Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Aramaic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAramaic is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 18, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 26, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 28, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 3, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Aramaic is ONE language

[edit]

Hello,

I find it weird that Aramaic is called Aramaic languages. It is globally known as one language and most sources confirm this. I would like to prefer to change the introduction and short summary. Beside that Syriac became synonymous to Aramaic. Not only the Syriac dialect (the Aramaic dialect of Edessa) which is also called Edessan Aramaic is called Syriac. The Western Aramaic dialect of Maaloula is called Suryon in Aramaic itself, meaning Syriac.

Arabic is also a language with different dialects but at the end it is still one language. Same counts for Aramaic.


https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-History-First-World-Language/dp/0802877486 https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Aramaic-Syriac-Language-Arabic/dp/1593330316 https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/journals/hug/5/1/article-p63.pdf Syriac563 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could read the provided references in the introduction. They make it very clear, that’s not the current state of the linguistic discussion. S.K. (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian magazine mentions in reference to the Library of Alexandria:

“the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek for the first time, making it accessible to foreigners, as well as Judeans who spoke Greek and Aramaic rather than Hebrew.”[1]

‘Aramaic’ in the quote from the article hyperlinks to the Aramaic page on Omniglot which states

“Aramaic is a Semitic language which was the lingua franca of much of the Near East from about 7th century BC until the 7th century AD, when it was largely replaced by Arabic. Classical or Imperial Aramaic was the main language of the Persian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires and spread as far as Greece and the Indus valley.

After Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, Aramaic ceased to be the official language of any major state, though continued to be spoken widely. It was during this period that Aramaic split into western and eastern dialects.

Today Biblical Aramaic, Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects and the Aramaic language of the Talmud are written in the Hebrew alphabet, while the Syriac alphabet is used to write Syriac and Christian Neo-Aramaic dialects, and the Mandaic alphabet is used for Mandaic.”[2]

Based on these descriptions Aramaic sounds like it could be a pluricentric language with approximately 6 dialects and 3 scripts.

Regarding mutual intelligibility, there is mention on this page’s article already that many of the dialects are not mutually intelligible. 

