It's not frustration at other people's opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's frustration for people claiming their opinion is fact based on broad generalizations.
And for what it's worth. I have no idea what you said. But you're entitled to say it and I'm not frustrated. :D George
I presented scholarly evidence, not just personal opinion. But I wouldn't make such a sharp division between the two, anyway...my opinion is supported by the evidence of scholars in the field. :P ;D
To reiterate: Both GB and OB are inorganic in the sense that they did not evolve naturally (with reference to the various processes by which natural languages evolve, which I have discussed elsewhere). This is to be expected in any circumstance in which a dead language is reintroduced in some way. However, it is a bit unfair to leave it at that. While OB is most definitely a reconstruction and a relatively recent one at that, its entire raison d'être is to re-establish the "native" pronunciation of Coptic as it existed before the Greco-Bohairic pronunciation was introduced. From what I can tell as someone without specific training in Coptic dialectology (in other words, by relying on experts who do have that knowledge, not on opinion), it appears to have more or less succeeded.
The Greco-Bohairic pronunciation, on the other hand, was not introduced to re-establish anything, but to establish another standard of pronunciation altogether which was not based on an earlier spoken dialect, but on Greek.
So we have one pronunciation that is based on the reconstruction of "native" speech, and another that is not.
Without using the words "fake" or "authentic", I hope the difference is clear and it is now obvious that, even though value judgments are not welcome or necessary, there is reason to treat OB and GB differently. To pretend otherwise is to ignore evidence, and to pretend otherwise while pretending to not have ignored evidence is...well...silly. If it were all a matter of opinions, I could understand continuing in the mold of recent posts, but it is not.
Believe it or not Jeremy, I agree with everything you said in your last point.
I would only stress, as you have already shown, that we need to quantify how "to treat OB and GB differently". We should treat them differently! - As long as treating them differently doesn't mean removing or expunging GB or claiming GB is inferior or fake or un-Coptic or unauthentic.
George PS. When I have more time, I will look up specific articles on Bohairic pronunciation. Some of the articles on the Coptic Sounds site were not really talking about pronunciation as much as they were discussing Coptic syntax in general. The "Greek Words in Coptic"articles by the late Bishop Greghorios comes to mind.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133823#msg133823 date=1300915167] To me, the premise upon which GB was built and the way it was built by one person's own opinion and judgment, makes GB a fake pronunciation.
Unless we dispute this fact, then I am not sure what constitutes fake. Please, I need help!!!
Thanks
If that were the case, then we need to consider modern Hebrew as fake. And we can also extend that premise to government bodies who enforce a "standardized" alphabet or a "standardized" dialect. It's not one individual person in this case, it is one individual corporation. If we can make this extension than you will have thousands of fake languages, dialects, accents, pronunciations, etc.
The answer to your inquire "what constitutes fake" is simple. Nothing! There's no valid way to quantify which language or dialect or pronunciation is fake and which is authentic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133823#msg133823 date=1300915167] To me, the premise upon which GB was built and the way it was built by one person's own opinion and judgment, makes GB a fake pronunciation.
Unless we dispute this fact, then I am not sure what constitutes fake. Please, I need help!!!
Thanks
Well, that is one way to look at it, Mikhail...as a sort of "idiolect run amok". :P
But I think this obscures the fact that, as it is the pronunciation adopted by the Church and common more or less throughout the entire Coptic world (diaspora and homeland), it is certainly acceptable to treat it as a particular variety that has the same function as a "not fake" pronunciation would have. We need to keep in mind the reality of the situation: While it started out as this, and its origins should not be forgotten or glossed over (so that people don't grow up thinking that GB is the historically correct pronunciation and OB an aberration of it), it is still valuable to look at it from an impartial linguistic perspective. I hope, God willing, to explore exactly this in my future work, with an eye toward studying the effect of the pronunciation reform on the shaping of and/or defense of Coptic identity, including its effect on any possible revitalization and education efforts. As we can see from the sometimes heated exchange in this thread, there is more than enough to work with! But in order to do that, I need to approach GB in much the same way as I would OB, without discarding the historical record.
