Targums Tagged Aramaic

Reviews

1. 

   Justin

   Rated 3 out of 5

   Reviewed on March 3, 2022

   Good recourse, but occasionally the parsing of the Aramaic words is clearly wrong.

   E.g. in Gen. 6:4 the unambiguous plural form “עלין” is erroneously parsed as a “peal participle masculine singular”. The same mistake also occurs in Num. 27:21, Num. 34:2, Due. 4:5.

   Also in Gen. 23:10 the Aramaic verb “עלי” is correctly parsed as a “Peal participle masculine plural construct,” but in Gen. 23:18 the same verb in the same context is parsed as a “singular” participle.

   This is what I found with one verbal root, “עלל”. How many similar mistakes will exist when parsing other verbal roots? Such mistakes in parsing makes grammatical searches inaccurate.

   This is so poor I think the whole database will have re-checked for mistakes in parsing.

2. 

   Justin

   Rated 3 out of 5

   Reviewed on March 3, 2022

   Another obvious error:
   The FTP module for Gen. 1:1 reads:
   ושׁכליל וייי ברא בחכמה FTP
   The ‘Waw’ attached to the word “ייי” is clearly a mistake, and makes no sense. I checked the Aramaic manuscript and there is no ‘Waw’ attached to the abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton.

3. 

   Justin

   Rated 3 out of 5

   Reviewed on March 3, 2022

   Good recourse, but occasionally the parsing of the Aramaic words is clearly wrong.

   E.g. in Gen. 6:4 the unambiguous plural form “עלין” is erroneously parsed as a “peal participle masculine singular”. The same mistake also occurs in Num. 27:21, Num. 34:2, Due. 4:5.

   Also in Gen. 23:10 the Aramaic verb “עלי” is correctly parsed as a “Peal participle masculine plural construct,” but in Gen. 23:18 the same verb in the same context is parsed as a “singular” participle.

   This is what I found with one verbal root, “עלל”. How many similar mistakes will exist when parsing other verbal roots? Such mistakes in parsing makes grammatical searches inaccurate.

   This is so poor I think the whole database will have re-checked for mistakes in parsing.

   Another obvious error:
   The FTP module for Gen. 1:1 reads:
   …בחכמה ברא וייי ושכליל
   The ‘Waw’ attached to the word “ייי” is clearly a mistake, and makes no sense. I checked the Aramaic manuscript and there is no ‘Waw’ attached to the abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton.

4. 

   Justin

   Rated 3 out of 5

   Reviewed on March 23, 2022

   Good resource, but another inconsistency is the use of compound vs. simple Shewa.
   In many sections of this module, there is no compound Shewa, only a simple Shewa. In other sections there are many compound Shewas.

   I’ve checked in Sperber’s original book and in the manuscripts and these manuscripts do not use compound Shewas ever. Thus every compound Shewa in this module is determined by the editors?

   This inconsistency makes research difficult and complicated for me.

   My suggestion is that you replace every compound Shewa with a simple Shewa, as there are no compound Shewas in the manuscripts. Or, else the system of using compound Shewas on guttural letters should be applied systematically throughout the whole module.

5. 

   Justin

   Rated 3 out of 5

   Reviewed on March 23, 2022

   In the Targums Tagged module the Aramaic particle ‘Leit’ (לית) is always parsed as a particle (not a verb), even when suffixed.

   However, in the Targum Neofiti it is parsed as a verb when a suffix is attached.

   This is a mistake that needs to be standardized. Otherwise the cross textual searching will be inaccurate.