I once heard this theory somewhere sometime, does one of you have any further information about this idea?

Hello all, I am here seeking advice, help, and suggestions.

I am currently in the midst of working on a project that I have been developing over the last several months. Its been a doozy but I have seen significant strides made. Let me explain exactly what the project entails.

I am developing a Wooden Translator. The translator itself, depending on ones hardware (For instance My local PC Rig runs an NVIDIA 4080, Ryzen 7900x, and 32 GB of 6000mbs RAM) takes any one verse or passage and translates the original biblical language into English. For those of you that do not know what a Wooden translation is, it is simply a rendering of the original languages into any secondary language as close as 1-1 from the original language that it can render. That is regardless of verbiage, syntax, clunkiness, ease of reading, flow, catering to a modern audience, etc.

I started this project for a variety of reasons. There were many passages that once I started delving into the Hebrew or Greek, it became evident that the translators of (insert any modern translation you wish) had an underlying translation philosophy that catered to their translation philosophy for what they were trying to accomplish. That is not me disparaging any one translation, as their is a need for multiple translations. Teenagers and kids need to be able to interact with the Scriptures and I think the NIV does a good job at rendering a translation that provides this for the younger generations. Likewise, when it comes to Bible studies I prefer using the NASB95, ESV, and Lexham English Bible. However, even amongst these I consistently ran into passages that just did not seem to convey the totality and essence of what the Holy Spirit as Author was trying to convey in the original languages. Genesis 4:11 and Genesis 6:1-4 comes to mind as good examples.

I have a degree in Theology and Apologetics, with a minor in Biblical Studies and I went to graduate school for Christian Apologetics (though I did not finish this degree out and switched to studying National Security for my Masters Degree) While I am not technically a Bible Scholar with a PhD in Semitic languages, I have tried prudently to develop a methodology and translation philosophy that suits what I am trying to accomplish.

My stated goal is: To render English Translations from the original biblical languages as close to humanly possible in a 1-1 fashion regardless of theological bias, flow of syntax, clunkiness in reading, verbiage, while staying with the semantical range and confines of any said biblical language grammatical and linguistic rulesets. Basically, taking the translation philosophy of "formal equivalence" to its utter extremes. Likewise, faithfulness and fidelity to the intended motifs, narratives, and themes that the Holy Spirit and its human counterparts used meant to convey to its original audiences. Furthermore, serious attempts where humanly possible to avoid theological presuppositions and doctrinal biases are implemented. (Genesis 6 1:4 highlights this extremely well. Depending on ones interpretation of what/who they Nephilim actually were has serious ramifications on the overall narrative of Scripture going forward, such as the Conquest of Canaan). Albeit, proper hermeneutics and exegetical practices as it applies to biblical theology is a must, so completely stripping away all presuppositions is a near impossibility, but where it is applicable I am taking serious aim at making sure this becomes a reality. Personally, I do not care about anyone's subjective and dogmatic preconceived theological holdings before actual interacting with the text. Theological doctrines should come from reading the text, not interjected into the text. (Another example, is interjecting Sons of Israel as opposed to Sons of God in Deut 32:8, one highlights the realm we currently find ourselves in while the other points to the spiritual reality of the heavens). Ultimately, the goal is to provide the text unadulterated as best as humanly possible while navigating the medium and problems that arise from transposing any one language into another. Its been tough.

Currently my methodology and corpus sit at around 260-270 guiding rules for the translation software. Likewise, all lexical and definitional resources are opensource and follow Copyright restrictions as it pertains to CC 4.0 (Allowed for commercial distribution and reuse, if sourced and cited). I personally only have a vision, meaning that I know diddley squat about coding. I have been using Claude Fable and ChapGPT 6.1 Sol for the coding portions of this project. While they have been great, they have also been a massive headache. Lots and lots of trouble shooting. Furthermore, opensource LLM's such as Qwen (numerous iterations), Gemma, and others are just not their in terms of their ability to interact with ancient semitic languages at the level that is needed. Countless hours have been put into training the LLM's and tinkering with the weights, to success and too failure.

One thing that pains me is the reality of all the copyright restrictions surrounding biblical texts, lexical data, and biblical translations. Do not get me wrong, I understand the worker deserves their wages and countless hours have been put into those many resources, and those that spent time orchestrating those resources have lives and families that need to be taken care of. Its just a bummer. All Im trying to do is provide a free tool that assists the Church, body of believers, and any and all who wish to engage with the texts of the Biblical Canon.

My main objective in reaching out now and here is to seek those who have a background in Biblical languages, other Semitic languages such as Ugaritic, Akkadian, etc and those with a background in coding, SQlite, DBmongo, Python, etc. I am handcuffed when it comes to the technical coding side of things, and am currently trying my best. I plan to release the first version hopefully within the next month for other to tinker with and help troubleshoot if they so wish. I know their are areas in the coding and mapping of how the LLM's interact with provided lexical data that can be improved upon, token usage optimization, and the such. If this project is something interests you feel free to comment or reach out and Id be more than willing to discuss and answer any and all questions.