I would humbly suggest that all Copts or others interested in the Coptic language approach the language in this manner.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10771.msg133826#msg133826 date=1300916193] Believe it or not Jeremy, I agree with everything you said in your last point.
I would only stress, as you have already shown, that we need to quantify how "to treat OB and GB differently". We should treat them differently! - As long as treating them differently doesn't mean removing or expunging GB or claiming GB is inferior or fake or un-Coptic or unauthentic.
George PS. When I have more time, I will look up specific articles on Bohairic pronunciation. Some of the articles on the Coptic Sounds site were not really talking about pronunciation as much as they were discussing Coptic syntax in general. The "Greek Words in Coptic"articles by the late Bishop Greghorios comes to mind.
Why wouldn't you agree with what I've written? It is an exposition on the same points that I've been trying to make in every post in this thread. Thank you, though. It's nice to see that we are not so far apart. In fact, I don't think we ever were. Just approaching things from different perspectives.
Regarding the articles on the "Coptic Sounds" blog, I chose to link to that page rather than the PDF of the specific article I referenced precisely because I'm hoping that everyone interested in this topic will avail themselves of all the articles there, as they are all of value. "Greek words in Coptic", too.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10771.msg133829#msg133829 date=1300917100] I hope, God willing, to explore exactly this in my future work, with an eye toward studying the effect of the pronunciation reform on the shaping of and/or defense of Coptic identity, including its effect on any possible revitalization and education efforts. Jeremy, are you going to approach this from a sociolinguistic view or a strict syntax view of the two pronunciations? Whatever you decide to do, make sure you include the introduction of "lost" hymns that display phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar. It seems to me that the lack of Coptic grammatical knowledge had a strong negative effect on oral and phonetic transmission. I think this had more to do with Erian Moftah's motives for introducing GB than any ecclesiastical union or decree. We can talk about details in private if you wish.
I would humbly suggest that all Copts or others interested in the Coptic language approach the language in this manner.
And I would humbly add and suggest that before we debate pronunciation, we should actually learn the language. There is so much richness in the language. It's a shame we can only read without comprehending and speaking in Coptic. Hopefully, this will all change one day.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10771.msg133844#msg133844 date=1300921335] Jeremy, are you going to approach this from a sociolinguistic view or a strict syntax view of the two pronunciations?
It is a sociolinguistic question.
Whatever you decide to do, make sure you include the introduction of "lost" hymns that display phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar.
I'm not sure what you mean by "phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar". Can you please provide an example of a hymn that you feel fits this description, with some explanation as to how you feel it does so? (Privately, if you wish, to preserve the thread from too much deviation.)
It seems to me that the lack of Coptic grammatical knowledge had a strong negative effect on oral and phonetic transmission.
This is an interesting idea, and I'm curious as to how you might substantiate it.
I think this had more to do with Erian Moftah's motives for introducing GB than any ecclesiastical union or decree. We can talk about details in private if you wish.
Sure, if you'd like to.
And I would humbly add and suggest that before we debate pronunciation, we should actually learn the language. There is so much richness in the language. It's a shame we can only read without comprehending and speaking in Coptic. Hopefully, this will all change one day.
George
This might be a "chicken and egg" sort of problem, George; Can you learn to speak without tackling pronunciation first? I know that in every language class I've ever taken, the two were never divided. When I took a year of Arabic courses, the script was presented simultaneously with the pronunciation, which I suppose made reading naturally flow from day one, even if it took quite a while before any of us were able to do any of these three activities with any amount of understanding.
I have been following this discussion closely, very interesting! Im not a linguist nor a specialist in these matters so I will not really divulge into the discussion at hand. But to answer this:
Can you please provide an example of a hymn that you feel fits this description, with some explanation as to how you feel it does so? (Privately, if you wish, to preserve the thread from too much deviation.)
Those are the most prevalent that come to mind. Tenen also does but the first two verses are in greek while the last two are a mix of Sahidic and Bohairic coptic.
Thank you, jydeacon, for those links. "O Kirios" is actually one of my favorite hymns, and I'm still a bit confused as to the issues surrounding it (most of my attempts to find out more about it have eventually uncovered some supposed problems with it, but I'm not sure what they are). Are these problems somehow related to what Remnkemi mentioned? I don't really know what "phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar" means...
