" should
be better written Azariyah. Yes that could be
too. But this name, Azariah, is not pointed with
dagesh forte in the attestations of this name in
the Tanakh or the Talmud - the only sources I've
found for the Semitic form of this name. From
the Greek, Latin & English transliterations what
you say could be implied, although not inferred.
That is without the pointings of the attested
forms of this name the unpointed form of it
admits: Azarah, Azaryah, & Azariyah.
If we bar the extant attestations of this name
then we can view the yod as pointed with dagest
forte so that it should be read, as you say, as
i-y. I don't know if there is an argument against
this (besides the fact that no one takes it this
way, that is points it this way).
>> You need to see the yod as both consonantal and vocalic--this is to say
syllabic. It is pronounced as "i-y." Because: you cannot begin a Semitic
syllable with a vowel. <<
Yes I should have written the syllable as zar not ar.
Come again?
Henk
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|