# Syriac: emphatic state



## flockhat

Hi guys,

In Syriac how do you use the emphatic state to show that a word is definite? The only way I can think of is the following: if it is the direct object, then you can show that the word is definite by taking a word in the emphatic state and prefixing the preposition ܠ to it.

Other than that, I don't see how the emphatic state can be used to show that a word is definite. That means that if a word is not a direct object, then there is no way to show that it is definite. The reader will have to guess whether it is definite or not from the context.

Thanks again


----------



## radagasty

Basically, context is key, as you have already suggested. The emphatic state should no longer be thought of in Syriac as indicating definiteness, as it was in earlier stages of Aramaic. I shall, however, make two further comments:

1. Whilst, for the most part, the preposition ܠ is used with the direct object only when it is definite, there do seem to be isolated examples of indefinite direct objects with ܠ.

2. In order to emphasise indefiniteness, ܚܕ ‘one’ may be used with a noun, effectively serving as an indefinite article.


----------



## USani

radagasty said:


> Whilst, for the most part, the preposition ܠ is used with the direct object only when it is definite, there do seem to be isolated examples of indefinite direct objects with ܠ.


Could you please give us an example?

By the way it is very common for the opposite to happen: that the direct object is definite but there is no ܠ.


----------



## radagasty

For example, _Ex_ 2:11 ...

ܘܚܙܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܡܨܪܝܐ ܟܕ ܡ̇ܚܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܒܪܝܐ
And he saw an Egyptian man smiting a Hebrew man.


----------



## WadiH

radagasty said:


> For example, _Ex_ 2:11 ...
> 
> ܘܚܙܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܡܨܪܝܐ ܟܕ ܡ̇ܚܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܒܪܝܐ
> And he saw an Egyptian man smiting a Hebrew man.



Would you be able to transliterate this into Latin characters please?


----------



## Ali Smith

ܘܚܙܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܡܨܪܝܐ ܟܕ ܡ̇ܚܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܥܒܪܝܐ
waḥzā lgabrā meṣrāyā kad māḥe lgabrā ʽebrāyā

I might add that in Biblical Aramaic the same preposition was used to mark both definite and indefinite direct objects. It is only in Syriac that the use of this preposition was restricted to definite direct objects, just like את in Biblical Hebrew.

However, the reverse is not true: it is quite common to see a definite direct object without a proclitic ܠ, just as it is common to encounter a definite direct object without את in Biblical Hebrew. See pg. 10 of Thackston and pg. 37 of Coakley.


----------



## JAN SHAR

No, Ali, the same rule applies to Biblical Aramaic as well: the preposition ל is only used with DEFINITE direct objects, never with INDEFINITE direct objects.

And even with definite direct objects its use is optional.


----------



## zj73

JAN SHAR said:


> No, Ali, the same rule applies to Biblical Aramaic as well: the preposition ל is only used with DEFINITE direct objects, never with INDEFINITE direct objects.
> 
> And even with definite direct objects its use is optional.


Also, you can use yaat to mark a definite direct object. It occurs in the Bible.


----------



## WadiH

JAN SHAR said:


> No, Ali, the same rule applies to Biblical Aramaic as well: the preposition ל is only used with DEFINITE direct objects, never with INDEFINITE direct objects.
> 
> And even with definite direct objects its use is optional.



So how does it work?  Does there have to be a pronoun attached to the verb?  E.g. "I ate la-the-apple", or "I ate *it* la-the-apple"?


----------



## zaw

Yes, you can attach all pronouns (except for the third person plurals) to a verb if you want. If you don't want, you can use them separate from the verb, but then they must have the preposition "l" before them.

I think yaat can also be used in place of "l" in Syriac.


----------

