Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Theophany psalm 150
Dear all,
I need your opinions before I start discussing what I think would be right or wrong linguistically speaking. Why do we say Yasous bekhrestos 'bshara emebnoudiafshiwms rather than bedafshiwms, to agree along the lines of other Lordly feasts, ie bedawmasf, bedaftwnf, etc...
Oujai
I need your opinions before I start discussing what I think would be right or wrong linguistically speaking. Why do we say Yasous bekhrestos 'bshara emebnoudiafshiwms rather than bedafshiwms, to agree along the lines of other Lordly feasts, ie bedawmasf, bedaftwnf, etc...
Oujai
Comments
Dear all,
I need your opinions before I start discussing what I think would be right or wrong linguistically speaking. Why do we say Yasous bekhrestos 'bshara emebnoudiafshiwms rather than bedafshiwms, to agree along the lines of other Lordly feasts, ie bedawmasf, bedaftwnf, etc...
Oujai
i am sorry....but it took me a while to recognize that you are talking about "afitchi-oms..."
i have to say a simple answer is because it's easier to sing.....like 2 less syllables to worry about.
Oujai
Yes but does easier to sing mean we spoil the grammar? It's like bashois and abanshois in my opinion, we say the former because it's grammatically correct, not the latte...
Oujai
saying "Jesus Christ the Son of God, (He) was baptized in the Jordan"
is not so different from "Jesus..., who was baptized in the Jordan." both are acceptable as many other occasions...not only in this response but mostly in Amen Alleluia in the end.....many opinions flow around what to say in that response and not much people care cuz it's said that fast.
Mina, and all, please note - the hymn in English should be like this:
Praise God in all His saints, Jesus Christ the Son of God, WHO was baptised in the Jordan. (Not two disconnected phrases, but one sentence connected through who - Coptic: bed (Greco-Bohairic: phyet))
سبحوا الله في جميع قديسيه يسوع المسيح إبن الله الذي عمد في الأردن
`Cmou `ebnoudi khan netwab darou `ndaf, Yasous bekhrestos `bshara mebnoudi BETafshiwms khan beiordanac.
Very important connective word, so that you keep the flow of the psalm as the psalmist wrote, adding an EXPLANATION, or an EMPHASIS, not adding verses. Hopefully you see what I mean. And by the way, gives consistency (if we even care) for all the psalm 150's for the different Lordly feasts, let alone grammatically if anyone doesn't care about Coptic grammar (or the mistaken Arabic translation, hence the other languages consequently for that matter).
Oujai
Oujai
That is not the issue. Actually, your last statement is what really makes me so sad (I hoped you wouldn't have said it). That is what most cantors say "howa 7ad beyefham qebty?" "does anybody care whether it is betaf, or af?". This is the reason in my opinion why there are very learned people in hymnody on coptichymns.net, who don't like Coptic hymns anymore. Every one does what suits them.
who.....it's not the least about them not knowing coptic. I know people who are well-taught coptic and know coptic. I call them cantors but them don't like to be called that becaue there is just many of them in one church. it's not about them not knowing coptic but it is about teachings. we would lean towards an audio source more than what "should be" in coptic. That and also what is written in books; it doesn't always follow what you say and what is 100% right language-wise. there are things that are just "acceptable", as i always say, for the sake of the ease of singing. go and see the book of Annual psalies (2 parts) or the Seasonal Psalies and Commentaries book.....many words are manipulated IN COPTIC to follow a certain rule or rhyming pattern for the psali. people who wrote arabic madayeh did the same thing. I am sure you're mad cuz i included the arabic madayeh here but for the sake of this topic, consider the many arabic madayeh that have true profound formal arabic words......they still become changed to match a specific rhyming pattern.
I think you're using the Coptic modifier "et" because of how Arabic treats the Coptic modifier "et". For example, in the Liturgy of the Faithful, the Arabic translation says "He looked up to heaven... and He gave thanks, blessed it and sanctified." This is not correct because the Coptic says, "etafshempehmot". The correct translation should be "He looked up to heaven...and when He gave thanks, he blessed it and sanctified it." This is exact verbatim from St. Paul's 1 Corinthians 11:24. But the Arabic translation simply says, "wa shakara..." not "lama shakara".
Grammatically, whenever you want to say X Who did Y in Arabic, you use the Arabic modifier "allazy". But in Coptic the equivalent modifier "et" means both X "who" did Y and "when" X did Y. They are nearly identically and that is why the Arabic translation simply translates using the Arabic modifier "allazy". But in Arabic there is another word for "when": "lama". There is no other Coptic word explicitly used for "when". Note: the Coptic subjunctive mood/tense ("entef") can be translated as "when" but it can only apply to actions that have not yet occurred. So "entefchioms" cannot be used in Psalm 150 refrains.