IceCuba (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been a pluricentric language at one point in time, but Glottolog classifies the whole set of varieties as follows:
Reference for the classification given is: Huehnergard, John; Rubin, Aaron D. (2011). "Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages". In Weninger, Stefan (ed.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 259–278. ISBN 978-3-11-018613-0.. And in the introduction there’s the reference to Gzella, Holger (2021). Aramaic. A History of the First World Language. p. 4—5. ISBN 9780802877482. The overarching concept of Aramaic, strictly a historical-linguistic abstraction, is made more concrete by various terms for the various Aramaic languages (or dialects, where we are mainly dealing with regional vernaculars without a written tradition; the neutral term variety includes both categories). So, in sum it’s seen as a language family containing more than dialects. S.K. (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you are an Assyrian nationalist trying to change history and pages in favor of the so called Assyrian identity (which is very important to mention).
What S.K. is doing here is called Cherry picking. Cherry picking is nitpicking from a tiny minority of sources that claim Aramaic not being one language. In the same way the Arameans page is totally written from an Assyrian nationalist POV they try to change the Aramaic language and Syriac language page totally too.
Aramaic is one language with various dialects. Ofcourse a language with a history of 3200 years has different dialects. The Arameans never unified their country nor their language beside the little kingdom of Osroene. Mainly because of their reason the Aramaic language never became standardized into one specific dialect. The most common used name for the language is Aramaic.
The only humans on earth miscalling Aramaic for something else are the Assyrian nationalists. They try to change history in favor of their Assyrian agenda. They also miscall the Aramaic language for Assyrian.
Arabic has different dialects and is considered one language. Moroccan Arabic and Iraqi Arabic are not mutually intelligible either. In example: American English, Scottish English and New Zealand English are all one language called English. Syriac563 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the proposal for renaming the article to Aramaic languages was rejected and as most users here clearly oppose the new proposed treatment of Aramaic as a language family and not as a language, I have just reverted the lead back to the long-standing, consensual form. Dan Palraz (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aramaic is one language and globally known as one language. Syriac563 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the author of the failed motion tried to revert my edit. Only such user wants to change the whole article from treating Aramaic as one language to treating it as many languages, and clearly such user didn't get consensus nor a majority of people in support of such proposal, so the article should naturally be restored to its longstanding form. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Palraz: You should read the sources AND the whole discussion. The result was not to move but even those opposing made the following comment: Oppose per AjaxSmack, and per the fact that 'Aramaic' is very commonly used to refer to any of its variants. It would help though if the lead would sooner and more clearly specify that it's also a language family. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC). That’s what the lead section does and what was reaffirmed by multiple other editors afterwards by reverting the changes by Syriac563 and his related IPs. If you don’t provide reliable sources I‘ll revert your edit again. S.K. (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also the section Aramaic#Aramaic languages and dialects which existed long before I made the proposal to move. So better get reliable sources. S.K. (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you simply create a page about the Aramaic languages family? Per definition, there is no clear-cut definition of what a language is and what's a dialect; it is a disputable decision to treat Arabic as a language, the same way that it is to refer to Latin as a single language, etc., and yet that is how Wikipedia treats them, and almost everyone here above wants to have an article on Aramaic as a language, the same way as Arabic. Latin etc. do. It doesn't prevent you from creating a "Aramaic languages" article on the languages family. I would even be willing to help you with that. Best regards! Dan Palraz (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not advisable. This would produce a textbook case of a WP:POV fork, unless "Aramaic" and "Aramaic languages" had significantly different scopes beyond the moot question of "one language vs. many languages". –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am highly against calling Aramaic for Aramaic languages or family. The language family of Aramaic is 'Semitic languages' . It is not language family itself! Syriac563 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Very unnecessary to split a language because of political agendas (definitely an Assyrian POV to strengthen so called Assyrian identity). The language is Aramaic. It is known as Aramaic and most people in the world know this language only as Aramaic. Only Assyrian nationalists (Assyrianists) miscall this language. Syriac563 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should stop to politicize this issue when multiple academic sources by people who do not have axe to grind characterize modern Aramaic varieties as a cluster of closely related languages based on criteria of linguistic distance. When you insinuate that citing this scholarly view is an "Assyrian POV", it is not very helpful in this discussion and violates our principle of assuming good faith. Insistence on either POV (Aramaic as one language vs. multiple Aramaic languages) is eventually fueled by extra-linguistic considerations, each of which are legitimate in their own right and deserve to respected. Language is a major token of group identity, and where definitions of group identities collide, WP obviously doesn't take sides.
Note that User:S.K. (a long-time editor in good standing) has been blocked for what is apparently considered "not dropping the stick". I strongly urge you to do exactly that: please drop the stick. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Magazine, Smithsonian; Lawler, Andrew (2022-11-15). "Is Judaism a Younger Religion Than Previously Thought?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2022-11-20.
  2. ^ "Aramaic language and alphabet". omniglot.com. 2022-11-20. Retrieved 2022-11-20.

Amaraic

[edit]

I can speak amaraic 2604:25C0:E06:6601:652C:CD8D:4293:A240 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know how to write those letters in classical Syriac and old Aramaic.

[edit]

I really want to type the language out but don't know where to get the necessary keyboards. 92.40.214.171 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Aramaic - Aramaic language

[edit]

I think this page should be renamed back to Aramaic language. Aramaic is one language with different dialected and variants. 62.225.227.235 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing implies that Aramaic is not one language, even if this very question is debated. Aramaic is in good company of other languages not needing the natural disambguator "language": "Latin is a ... language", "Mandarin Chinese is a ... language", "Arabic is a ... language", "Sanskrit is a ... language", "Urdu is a ... language" etc. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo deletes sourced information

[edit]

@Shmayo

May I ask why you delete sourced information after the edits of IP: 5.147.130.106?

Why did you delete the Aramean name from the following part of the article?

