their parents:
their parents:
it looks like a literal translation of the 1sg acc pronoun in the Greek:
ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε
"you won't always have me"
but the obj case only makes sense if you have a transitive "have" verb, wh Syriac lacks
it looks like a literal translation of the 1sg acc pronoun in the Greek:
ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε
"you won't always have me"
but the obj case only makes sense if you have a transitive "have" verb, wh Syriac lacks
youtu.be/HqIGCdd8LhQ?...
youtu.be/HqIGCdd8LhQ?...
they're both the subject of ܣܳܠܩܳܢ sālqān "going out (f. pl. abs.)" and both follow ܗܐ hā "behold.."
they're both the subject of ܣܳܠܩܳܢ sālqān "going out (f. pl. abs.)" and both follow ܗܐ hā "behold.."
they have اتسند itsanad for "lean" but it's still a basic meaning of Form I سند sanad is it not?
they have اتسند itsanad for "lean" but it's still a basic meaning of Form I سند sanad is it not?
(Thackston ch. 6)
(Thackston ch. 6)
Irish faoi "under, about" < Old Irish foí "under (fo) him"
Irish as "from" < Old Irish ass "from (a) him"
Irish faoi "under, about" < Old Irish foí "under (fo) him"
Irish as "from" < Old Irish ass "from (a) him"
specifically: why does the 3rd radical ב not have dagesh lene in 1cs kiθveθ & 3fs kiθvaθ?
cf. Syriac keθ/b/eθ, keθ/b/aθ
specifically: why does the 3rd radical ב not have dagesh lene in 1cs kiθveθ & 3fs kiθvaθ?
cf. Syriac keθ/b/eθ, keθ/b/aθ
masc. /kə-ˈθav-ton/ vs. fem. /kə-θav-ˈteːn/
is this correct? and/or do the main Syriac traditions abide by this?
why does f. *-tina yield long /eː/ but m. *-tunu yields short /o/?
masc. /kə-ˈθav-ton/ vs. fem. /kə-θav-ˈteːn/
is this correct? and/or do the main Syriac traditions abide by this?
why does f. *-tina yield long /eː/ but m. *-tunu yields short /o/?
"Beirut" is from Phoenician 𐤁𐤓𐤕 bērūt, from the plural of *biʔr "well"
"Beirut" is from Phoenician 𐤁𐤓𐤕 bērūt, from the plural of *biʔr "well"