You still just proved my answer correctly saying that the major issue here is vocabulary...
The difference between a language and a dialect is how different are the changes in grammar.
Is Turoyo's grammar so different that it should be considered separated from Eastern Syriac dialects all together?
" (tablitho = mees, tlitho= brata, qanyo = qalama, halakh = jwaja, etc."
You should know that I had a Swedish-Assyrian friend who says that Suryoyeh speak in Turoyo but they write in Classical Syriac...
They do this so that ol' Syriac can never become lost.
Second, Tablitho for mees? Classical syriac definition is Looha (like Arabic LuH).
Tablitho/Tavleetha is a Greek borrowing.
Qanyo is also in Eastern Syriac (qanya)
Halakh is as well
Tlitho is also in Eastern Syriac, it's pronounced ṭalīṯā the T is ṭeth
Are they now? Every Assyrian I know doesn't use these words.
*We use "talita" for a female who's asleep. We use "niqwa" for her gender.
*Every easterner I know says "qalama", never "qanya".
*Again, nobody says "halakh" for walking. We say "jwaja" (borrowed word or not, doesn't matter).
Yes, the major problem is vocabulary. But that's the crucial aspect in here - If a language's vocab is over 50-60% inharmonious to ours, it just cannot be part of ours. There is always a red line here.
People using classical Syriac in literature is not a problem. I've told you before that I'm fine with Syriac being taught or showcased. All I'm saying that it will just never be an official, single language in the future. I just don't see this happening. Okay, maybe it can be a church language (in which it is), but not a "common language".
Tell me, is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic "Syriac" to you? If so, why would a skewed, bastardized "ghetto" language like ANA be Syriac, let alone its dialect? That's what I can't fathom here.