Talk:ܨܦܘܢܐ

, re diff, CAL is incomplete, but Sokoloff is pretty much comprehensive for JBA, and he does not give the form you claim as JBA. What is your primary source? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, Fraenkel the page linked at the Arabic entry. Now I don’t know all abbreviations particularly for Jewish scriptures Orientalists used then but not unlikely the edition he used is online. Fay Freak (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I said primary source. You claim it is specifically JBA; Fraenkel does not, and from Sokoloff I argue that is wrong. If Fraenkel is saying he got it from the Aruch, that still begs the question of where it is actually used. If you can chase this one down, I would be happy to keep it, but in the mean time, what we have in the entry appears to be incorrect. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I said that is my direct source. Why do you assume I have a “primary source” and what do you try to exact from me by this terming? To afterwards claim there is no source by introducing an arbitrary concept of acceptable source? There are good witnesses and bad witnesses, I know no ranking and there is no stemma. I refuse to even understand the term “primary source”.
 * From, and since when do Aramaic words need to be citeable in use? The majority isn’t, moreover the meaning may be only clarified by lexicographers. A bulk of what is known as Classical Syriac is only known from , , or Bar ʿalī; and that is known from the contexts of these writers that it is Classical Syriac and not Christian Palestinian Aramaic or something else. So I have understood Aruch collected Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, so what we have in the entry appears to be correct. If you are not sure, and I cannot (how many years of Talmud study would I need to understand?) and perhaps no one can even if he “chase this down”, then that is why we had the name Jewish Aramaic, like all others like Fraenkel and Brockelmann and the medievals who did not distinguish. Not being able to classify further is a poor excuse to omit. If the ancients had thought the same as you now much less would be tradited, that’s why always skepticism was advised about the whole Aramaic merger thing. It would also leave us in the bizarre situation that we could have an entry with the spelling but we could not mention it because a mere “Aramaic” cannot be contrasted with Classical Syriac. You can also not unclaim the attestation of the etymon of as an “unattested Aramaic form” (except, Arabic words are well from “Jewish Aramaic”, but rarely ever from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, as not that often from Classical Syriac as one likes to believe either, so one can regularly write a long-winded “from an Aramaic form equalling Jewish Babylonian Aramaic x , Classical Syriac y …, or here according to your splitting more complicated or with cleartext “Jewish Aramaic”), as what we have in the entry appears to be correct, the opposite less. Fay Freak (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what kind of Aramaic it is, we may as well admit that with  instead of pretending it is JBA. The Aruch is by no means limited to JBA, and I don't know why you think it is. I can argue from absence for the likes of JBA and JPA when we have modern dictionaries that far exceed the knowledge and thoroughness of lexicographers of the past. On the unrelated topic of Arabic borrowings, it is evident that the source dialect is unattested and is much more conservative (or more probably, just older) than JBA or Syr, but our usual approach in those entries is probably as good as we can do. That's why it's useful to keep Aramaic merged, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't distinguish when we can. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)