# Aramaic: omission of relative pronoun



## zaw

Hi,

Daniel 4 18 says

דְּנָה֙ חֶלְמָ֣א חֲזֵ֔ית אֲנָ֖ה מַלְכָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֑ר [וְאַנְתָּה כ] (וְאַ֨נְתְּ ק) בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּ֜ר פִּשְׁרֵ֣א ׀ אֱמַ֗ר כָּל־קֳבֵל֙ דִּ֣י ׀ כָּל־חַכִּימֵ֣י מַלְכוּתִ֗י לָֽא־יָכְלִ֤ין פִּשְׁרָא֙ לְהֹודָ֣עֻתַ֔נִי [וְאַנְתָּה כ] (וְאַ֣נְתְּ ק) כָּהֵ֔ל דִּ֛י רֽוּחַ־אֱלָהִ֥ין קַדִּישִׁ֖ין בָּֽךְ׃

Translation: This is the dream which I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now you, Belteshazzar, tell me its interpretation, inasmuch as none of the wise men of my kingdom is able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able, for a spirit of the holy gods is in you.'

It seems from the translation that the relative pronoun די was omitted here. Am I right? It would have been דְּנָה֙ חֶלְמָ֣א די חֲזֵ֔ית אֲנָ֖ה מַלְכָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֑ר. Is this kind of omission common?

Maybe another possibility is that there was no relative pronoun omitted, but then we would have to translate it:

This is the dream I saw (note that there is no "which")

What do you guys think?

Toda raba


----------



## Ali Smith

Why not take the demonstrative pronoun to be attributive rather than predicative?

דְּנָה֙ חֶלְמָ֣א חֲזֵ֔ית אֲנָ֖ה מַלְכָּ֣א נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֑ר
I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen this dream.


----------



## Glasguensis

zaw said:


> This is the dream I saw (note that there is no "which")
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> Toda raba


Please explain what you think is different in meaning between “this is the dream I saw” and “this is the dream which I have seen”?


----------



## zaw

I don't know. I am not a native speaker of English. One has the relative pronoun and one doesn't.


----------



## Glasguensis

There is no difference. So whether the translators use a relative pronoun doesn’t really depend on whether there is one in the original. They will use what sounds most natural to them at the time.


----------