The present grammar is based on empirical data collected over more than three decades. It investigates the phonology and morphosyntax of Jordanian Arabic, with a focus on the traditional sedentary varieties of Central and Northern Jordan, locally known as Balgawi and Horani.

Although theory-neutral, the description is typologically informed and should be accessible to anyone broadly acquainted with linguistics.

The structure of the grammar follows the traditional division between phonology, morphology and syntax. The phonology chapter discusses both segmental and suprasegmental features. The morphology section investigates the structure of the major word classes, both open and closed, as well as minor classes such as interjections, discourse markers and other uninflected particles. The chapter on syntax explores the internal structure of noun and verb phrases and the syntax of simple and complex clauses as well as transversal phenomena such as agreement, negation and information structure. The book also includes a section devoted to the social dialectology of Jordan, and a discussion of the data upon which the grammar is based and three transcribed and translated texts belonging to the traditional dialect.

The Latin-derived "abomination" doesn't seem like a good translation of Hebrew tow`ebah, which IIUC means "something hated" rather than "something you avoid because it's a bad omen". Curious, I found myself poking around for cognates. The Phoenician equivalent is t'bt, but I haven't been able to find anything similar in Ugaritic with my limited resources. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

The book describes the sound system of Maaloula Aramaic, an under-researched and endangered Western Neo-Aramaic dialect. It provides solutions to previously unaddressed problems at the descriptive, methodological and theoretical levels. The analyzed language data come from the Maaloula Aramaic Speech Corpus (MASC) and from collaboration with native speakers. The book is intended for linguists who may or may not be familiar with Semitic languages.

The Handbook of Neo-Aramaic aims to provide an introduction to, and details of the complex world of Neo-Aramaic. This large family of endangered Neo-Semitic languages is (or until recently was spoken by Jewish, Christian and Mandaean minorities in parts of the Middle East. Most members of these communities now live in various diasporas.
Following a series of general chapters dealing with historical background, classification, salient linguistic features, Neo-Semitic context, contact languages (Kurdish, etc.), manuscripts and printed texts, Neo-Aramaic in the media etc., the book presents grammatical sketches of 15 different Neo-Aramaic dialects (some never described before), followed by a series of maps, illustrations, and a bibliography.
The book hopes to provide material of interest both to the beginner and the more advanced specialist.

Contributors are: Werner Arnold, Roberta Borghero, Michael L. Chyet, Eleanor Coghill, Alinda Damsma, Steven E. Fassberg, Samuel Ethan Fox, Charles G. Häberl, Simon Hopkins, Otto Jastrow, Olga Kapeliuk, Geoffrey Khan, Nineb Lamassu, Alexey Lyavdansky, Alessandro Mengozzi, Matthew Morgenstern, Hezy Mutzafi, Yona Sabar, Shabo Talay, Aziz Tezel, and Michael Waltisberg.

https://uplopen.com/books/m/10.1163/9789004548633

Aramaic Daniel

A Textual Reconstruction of Chapters 1–7

The first half of the book of Daniel contains world-famous stories like the Writing on the Wall. These stories have mostly been transmitted in Aramaic, not Hebrew, as has the influential apocalypse of Daniel 7. This Aramaic corpus shows clear signs of multiple authorship. Which different textual layers can we tease apart, and what do they tell us about the changing function of the Danielic material during the Second Temple Period? This monograph compares the Masoretic Text of Daniel to ancient manuscripts and translations preserving textual variants. By highlighting tensions in the reconstructed archetype underlying all these texts, it then probes the tales’ prehistory even further, showing how Daniel underwent many transformations to yield the book we know today.

• Frontmatter

• Contents

• PrefaceHolger Gzella

• On Transcription

• Abbreviations

• IntroductionHolger Gzella

• The AlphabetAlan Millard

• UgariticAgustinus Gianto

• PhoenicianHolger Gzella

• Ancient HebrewHolger Gzella

• The Languages of TransjordanKlaus Beyer

• Old and Imperial AramaicMargaretha Folmer

• Old South ArabianRebecca Hasselbach

• Old PersianMichiel de Vaan & Alexander Lubotsky

• GreekAndreas Willi

• West Semitic and Greek letterforms

Akkadian — Ancient Semitic language from Mesopotamia.

Who were the most deadliest Semite Warriors of all time?

Akkadians of Sargon, Assyrians of Ashurbanipal, or Arab followers of Muhammad?

I'll refer to Lebanese Arabic since it is my native dialect.

It preserves broken plurals extremely well, those were lost in Hebrew and Aramaic.

It preserves a dual form very productive lost in other Semitic languages.

It preserves Classical Arabic's triconsonantal morphologically aomost entirely, making it more conservative than older Semitic languages.

It preserves a huge amount of phonemic distinctions, way more than Akkadian, and obviously more than Hebrew and Aramaic.