Aramaic served as a language of public life and administration of ancient kingdoms and empires, and also as a language of divine worship and religious study. Several modern varieties, the Neo-Aramaic languages, are still spoken by the Assyrians, Arameans (Syriacs) of the Qalamoun mountains, Mandeans and Mizrahi Jews 217.213.72.23 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmayo Could you please give an explanation? 188.148.249.218 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
188.148.249.218, the term "Aramean" is used to describe a historical people group. If we want to talk about present-day speakers, it would be clearer to call them "Syriacs". Remsense留 14:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources (that were not readded in the IP reverts) were mostly not WP:RS nor cited correctly (nor were they English, thus translated by anon user). What is referred to with Neo-Aramaic speakers in Qalamoun Mountains are the speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic (where the same anon user added the same thing). I don't think it's necessary/right to label the inhabitants of these tree villages as Arameans nor Syriacs. The ones that are not Muslims are not even Syriac Christians. Reverting. Shmayo (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn’t it be allowed by you? In Western Neo-Aramaic (in their own language) they identify both as Syriacs or Arameans (Sūray). In Arabic they also identify either as Arameans or Syriacs (Siryaniye). The Syriac Christians are for sure Arameans/Syriacs as the sources confirmed. 2003:DF:FF1A:F2C7:5CEB:31D8:CD9A:1094 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer 2003:DF:FF1A:F22F:195F:CE3E:3243:975E (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the question, what do you mean with allowed by you? On sources, see my post above. Shmayo (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people of Maaloula, Jubb’adin and Bakha self-identify as Syriacs/Arameans (Sūray). Süray means Syriac(s). In their native western Neo-Aramaic language they cal their mother tongue ‘Suryon’. This word translated into English is Syriac too (as mentioned on the Western Neo-Aramaic page)
I will add ‘Arameans’ as speakers to the page and source it. Sounds strange that Arameans aren’t mentioned on the page as speakers. 62.225.233.45 (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maaloula and Jubb'adin are listed. The rest is your own conclusions and translations. Shmayo (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I will source it. Here: Anas Abou-Ismail. 1. Western Neo-Aramaic. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 2. ISBN 9781527550469. Jubaadinis are very proud of their language and their Aramean identity and they have no trouble at all balancing their religious and ethnic identities. 2. Anas Abou-Ismail. The Semitic Heritage of Northwest Syria. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781527517578. Arameans fled Maaloula, the influence of Christian liturgy on the Maaloula dialect will likely increase. 3. Rahim Arnold. "About us". friendsofmaaloula. Hilfe für das Aramäerdorf Maaloula e. V. Retrieved 16 January 2024. It is our heartfelt wish to contribute to the livelihood of the Aramaeans of Maaloula as long as they still live as refugees in Damascus. 2003:DF:FF4C:43C6:53D:D1B1:E000:ADCE (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced now. Please don't delete. 62.225.233.45 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is nephrologist Anas Abou-Ismail's book a good source on this? The article you keep adding is, just as Remsense pointed out above, is about the ancient group of tribes referred to as Arameans, are you aware of this? While the other one being added is on modern Aramean identity of some Syriac Christians, which people referred to here are not. Shmayo (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources were published in English by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The author is Anas Abou-Ismail with parts of his family born and raised in Jubbadin. The web link is also reliable, with one of its chairmans being the well-known Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold specialized in Western Neo-Aramaic as shown on the website. Wikipedia does not prohibit quoting from foreign languages. Since this is an absolute niche topic, it's difficult to find sources in English and one is more likely to find them in Arabic. Here is an Arabic interview with residents of Jubbadin, which corroborates the Arabic sources: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=zo9J-PmeqIM
From 18:50min, she says "Ana Suryaniti“ (I am Syriac)
From 19:10min, this woman explains that when she says she is Syriac (Suryani), the first question people ask is if she is Chaldean. When she replies that she is not, but Syriac, they then assume she must be connected to Christianity. She clarifies that she has nothing to do with Christianity; she is Muslim, but Syriac.
In the interview, both Aramaic and Syriac terms are used interchangeably. Of course, this doesn't fit into the ideological worldview of some users. User Shmayo has been patrolling all Wikipedia articles related to Arameans, Aramaic, Syriac, Assyrians, etc. for more than 10 years, aggressively shaping the content according to his own ideological perspective by cherry-picking sources that match his worldview and removing even flawless sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. He was involved in countless edit-warrings.
