Comments on: FuSHa to Shami 13: Object pronouns https://teammaha.com/2017/02/fusha-to-shami-13/ Poking fun at the language of your favorite chronically lonely Egyptian Sat, 18 Feb 2023 11:19:25 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.30 By: dwilmsen https://teammaha.com/2017/02/fusha-to-shami-13/#comment-248 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 03:23:39 +0000 http://teammaha.com/?p=930#comment-248 Chris, I’m just seeing this now, after your reference to it from بقعة ضو discussion. Yes, Syrian is a dialect of Aramaic, and other dialects like Biblical Aramaic utilize double object marking, too.

]]> By: Chris Hitchcock https://teammaha.com/2017/02/fusha-to-shami-13/#comment-222 Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:06:29 +0000 http://teammaha.com/?p=930#comment-222 Hi,

Thanks for your kind feedback! As for the la- construction, that does get a mention in a later post, although I didn’t think to mention it in the iDaafe post itself. It might be a good idea

As for the Syriac influence, that’s also my feeling on it too although this is based on basically no knowledge of Syriac on my part other than that there is an equivalent construction. Doesn’t (didn’t?) some Aramaic dialects double-mark possessors like this too at least at some point?

]]> By: dwilmsen https://teammaha.com/2017/02/fusha-to-shami-13/#comment-218 Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:39:52 +0000 http://teammaha.com/?p=930#comment-218 Chris, While we’re at it, the l- that I just wrote to you about is also used in phrases with object pronouns to name the object, as in shuft-o la-bayy-a ‘I saw her father’. The speculation, reasonable in my opinion, is that this peculiar construction came about through contact with Syriac, which can mark both the direct and indirect objects with la-.

]]>