Now let's look at context. There are 3 parts to the sentence structure: (1) Imperative verb (Praise God/Him), (2) adverb (describing how we praise Him), and (3)the object of the verb (Jesus Christ, who was baptized). If it is one sentence and let's ignore the adverb for a moment, it would mean, "Praise Him - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was baptized in the Jordan." This is a bit awkward but it does work. All 3 parts form one thought. However, if it is 2 sentences, or 2 separate thoughts where the first sentence is parts (1) and (2) and the second sentence is part (3) alone, then the context would become, "Praise Him, with strings and organs." This is the first sentence. "Jesus Christ...was baptized in the Jordan." This is a separate sentence. If this is the intention of the author then the second sentence can not be "Jesus Christ ... who was baptized in the Jordan" because this would be a fragmented sentence. So it all depends on the context. In this case, the context doesn't specify if it's one thought or two thoughts. In other words, there is nothing in Psalm 150 that says it has to be "Praise Him, adverb - Jesus Christ...who was baptized" vs. "Praise Him, adverb. Jesus Christ...was baptized". And to complicate things, although highly unlikely, it could mean "Praise Him, adverb, when Jesus Christ was baptized in the Jordan". In this last thought, only "etafchioms" is allowable.
If you are cognizant that the word etafchioms has two meanings: "who was baptized" and "when he was baptized", and you understand the context probably refers to the first, then use etafchioms. If you understand the meaning to be specifically "who was baptized" and it can't be "when he was baptized, then use vetafchioms. If you think the context is 2 separate sentences, use afchioms. Musically, I personally think etafchioms is the easiest to say but you will find resistance among deacons to adopt this. Contextually, I personally think the context is 2 separate sentences and afchioms should be used. I think vetafchioms is hard to say musically and I don't think it was the intention of the author(s).
If you look at all the other Lordly feasts, with the exception of the Nativity Feast, they all have the refrain as a separate sentence. Nativity Psalm 150 uses vetavmasf because of musical tune. It would make sense that all refrains should be considered as a separate sentence. It just doesn't work for the words of the Nativity Psalm 150 refrain.
George
Mina, and all, please note - the hymn in English should be like this:
Praise God in all His saints, Jesus Christ the Son of God, WHO was baptised in the Jordan. (Not two disconnected phrases, but one sentence connected through who - Coptic: bed (Greco-Bohairic: phyet))
سبحوا الله في جميع قديسيه يسوع المسيح إبن الله الذي عمد في الأردن
`Cmou `ebnoudi khan netwab darou `ndaf, Yasous bekhrestos `bshara mebnoudi BETafshiwms khan beiordanac.
The problem, Ophadece, is that the sentence is awkward in English. Proper standard English would be "Praise Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was baptized in the Jordan, in all His saints". If you want to use poetic language, where sentence structure can be moved around, you can say, "Praise Him in all his saints - Jesus Christ who was baptized". But because this is awkward, I'm sure most English-only speaking people did not recognize the sentence can be one thought or sentence.
Arabic is a different story. In Arabic, the above sentence is more easily understood as one thought. You could say سبح يسوع المسيح ابن الله الذي عمد في الأردن but this will force you to change the tune completely and it doesn't clarify or remove any grammatical awkwardness. The same is true in Coptic. You could say Cmou `eIsos Pikhristos epshere emevnoti vetafchioms khen Piiordanys. But in Coptic there really is no need to change the word order. Coptic grammar allows multiple sentence direction. It is no less awkward to say Cmou erof vs. Cmou eIsos, like it is in English. In this case, I don't think the connecting word is 'who". I think the connection is solely based on context. At least for English, it's not a word that connects the two phrases but common grammatical use. You just know the two phrases are one thought if it follows grammatical rules. You don't need to specify the object of the imperative verb more than once. In other words, you don't need to say, "Praise Him" and then also specify who "him" is. In English you only need to say "Praise Jesus who.." If the sentence structure and grammar is not awkward then two phrase will automatically be understood as one thought.
Now it becomes a question of how literal a translation do you want. If you want to be strictly literal, then use "Praise God in all His saints. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was baptized". If you want to be somewhat lenient use "Praise God in all His saints - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was baptized". This is still confusing and notice there is no connecting word. If you want to show one specific thought that any modern English speaking person will recognize, use "Praise Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was baptized, in all his saints". (Must have the commas in the right place to follow proper grammar). Since the last one is a very editorialized and "loose" translation, you will find a lot of resistance among Copts who are naturally very conservative against change. And not to mention, musically the last one doesn't work at all. I personally think that we should use the strict, literal translation and add a footnote for a thorough explanation.
