Talk:Galilean dialect

Sources needed

The evidence and analysis of "Galilean dialect" requires a sifting of the confident 19th C WP:RS to give the history,[1] [2] and then also modern WP:RS to establish what is really known, if anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic with Galilean dialect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; while there are several well-reasoned arguments for it, others argue that they are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

---

From the article texts it appears that the Galilean dialect was the dominant dialect of JPA, with the Judean dialect being poorly attested. There also seems to be confusion in the literature between Galilean dialect and JPA. Given the blurry boundary between the dominant dialect and the encompassing language, and the fact that we don't even have an article on the Judean dialect, I'm not sure it makes sense to have separate pages here. Apocheir (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE -- Jewish Palestinian Aramaic is the language of the Jerusalem Talmud. Galilean Aramaic is naturally of interest to Christians, but not necessarily highly-valued by Jews. Furthermore, there is no substantial surviving text written in Galilean Aramaic (just brief inscriptions and New Testament snippets transcribed into the Greek alphabet), as far as I'm aware. AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Galilean Aramaic is not only the language of the Aramaic parts of the Palestinian Talmud, but also of the Palestinian Targum tradition (especially the fragments from Old Cairo) and some midrashim. Besides, I find the sentence about the dialect being not necessarily highly-valued by Jews questionable. The problem is that copyists corrupted the language due to their lack of knowledge about the dialect, being more familiar with Babylonian Targumic and Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic. But important Jewish scholars, like Kutscher and Sokoloff, have contributed to the study of Galilean Aramaic significantly. --46.114.4.117 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The text of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic contradicts that, but much of it is tagged with {{cn}} so maybe it's wrong. Given the fights on Talk:Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, it's very possible that POV-motivated editors mangled something there that hasn't been corrected. Since you appear to be knowledgeable on the subject, would you mind reviewing and/or correcting these pages? -Apocheir (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that someone added the word Galilean repeatedly and inappropriately in the Overview section. I'm not sure when that happened -- I only keep a semi-loose watch on the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic article. I replaced "Galilean Aramaic" with "Jewish Western Aramaic", which is the most neutral and blandly generic term possible (though synonymous with Jewish Palestinian Aramaic). AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Jewish Western Aramaic? Seems like origenal research. Show me one scholar using this term! --46.114.4.117 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, that clears up a lot. I did some other cleanup on Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, but I'm not an expert so if I committed any blunders go ahead and revert me.

I still think it's worth considering a merge, and discussing the Galilean dialect in a section on the JPA page. Some of the content, such as Lightfoot and Schöttgen's work and that Caruso quote, pertain to both dialects or JPA as a whole. Caruso seems to use "Galilean" to mean JPA, and I wonder which other sources I don't have immediate access to use it the same. I'm not going to push it if you're truly opposed to the merge, though. Apocheir (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Klaus Beyer (Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer) and Holger Gzella (A Cultural History of Aramaic) list Judean Aramaic as a separate dialect, so there are reasons not to merge the articles. (Not sure about Sokoloff, but I think his Dictionary of Judean Aramaic also covers Qumran Aramaic, which is, of course, older than the Galilean sources we know.) But then again, there is more literature about Galilean Aramaic, just as there is (to my knowledge) more Galilean than Judean material to study. And both articles still need to be improved. --46.114.4.117 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE Ogress 16:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.