If that were the case, then we need to consider modern Hebrew as fake. And we can also extend that premise to government bodies who enforce a "standardized" alphabet or a "standardized" dialect. It's not one individual person in this case, it is one individual corporation.
You postulate that what happened with Coptic happened with Hebrew. I disagree.
With Coptic, Arian merely changed the sounds of an already accepted sounds. For example he said instead of saying the letter "B" as B or W, he changed it to B and V. This did not happen with Hebrew.
I think this obscures the fact that, as it is the pronunciation adopted by the Church and common more or less throughout the entire Coptic world (diaspora and homeland), it is certainly acceptable to treat it as a particular variety that has the same function as a "not fake" pronunciation would have.
There was lot of resistance to adopting the deformed pronunciation. People nowadays truly think that the wrong way is the right way.
However, what is built on a false premise is false.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133857#msg133857 date=1300927177] I do not want to deviate from the discussion of the topic of Coptic phonology.
Okirios is not Coptic but Greek and one section of it is against the teaching of the Church. Unfortunately people like it because of its tune.
Fortunately, another Coptic hymn was authored ti fit the same tune.
Thanks
hmmmm......which translation are you talking about?! only m. farag was the one who decided to put an arabic translation to it. and even though, that text is questionable but not condemned.
There was lot of resistance to adopting the deformed pronunciation. People nowadays truly think that the wrong way is the right way.
However, what is built on a false premise is false.
Thanks.
Yes, Mikhail, but please understand that there I am talking about Coptic within the framework of linguistic study. Precisely why we to be descriptive and not prescriptive (i.e., describe the language how it is, not how it "should" be) is because linguistics, at least as I was trained to do it, looks at usage and function as the ultimate arbiter of what is correct. That's why there are no "fake" languages or pronunciations, so long as their communicative ability is suitably high for the task at hand. In the case of Coptic, where you have a language that is only used ecclesiastically, with regard to usage one pronunciation is as good as another.
With regard to history or the "authenticity" that this history carries with it, OB is on the right side of history.
In the case of Coptic, where you have a language that is only used ecclesiastically, with regard to usage one pronunciation is as good as another.
I beg to differ. Pronunciation preserves the "voice of the Fathers". Correct pronunciation, of Bohairic Coptic, preserves the way Alhan were handed down especially the Praises. It also agrees with everyday words used in Egypt including the nouns. Coptic affected spoken Arabic in Egypt and we can easily compare authentic Bohairic with the preserved words in the colloquial Arabic.
The so called GB introduced artificial stops that are not found in any other language and created rules for pronunciations that are artificial and instable. As a result, the heritage we received from the fathers was distorted.
I understand what you are trying to say. But such claims do affect the religious perspective, in my mind I cannot separate the two. I cannot look at Coptic from a mere linguistic prism because I cannot separate the religious heritage from the language itself.
That's fine. In my private opinions, I agree with you, but I can't let that prevent me from striving to maintain objectivity if it is a question of language use. I can't help it. It's how I was trained.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133872#msg133872 date=1300933482] I understand what you are trying to say. But such claims do affect the religious perspective, in my mind I cannot separate the two. I cannot look at Coptic from a mere linguistic prism because I cannot separate the religious heritage from the language itself.
that hurts your argument and hurt the status of the Coptic Orthodox Church in general. Our Church, our Mother, is based on the faith we received through our fathers; no language can constraint this faith. and using religion in an explanation to a language hurts a language. do you know the main reason that most colleges do not offer classes in bohairic coptic?! simply because it is too attached to the Coptic Church. so they teach Sehidic instead.
Is that the case, Mina? (About the college courses)
I find that a little odd. I know, for instance, that certain other languages that are only used in church are more widely taught in their classical/ecclesiastical forms than any other (e.g., I've seen many places, including secular colleges, that offer Syriac language courses; many fewer offer the modern "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic"). So I'd be a bit surprised if that were truly the case.
you are taking my comment out of context. Please, read my previous comments. What Ik am saying is the religious heritage handed to us from the fathers through Alhan and Tasbe7a has been distorted by the deformed so called GB.