"But "Aramean" was never a self-designation." This misquoted and misleading sentence was added by Shmayo in the "Arameans" article to demonstrate his/her biased editing. However, if you delve deeper into the so-called sources, they actually refer to the pre-Christian period during the rule of the Assyrians when the Arameans were organized in tribal groups and tribal names were used instead. Shmayo didn’t even pay attention to what Helene Sader wrote on page 15:"It is interesting to note in this context that later Aramaean dynasts never refer to themselves as Aramaeans or to their country as Aram, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE KING OF ARAM-DAMASCUS SINCE HIS KINGDOM WAS ALSO CALLED ARAM.". Aren’t Western Neo-Aramaic speakers located near Damascus? The term "Aramean" was indeed a self-designation, even if only for Aram or Aram-Damascus at the time. The claim that it was never used, as he/she asserts, is therefore false. This sentence was completely taken out of context. And what about the time afterward? Ethnogenesis? It's curious why user Shmayo left this out. One of his/her sources was written by Herbert Niehr, a Roman Catholic theologian, if he/she starts discrediting authors based on their profession. How is that a good source then?2A02:3038:20A:D403:5DB5:B4B0:BB68:AA2B (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the videos, I will watch them. Please stay at the subject. I agree, seems like he is deleting constantly (sourced) information about anything related to Arameans. 62.225.233.45 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched the videos. In the interview they indeed explain that they are Muslim Syriacs (Arameans). Thank you! 62.225.233.45 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@shmayo Who is Remsense? Anas Abou-Ismail is a reliable source with a book in English. He wrote a dictionary about the Western Neo-Aramaic of Jubaadin. Not all Arameans follow Syriac Christianity. Many Arameans in western Syria are Melkites who belong to the Rum Orthodox church (Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) or Melkite Catholic Church. Maaloula is an example of Arameans who follow the Rum Orthodox or Catholic church. 2003:DF:FF4C:43C6:B5AD:31BA:F17A:4D18 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed one point. I didn’t link it to the Arameans page but to the page ’Terms for Syriac Christians’, where there is a section about the Aramean identity. 62.225.233.45 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Shmayo Melkites (Rum) (Greek Orthodox and Catholic Christians) are described in the page ‘terms for Syriac Christians’. They are even called Syriac Melkites in the page! 62.225.233.45 (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please leave such accusation out, it will not benefit you in any way. It sure is a narrow topic, but that does not justify anecdotal information to be used as a source here, nor any equal to self-published ones. I do think it is wrong to link to "Arameans" or "Terms for Syriac Christians" in this Wikipedia article when referring to these approx. 5000 (?) speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic. Further, I do think that the article "Maaloula" does a good job in explaining that they have been withstanding Arabization. As for Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, which the Christian part belong to here, these churches follow the Byzantine Rite, not the Syriac rite, whether they are listed there in a Wikipedia article or not. A point for improvement. Also, since I assume you are new here, I suggest starting here. Shmayo (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange answer. As I explained above here that there are (many) Arameans who follow the Byzantine rite. As the women in the videos explain and the sources confirmed, there are also Aramean muslims. Several sources range and estimate 15.000 or 20.000 Western Neo-Aramaic speakers. Mandeans are also mentioned in this article while Neo-Mandaic has according the Neo-Mandaic article 100-200 (?) speakers. May I ask why you show resistance when it comes to adding the Aramean name (?) 2003:DF:FF4C:43E9:240C:5DE1:569B:D05F (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with Mandeans is irrelevant, which of these results do not refer to the same Mandean group? Whether you and me think that "Arameans" is a good label for the WNA speakers (5000 or 50.000), it really does not matter. There is barely any mention of it, especially not in any reliable sources. Shmayo (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned an amount of 5000 (?) speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic as an argument to not add 'Arameans' to speakers of Aramaic. From this reason I made the comparison with Neo-Mandaic. Mandeans are mentioned as speakers on this page. Neo-Mandaic has according the wikipedia page only 100-200 speakers. Sources estimate between 10.000 and 22.000 Western Neo-Aramaic speakers. I don't get what you mean. It is sourced. The other IP even added interviews of persons who identify as Islamic/Muslim Arameans (or Syriacs). There are actually plenty of sources that confirm that Western Neo-Aramaic speakers are Arameans/Syriacs. The WNA speakers identify in both Aramaic and Arabic interchangeably as Arameans and/or Syriacs. 93.238.93.119 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Neo-Aramaic speaking Arameans were linked to Arameans (Syriacs). The subcategory is labeled "Aramean identity" under Terms for Syriac Christians, because a modern page does not exist. This absence is due to disputes among Christian Eastern Aramaic-speaking groups regarding their ethnic origins, disputes that do not affect speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic. Additionally, Jubbadin and Bakah were Christian villages more than 250 years ago. User Shmayo is solely focused on suppressing and manipulating any Information; he/she is even an "Assyrian Wikipedian" as mentioned on his/her profile. If you follow his/her latest contributions, this becomes evident:

