tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22261571.post4411382538077147582..comments2024-03-20T01:06:12.181-04:00Comments on MEI Editor's Blog: Syriac Question Mark: Poor Journalism on Scholarly Subjects 101Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22261571.post-73780124381588522232011-07-25T13:16:32.341-04:002011-07-25T13:16:32.341-04:00benedicr:
I think the usual distinction is that &...benedicr:<br /><br />I think the usual distinction is that "Aramaic" means the language as it evolved from Biblical times on down, including its late form while Syriac is specifically that late form written in the Syriac alphabet. But I should note that while it's true as you say that, in English, the speakers of the Western and Eastern forms say they speak Aramaic, as far as I know when they speak in their own language, they call it Suroyo. At least the ones in Iraq do.Michael Collins Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07398326467953722017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22261571.post-3538370544430762232011-07-25T08:43:59.625-04:002011-07-25T08:43:59.625-04:00The reporter presumably looked up the "Syriac...The reporter presumably looked up the "Syriac" entry on wikipedia, which also states the language "appeared" in the 1st century. Given the topic, it might have been more appropriate to cite the entry on the Syriac alphabet, which dates it to the 2nd century BC.<br /><br />I think you are right that the Reuters article lacks a more nuanced picture of the relationship of Syriac to Aramaic though, even a cursory shuffle through the Wikipedia pages is enough to suggest that. (By the way I always assumed that Aramaic is the name usually given to the spoken language used by some Christians in parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran etc as you mentioned, with Syriac being the liturgical language.)benedictnoreply@blogger.com