Talk:Samaritan Hebrew language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] Impression
Samaritan language is original ancient Hebrew! You give another impression in this article. Strange! Should nobody know that actual Hebrew Bible is not a original version?! Should we let the people of the world believe that this rabbinic version (arranged with babilonian's letters by Esra) is the right version? No. You are obliged to make clearely that the actual Hebrew version of Torah (+Tenach) is a traduction version (from Aramenian). Nobody has right to teach the lies! unsigned comment by anon user 84.226.114.95
- Wow, where to begin. How bout if I just say that there is not a shred of evidence for what you are saying. The fact that Aramaic language usages occur in the Tanakh is no evidence that it was translated from Aramaic. Aramaic was the lingua franca in the Levant as early as the 800s BCE. In fact both the Hebrew language that developed among Jews and Samaritan Hebrew were living languages that developed over centuries, and both incorporated Aramaic and other usages from cultures with whom they had contact. --Briangotts (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- In any case, the article suddenly switches in midstream. The descriptive part relates to Samaritan Hebrew, as used in the Samaritan text of the Torah. This is basically similar to Biblical Hebrew, apart from script and pronunciation. A Samaritan would indeed say that this is the original Hebrew.
-
- On the other hand, the sample given is Samaritan Aramaic, sometimes called just "Samaritan", which is an entirely different language, used for the Samaritan translation of the Torah (equivalent to the Jewish Targums) and in their religious texts equivalent to rabbinic literature. This, as the article says, is fairly similar to the Aramaic of Targum Onkelos. No one ever claimed that Samaritan Aramaic is the original language of the scriptures. The part with the sample should therefore be hived off into a separate article on Samaritan Aramaic, and another sample found to illustrate the actual Samaritan Pentateuch. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Now done! (except for finding the sample) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Grammar
Surely the grammar section should be renamed "parts of speech"? It in no way addresses the grammatical rules of the language. Ataru 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jewish language?
I don't think it's accurate to call Samaritan Hebrew a Jewish language. In fact, since there is SAMARITAN hebrew, i don't think it's accurate to call Hebrew as a whole a Jewish language. I think it would probably be more accurate to say that most DIALECTS of Hebrew are Jewish. Gringo300 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strictly that is right: Jews and Samaritans are two branches of the Israelite people and religion. However, to have a category "Israelite languages" would be very awkward, and linguistically the two Samaritan languages are very close to the strictly Jewish ones; though not Jewish languages, they are languages of Jewish interest. To cut them out of the category would mean that they were not linked to from anywhere (or else drowned in a sea of Semitic languages including Arabic, Ethiopic, Assyrian and all the rest). So I would recommend leaving things as they are for the sake of accessibility, even if it is not quite accurate. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