Source: A Political History of the Arameans, p. 96 "...Mesopotamia, specifically the great bend of the Euphrates River "

Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram-Naharaim&oldid=1100567317

"for the ancient land of the Arameans referring to the region of Mesopotamia."

After Shmayo's editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram-Naharaim&oldid=1119275367

"for the ancient land of the Arameans referring to the region along the great bend of the Euphrates river."

Anything that could relate Arameans with Mesopotamia was removed from the article or manipulated. Shmayo is following an ideological narrative.

https://assyrians.n.nu/

Quote from an Assyrian nationalist website:"Assyrians live in Upper Mesopotamia (Beth Nahrain) East of the Euphrates River, while Arameans live in the Levant West of the Euphrates River."

Hence why Shmayo wrote "along" the rivers. Paddan-Aram and Aram-Nahraim covered Mesopotamia in general, specifically the bent of the Euphrates river as mentioned, which would also cover southeastern Anatolia, thus it would contradict the ideological narrative that Arameans were only present in the "West of the Euphrates River" made by modern Assyrians.

ARCHAEOLOGY & THE OLD TESTAMENT, p.16 "The Greek term "Mesopotamia" refers to the stretch of land located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This term is equivalent to the Hebrew designation "Aram-naharaim," as evidenced by the fact that the translators of the Greek Septuagi typically translated "Aram-naharaim" as "Mesopotamia.""

