# Syriac: old pronunciation



## rushalaim

Some say as if ܩܕܝܫܐ in old Syriac was earlier pronounced like [qa*n*disa]. Is it true or it was any Greek trace?


----------



## fdb

Who says this?


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> Who says this?


Indian-Catholic-Christians.


----------



## fdb

It is pronounced qad(d)iša in Eastern Syriac and qad(d)išo in Western Syriac. The reduplication of the -d- is not always audible. In Old Syriac it was qaddīšā.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> It is pronounced qad(d)iša in Eastern Syriac and qad(d)išo in Western Syriac. The reduplication of the -d- is not always audible. In Old Syriac it was qaddīšā.


Eastern-Aramaic of Indian-Christians is [qa*n*disa]. You can listen it on youtube "Kandisa Alaha (കന്ദീശാ ആലാഹാ Kandeesha Aalaahaa)." 
West-Syriac pronounces ܩܕܝܫܬ [qadisha*t*] on youtube "قديشت ألها Trisagion Hymn."


----------



## fdb

qad(d)iš-at "thou art holy".


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> qad(d)iš-at "thou art holy".


Indians-Christians are saying [qa*n*disa] without any -t and with -n-.


----------



## fdb

rushalaim said:


> Indians-Christians are saying [qa*n*disa]



It has to do with the phonology of Malayalam. It has no basis in Syriac.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> It has to do with the phonology of Malayalam. It has no basis in Syriac.


Indian-Christians are saying as if their older pronunciation was preserved from later corruption of West-Syriac. 
By the way, Syriac still writes [a*n*t] not any [at] אנת of pronoun.


----------



## fdb

rushalaim said:


> Indian-Christians are saying as if their older pronunciation was preserved from later corruption of West-Syriac.
> By the way, Syriac still writes [a*n*t] not any [at] אנת of pronoun.



Yes, graphic <'nt> is an archaic spelling for spoken /at/. The <n> is silent in both Eastern and Western reading traditions. The spelling is inherited from Achaemenid Aramaic.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> Yes, graphic <'nt> is an archaic spelling for spoken /at/. The <n> is silent in both Eastern and Western reading traditions. The spelling is inherited from Achaemenid Aramaic.


Greek writes ΛΑ*Μ*ΠΑC _"la*m*p"_ and Hebrew Torah adopted Greek word like לפיד [lapid] (Greek plural) without any -m-.
And I thought, maybe Indian-Christians adopted Greek pronunciation too of their [qa*n*disa]?


----------



## Dib

fdb said:


> It has to do with the phonology of Malayalam. It has no basis in Syriac.



Just to explain exactly how:
Malayalam native phonology would allow "kadisa", "kandisa" and "kattisa", but not *kaddisa.


----------



## fdb

Dib said:


> Just to explain exactly how:
> Malayalam native phonology would allow "kadisa", "kandisa" and "kattisa", but not *kaddisa.



Thank you for the clarification. What do they do with -ddh- in Sanskrit loan words?


----------



## Dib

fdb said:


> Thank you for the clarification. What do they do with -ddh- in Sanskrit loan words?



I looked around a bit for an answer to this question, but could not find much. The best I could get is from Asher's "Malayalam", p 435, ch. 3.3.1.7:
Malayalam

"It is possible to find examples of some geminated voiced stops, but appart from /jj/ these tend to be almost unique instances."

This is probably consistent with the understanding that geminated voiced stops are peripheral to Malayalam phonology in general, but does not really answer your question.


----------



## rushalaim

But when Indian-Christians are singing _"Laku-Mara"_-prayer they are saying [dattu] - Aramaic plural pronoun "you" without any -n- in the middle ܕܐܢܬܘ


----------



## fdb

“You” (pl. m.) is pronounced ʼattun in Western Syriac and ʼatton in Eastern Syriac. The spelling with -nt- is historical. In the Indian style of pronunciation which you describe voiced -dd- becomes -nd-, but voiceless -tt- remains unchanged. This is in keeping with the phonological rules in South Dravidian, as Dib has explained.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> “You” (pl. m.) is pronounced ʼattun in Western Syriac and ʼatton in Eastern Syriac. The spelling with -nt- is historical. In the Indian style of pronunciation which you describe voiced -dd- becomes -nd-, but voiceless -tt- remains unchanged. This is in keeping with the phonological rules in South Dravidian, as Dib has explained.


Apparently, Nunation is late development of Aramaic. As if Akkadian also did not have any Nunation as Egyptian either.


----------



## fdb

This has nothing to do with nunation.


----------



## rushalaim

fdb said:


> This has nothing to do with nunation.


Phoenician shows it is Nunation-plurality, for example, sing. אנך [inku] _"Me"_ and pl. *[anak*n*u] and later אנחן [anach*n*u] _"We"_.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Phoenician shows it is Nunation-plurality, for example, sing. אנך [inku] _"Me"_ and pl. *[anak*n*u] and later אנחן [anach*n*u] _"We"_.


This has nothing to do with nunation.


----------

