[Avodah] Aramaic Pronunciation

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:34:39PM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Pursuant to a topic mentioned by Rabbi Reisman in the Navi shiur a few
: weeks ago, does anyone have a source for whether general Hebrew rules
: of dikduk are followed in Aramaic, WRT mil'el, milra, sheva na/nach, etc.?

I don't think it is likely that Babylonian Aramaic and that of EY had
the same rules to that level of detail.

In EY initial vowels often fell off. OTOH, in Bavel, final vowels often
dropped. That's how the amorah we know from the Bavli as Rav Avin is
called in the Y-mi "Rabbi Bun". That hints at (although doesn't prove)
a tendency toward milra in EY, and mil'el in Bavel.

We use the system of niqud invented in Tiveriah. The niqud system in
Bavel is different -- eg what we call patach and segol are the same
vowel. There are times Rashi refers to the segol as a patach qatan, I
assume that's part of the same mesorah. Yemenites still have texts in
Aramaic with Babylonian niqud. We think of as regional differences in
how various vowels are prounounced. However, before vowels were marked
in the text, those were regional differences in how we grouped vowel
sounds into vowels.

BTW, niqud bavli had 6 symbols, and would work quite well for the accent
of contemporary Syrian Jews. See
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99
or http://bit.ly/8YpPHX . To round things out, here is EY's niqud
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99
or http://bit.ly/dcMFDM . Interestingly, they had a sheva na, but sheva
nach simply was a lack of vowel. So this difference in vowel set could
very well touch on your sheva na question.

And now you're asking about whether those same vowels map one-to-one
in a different language, not just a different region.

Also, I'm not sure if we should care overly much. Lashon haQodesh is
itself part of Torah. Thus, getting it right is as important as Talmud
Torah. Things written in Aramaic were done so to be generally available
to the masses. (Except perhaps Qaddish, given the aggadita about being
in Aramaic to be hidden from the mal'akhim. However, see Tosafos,
Berakhos 4a "ve'onin".)

RYBS said on a number of occasions that we do not say Qaddish in
our country's la'az simply because we lack the ability to produce a
translation that captures all its nuances. I could say the same of
Talmudic jargon. But it's not really inherently holy or Torah.

When using Aramaic, knowing the word is "meichamas" made the light-bulb
turn on as to why it is used for "because of". The mashal is of B being
true "from the heat of" the truth of A. But if the whole point of Aramaic
is to be using the common tongue and be understood by others studying
the topc, shouldn't I actually say "machmas" as is now common?


FWIW, ArtScroll assumes the laws of sheva developed by analyzing Hebrew
sheva usage applies to Qaddish, Yequm Purqan, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
micha at aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org   	     - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507