George
but I have recently learned that they are not trying to screw-up the hymn. /they are just trying to make it sound good.
I know this doesn't help, but this is my opinion, God bless, pray for me,
Cyril
You know more people than I do in this regard, and surely you know better. It is just sad to see people reluctant to change things, when they are clearly incorrect to some extent. I was mainly referring to cantor Ibrahim Ayad, as I have attended a couple of sessions for him and I know he doesn't know Coptic that well. I blame the cantors who decided to translate, and each one ended up doing what they believe is right. I am talking of course about the turn of the century, or even the previous centuries for that matter. You look at the Arabic translation in three or more different kholagy books, or psalmody where you can find more evidence, and you will see that the translation is totally different from one to the other, not only in the sentence arrangement but also in the expressions (even the Biblical verses). Somebody may have used the Coptic verse as an indicator of where it is in the Bible, and copied it accordingly - another wanted to use literal translation, and so on.
Dear Remenkimi,
You exactly repeated my points in a more elaborate way. However, I was not looking for literal translations, I was looking at how Coptic is arranged. Please note that I am not advocating changing the wording of the Biblical psalm; I did say that the addition of two stanzas should be to emphasise rather than to disrupt the meaning. I am aware of the two usages of the prefix "ed", and thanks for the clarification of edafshabahmot, etc. I never knew that before, but that is how we are unmeticulous, and less well-learned. I see your point about deacons objecting to adopt that style, but seriously, how many people want to follow the more correct teachings? Isn't every one as Mina said taking things for granted from audio and visual sources, rather than working their brains. I actually heard cantor Ibrahim and the cathedral chorus in Nativity, or Resurrection 2010 pronouncing the word as /tamiof/ rather than /tameyof/ and therefore singing the psalm in a new style. Innovation? Wrong. I am not advocating innovations of course, I am advocating correcting grammatical mistakes as is your principle from what I understood from coptichymns.net.
Dear Cyril97,
Some people like yourself pray things in a simple manner. God listens. Maybe others are more sophisticated and complicated like me pray but with another level of perfectionism. God listens too. I am just hoping that my church is immaculate and perfect forever, devoid of any stains however minute. I am someone who came across this treasure very recently, while I am older than many others who started learning about all of this since their younger years. That makes me more keen to keep this treasure and purify it from impurities as it were all the time.
Oujai khan ebshois
Dear Mina,
You know more people than I do in this regard, and surely you know better. It is just sad to see people reluctant to change things, when they are clearly incorrect to some extent. I was mainly referring to cantor Ibrahim Ayad, as I have attended a couple of sessions for him and I know he doesn't know Coptic that well. I blame the cantors who decided to translate, and each one ended up doing what they believe is right. I am talking of course about the turn of the century, or even the previous centuries for that matter. You look at the Arabic translation in three or more different kholagy books, or psalmody where you can find more evidence, and you will see that the translation is totally different from one to the other, not only in the sentence arrangement but also in the expressions (even the Biblical verses). Somebody may have used the Coptic verse as an indicator of where it is in the Bible, and copied it accordingly - another wanted to use literal translation, and so on.
trust me.....i know what you are talking about....but i have to consider and say that if i become that strict about simple things, mish-hanekhlas. I'd rather have an open-mind (such a broad term i knw) and know the difference and pray with others. No one is perfect in the world and nothing is perfect. As i was saying in the Deaconesses post, we have to concentrate on getting to the Kingdom of the heavens. To hold grudges on simple things doesn't get me to heaven but it sometimes hinders the way there. Why should i do that to myself. to put it in simple words, i would rather seek my salvation.
Very good point Mina. God bless us all in what every one is trying to achieve. And please pray for me for my zeal about the Coptic language and hymns, that God may grant me the best way to serve Him.
Oujai
I really agree with minagir... minatasgeel (Am not fond of the name) post.
Let us pray to have the kindom of heaven.
God bless, Pray for me, all of you,
Cyril
If you say etafchioms, then you maybe changing the sentence. In Coptic, "Vetafchioms" literally means, "the One who took water" or "the One who was baptized". If you say "etafchioms", it can have 2 meanings, depending on context. It can mean "who was baptized" or it can mean "when He was baptized".
Sorry for bumping this old thread. Ophadece brought me here :-)
I hope I can ask a small question:
So etafchioms, when it means "when He was baptized", is the same form as the Sahidic "e-f-shan-(verb)"? The Conditional mood? Or is it the same form as the relative perfect "e-a-f-(verb)"? Or something else?