{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038506417736289385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.836734693877551, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Significance of Aramaic r < *n

IT has long been noted that two Aramaic substantives, bar, "son" and tarin, "two," show r where, on the basis of the cognates of these words in the other Semitic languages, one would expect n. Thus, corresponding to bar are Hebrew bin, Akkadian binu, Literary Arabic 'ibnun, Ugaritic bn, Phoenician bn, and Epigraphic South Arabian bn, while in the place of tarin are found Hebrew dandyim, Akkadian fina, Literary Arabic 'itnani, Ugaritic in, and Epigraphic South Arabian tn-. This curious correspondence has prompted a number of explanations, none of which has gained universal acceptance. The major part of the discussion may be classified into two groups: those who maintain that the r of Aramaic is a secondary development and those who claim that there is no alternative to positing two distinct Proto-Semitic forms.