This user is by no mean neutral or acts in the interest of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3038:201:74CC:D599:ACE5:BE37:C787 (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources confirming that Jubb'adin and Bakhah were Christian 250 years ago? 93.238.93.119 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Studies in Neo-Aramaic, p.11 Roman Xi:
"The inhabitants of Bakh'a and Jubb'Adin are Muslims (since the eighteenth century), as is a large portion of the people of Ma'lula, while the rest have remained Christian, mostly of Melkite (Greek Catholic) persuasion. The retention of the "Christian" language after conversion to Islam is noteworthy.“
Historical Linguistics 2005, p. 247
"…Western Neo-Aramaic (Spitaler 1938; Arnold 1990), which is attested in three villages whose speakers just a few generations ago were still entirely Christian." 2A02:3038:201:74CC:D599:ACE5:BE37:C787 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @Shmayo used that as an (?) argument to not add 'Arameans' to speakers of Aramaic on this page. He mentioned that the speakers of WNA (Arameans) from Bakh'a and Jubb'adin are not 'even' Christians. Not that it matters because the sources and interviews already confirmed that there are Islamic Arameans as well but it is always good to add extra sources. It is also confirmed now that the inhabitants of Bakh'a and Jubb'adin were Christians. 93.238.93.119 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just here as I saw Cambridge Scholars Publishing mentioned, works published by them should be considered to be self-published (see this discussion at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#Cambridge Scholars Publishing). As Anas Abou-Ismail is a renal specialist these works wouldn't meet the requirements setout in WP:SPS, and so wouldn't generally be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen" by Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold, p. 15 (https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/ori/semitistik/arnold_en.html).
    Quote:"Viele Aramäer arbeiten heute in Damaskus, Beirut oder in den Golfstaaten und verbringen nur die Sommermonate im Dorf." (In English:"Many Arameans work today in Damascus, Beirut or in the Gulf states, spending only the summer months in the village.“)
    p. 133 (…Aramäern in Ma'lūla) (In English:…Arameans in Maaloula)
    Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold uses the term Aramean in his works when describing the speakers of Western Neo-Aramaic (See some quotes from his works). He is an expert in Western Neo-Aramaic and lived in Maaloula for a while to study the language. His scholarly works are often used as a reference in English-language books about Aramaic.
    "Arabisch-aramäische Sprachbeziehungen im Qalamūn (Syrien)" by Prof. Dr. Werner Arnold, p. 5
    Quote:"Die Kontakte zwischen den drei Aramäer-dörfern sind nicht besonders stark."(In English:“The contacts between the three Aramean villages are not particularly strong.“)
    p. 42 "Die arabischen Dialekte der Aramäer“ (In English:The Arabic dialects of the Arameans)
    Untersuchungen zum Spracherwerb zweisprachiger Kinder im Aramäerdorf Dschubbadin (Syrien) by Dr. Emna Labidi
    p.133 (…Aramäer von Ǧubbˁadīn…) (In English:…Arameans of Jubb'adin…) 2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, p. 185
    "The fact that nearly all Arabic loans in Ma'lula originate from the period before the change from the rural dialect to the city dialect of Damascus shows that the contact between the Aramaeans and the Arabs was intimate…“ 2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have another source: Christina Michelle Weaver* and George A. Kiraz. Page 2:
    Originally spoken in southeastern Turkey, Turoyo constitutes Central Neo-Aramaic, one of three geographical distributions of Neo-Aramaic, the other two being Western Neo-Aramaic (the language spoken in the three Syriac villages of Maʿlulah, Jubbʿadin, and Bakhʿa) and Eastern Neo-Aramaic, which is divided into the Christian and Jewish dialects of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (Heinrichs 1990) as well as Neo-Mandaic (Häberl 2009). 93.238.93.119 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Märchen aus Malula by Rafik Schami p. 151
    Quote:">Ich kenne das Dorf nicht, doch gehört habe ich davon. Was ist mit Malula?‹ fragte der festgehaltene Derwisch. >Dae latzte Dorf der Aramäer< lachte einer der…". (In English:">I don't know the village, but I've heard of it. What about Maaloula?< asked the captured Dervish. >Maaloula is the last village of the Aramaeans,< laughed one of them...) 2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Must be clear I guess. It is clear that Western Neo-Aramaic speakers are Arameans. They identify interchangeably as Arameans and Syriacs in their native Aramaic language and in Arabic. The documentaries, interviews and sources confirmed it as well. Is there anything else necessary or is it good like this? 93.238.93.119 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    93.238.93.119, 2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE—are you the same person? It has been somewhat confusing trying to discern this. I hope it's understandable the timbre of the discussion changes whether I think I'm talking to one or three different people.
    Concerning the primary topic—I am officially out of my comfort zone, so I defer to other peoples' judgement of the sources. — Remsense诉 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE was me. 93.238.93.119 is another participant.
    For the sake of this discussion, I created this account, but I agree it makes things easier to follow. PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't know who the other person is. He/she is someone else 93.238.93.119 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contacted the administrators, but still haven’t received a response yet. PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what now? 2003:DF:FF3D:D47A:5EB:B937:DE15:A6A4 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aramaic&oldid=1252170427"