I am not referring to dogma and theology but the relicious Coptic literature.
you are taking my comment out of context. Please, read my previous comments. What Ik am saying is the religious heritage handed to us from the fathers through Alhan and Tasbe7a has been distorted by the deformed so called GB.
how can you say that if the only recorded source of hymns was m Mikhael el-kebeer who recorded NOTHING in OB and not really in GB but rather just bohairic as was said by many. you cannot use this to back up anything simply because in itself is not on a strong basis. dude.......Abouna Sheouda Maher had to record all the church hymns from scratch in OB. from a chanter point of view, what is his source of those hymns?!
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10771.msg133878#msg133878 date=1300935453] Is that the case, Mina? (About the college courses)
I find that a little odd. I know, for instance, that certain other languages that are only used in church are more widely taught in their classical/ecclesiastical forms than any other (e.g., I've seen many places, including secular colleges, that offer Syriac language courses; many fewer offer the modern "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic"). So I'd be a bit surprised if that were truly the case.
i was told by some trust worthy....and i have seen it in colleges. it's not that they don't teach coptic as a language but they don't concentrate on Bohairic. like they'll acknowledge the existence of of other dialects but only chooses mostly sahadic to use in studies. also this have to do with many coptic biblical manuscripts that are in sahadic.
Your facts are not correct regarding Abouna Shenouda's recordings. He learned or rather received the hymns from a Mo3allem who himself received the hymns in OB.
Mo3allem Mikhail was the first disciple of Gerges Moftah and Aryan Afandi.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=10771.msg133884#msg133884 date=1300938293] i was told by some trust worthy....and i have seen it in colleges. it's not that they don't teach coptic as a language but they don't concentrate on Bohairic. like they'll acknowledge the existence of of other dialects but only chooses mostly sahadic to use in studies. also this have to do with many coptic biblical manuscripts that are in sahadic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133886#msg133886 date=1300938401] Your facts are not correct regarding Abouna Shenouda's recordings. He learned or rather received the hymns from a Mo3allem who himself received the hymns in OB.
and again, as a chanter, i like to hear sources....and probably will also want to hear the source of the source till it ends around m mikhael.
Mo3allem Mikhail was the first disciple of Gerges Moftah and Aryan Afandi.
so you are throwing all of our hymns in the garbage because of that.....
No I am not throwing the hymns in the Garbage. You used Mo3aallem Mikhail as an evidence that the hymns were only recorded in GB. Then you claimed that Abouna Shenouda invented the OB Alhan.
So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue.
Comments
And for what it's worth. I have no idea what you said. But you're entitled to say it and I'm not frustrated. :D
George
What broad generalizations you are referring to. If you please list them, and we can get to the specifics.
Thanks.
To reiterate: Both GB and OB are inorganic in the sense that they did not evolve naturally (with reference to the various processes by which natural languages evolve, which I have discussed elsewhere). This is to be expected in any circumstance in which a dead language is reintroduced in some way. However, it is a bit unfair to leave it at that. While OB is most definitely a reconstruction and a relatively recent one at that, its entire raison d'être is to re-establish the "native" pronunciation of Coptic as it existed before the Greco-Bohairic pronunciation was introduced. From what I can tell as someone without specific training in Coptic dialectology (in other words, by relying on experts who do have that knowledge, not on opinion), it appears to have more or less succeeded.
The Greco-Bohairic pronunciation, on the other hand, was not introduced to re-establish anything, but to establish another standard of pronunciation altogether which was not based on an earlier spoken dialect, but on Greek.
So we have one pronunciation that is based on the reconstruction of "native" speech, and another that is not.
Without using the words "fake" or "authentic", I hope the difference is clear and it is now obvious that, even though value judgments are not welcome or necessary, there is reason to treat OB and GB differently. To pretend otherwise is to ignore evidence, and to pretend otherwise while pretending to not have ignored evidence is...well...silly. If it were all a matter of opinions, I could understand continuing in the mold of recent posts, but it is not.
Unless we dispute this fact, then I am not sure what constitutes fake. Please, I need help!!!
Thanks
I would only stress, as you have already shown, that we need to quantify how "to treat OB and GB differently". We should treat them differently! - As long as treating them differently doesn't mean removing or expunging GB or claiming GB is inferior or fake or un-Coptic or unauthentic.
George
PS. When I have more time, I will look up specific articles on Bohairic pronunciation. Some of the articles on the Coptic Sounds site were not really talking about pronunciation as much as they were discussing Coptic syntax in general. The "Greek Words in Coptic"articles by the late Bishop Greghorios comes to mind.
To me, the premise upon which GB was built and the way it was built by one person's own opinion and judgment, makes GB a fake pronunciation.
Unless we dispute this fact, then I am not sure what constitutes fake. Please, I need help!!!
Thanks
If that were the case, then we need to consider modern Hebrew as fake. And we can also extend that premise to government bodies who enforce a "standardized" alphabet or a "standardized" dialect. It's not one individual person in this case, it is one individual corporation. If we can make this extension than you will have thousands of fake languages, dialects, accents, pronunciations, etc.
The answer to your inquire "what constitutes fake" is simple. Nothing! There's no valid way to quantify which language or dialect or pronunciation is fake and which is authentic.
To me, the premise upon which GB was built and the way it was built by one person's own opinion and judgment, makes GB a fake pronunciation.
Unless we dispute this fact, then I am not sure what constitutes fake. Please, I need help!!!
Thanks
Well, that is one way to look at it, Mikhail...as a sort of "idiolect run amok". :P
But I think this obscures the fact that, as it is the pronunciation adopted by the Church and common more or less throughout the entire Coptic world (diaspora and homeland), it is certainly acceptable to treat it as a particular variety that has the same function as a "not fake" pronunciation would have. We need to keep in mind the reality of the situation: While it started out as this, and its origins should not be forgotten or glossed over (so that people don't grow up thinking that GB is the historically correct pronunciation and OB an aberration of it), it is still valuable to look at it from an impartial linguistic perspective. I hope, God willing, to explore exactly this in my future work, with an eye toward studying the effect of the pronunciation reform on the shaping of and/or defense of Coptic identity, including its effect on any possible revitalization and education efforts. As we can see from the sometimes heated exchange in this thread, there is more than enough to work with! But in order to do that, I need to approach GB in much the same way as I would OB, without discarding the historical record.
I would humbly suggest that all Copts or others interested in the Coptic language approach the language in this manner.
Believe it or not Jeremy, I agree with everything you said in your last point.
I would only stress, as you have already shown, that we need to quantify how "to treat OB and GB differently". We should treat them differently! - As long as treating them differently doesn't mean removing or expunging GB or claiming GB is inferior or fake or un-Coptic or unauthentic.
George
PS. When I have more time, I will look up specific articles on Bohairic pronunciation. Some of the articles on the Coptic Sounds site were not really talking about pronunciation as much as they were discussing Coptic syntax in general. The "Greek Words in Coptic"articles by the late Bishop Greghorios comes to mind.
Why wouldn't you agree with what I've written? It is an exposition on the same points that I've been trying to make in every post in this thread. Thank you, though. It's nice to see that we are not so far apart. In fact, I don't think we ever were. Just approaching things from different perspectives.
Regarding the articles on the "Coptic Sounds" blog, I chose to link to that page rather than the PDF of the specific article I referenced precisely because I'm hoping that everyone interested in this topic will avail themselves of all the articles there, as they are all of value. "Greek words in Coptic", too.
I hope, God willing, to explore exactly this in my future work, with an eye toward studying the effect of the pronunciation reform on the shaping of and/or defense of Coptic identity, including its effect on any possible revitalization and education efforts.
Jeremy, are you going to approach this from a sociolinguistic view or a strict syntax view of the two pronunciations? Whatever you decide to do, make sure you include the introduction of "lost" hymns that display phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar. It seems to me that the lack of Coptic grammatical knowledge had a strong negative effect on oral and phonetic transmission. I think this had more to do with Erian Moftah's motives for introducing GB than any ecclesiastical union or decree. We can talk about details in private if you wish. And I would humbly add and suggest that before we debate pronunciation, we should actually learn the language. There is so much richness in the language. It's a shame we can only read without comprehending and speaking in Coptic. Hopefully, this will all change one day.
George
Jeremy, are you going to approach this from a sociolinguistic view or a strict syntax view of the two pronunciations?
It is a sociolinguistic question. I'm not sure what you mean by "phonetic oral transmission void of proper Coptic grammar". Can you please provide an example of a hymn that you feel fits this description, with some explanation as to how you feel it does so? (Privately, if you wish, to preserve the thread from too much deviation.) This is an interesting idea, and I'm curious as to how you might substantiate it. Sure, if you'd like to. This might be a "chicken and egg" sort of problem, George; Can you learn to speak without tackling pronunciation first? I know that in every language class I've ever taken, the two were never divided. When I took a year of Arabic courses, the script was presented simultaneously with the pronunciation, which I suppose made reading naturally flow from day one, even if it took quite a while before any of us were able to do any of these three activities with any amount of understanding.
The hymn Agios Isten comes to mind as well : http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/index.php?a=view&id=691
Those are the most prevalent that come to mind. Tenen also does but the first two verses are in greek while the last two are a mix of Sahidic and Bohairic coptic.
With Coptic, Arian merely changed the sounds of an already accepted sounds. For example he said instead of saying the letter "B" as B or W, he changed it to B and V. This did not happen with Hebrew.
Thanks.
Okirios is not Coptic but Greek and one section of it is against the teaching of the Church. Unfortunately people like it because of its tune.
Fortunately, another Coptic hymn was authored ti fit the same tune.
Thanks
However, what is built on a false premise is false.
Thanks.
I do not want to deviate from the discussion of the topic of Coptic phonology.
Okirios is not Coptic but Greek and one section of it is against the teaching of the Church. Unfortunately people like it because of its tune.
Fortunately, another Coptic hymn was authored ti fit the same tune.
Thanks
hmmmm......which translation are you talking about?! only m. farag was the one who decided to put an arabic translation to it. and even though, that text is questionable but not condemned.
With regard to history or the "authenticity" that this history carries with it, OB is on the right side of history.
The so called GB introduced artificial stops that are not found in any other language and created rules for pronunciations that are artificial and instable. As a result, the heritage we received from the fathers was distorted.
So, one pronunciation is NOT good as another.
Thanks.
Thanks
I understand what you are trying to say. But such claims do affect the religious perspective, in my mind I cannot separate the two. I cannot look at Coptic from a mere linguistic prism because I cannot separate the religious heritage from the language itself.
that hurts your argument and hurt the status of the Coptic Orthodox Church in general. Our Church, our Mother, is based on the faith we received through our fathers; no language can constraint this faith. and using religion in an explanation to a language hurts a language. do you know the main reason that most colleges do not offer classes in bohairic coptic?! simply because it is too attached to the Coptic Church. so they teach Sehidic instead.
I find that a little odd. I know, for instance, that certain other languages that are only used in church are more widely taught in their classical/ecclesiastical forms than any other (e.g., I've seen many places, including secular colleges, that offer Syriac language courses; many fewer offer the modern "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic"). So I'd be a bit surprised if that were truly the case.
you are taking my comment out of context. Please, read my previous comments. What Ik am saying is the religious heritage handed to us from the fathers through Alhan and Tasbe7a has been distorted by the deformed so called GB.
I am not referring to dogma and theology but the relicious Coptic literature.
Thanks.
Minatasgeel,
you are taking my comment out of context. Please, read my previous comments. What Ik am saying is the religious heritage handed to us from the fathers through Alhan and Tasbe7a has been distorted by the deformed so called GB.
how can you say that if the only recorded source of hymns was m Mikhael el-kebeer who recorded NOTHING in OB and not really in GB but rather just bohairic as was said by many. you cannot use this to back up anything simply because in itself is not on a strong basis. dude.......Abouna Sheouda Maher had to record all the church hymns from scratch in OB. from a chanter point of view, what is his source of those hymns?!
Is that the case, Mina? (About the college courses)
I find that a little odd. I know, for instance, that certain other languages that are only used in church are more widely taught in their classical/ecclesiastical forms than any other (e.g., I've seen many places, including secular colleges, that offer Syriac language courses; many fewer offer the modern "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic"). So I'd be a bit surprised if that were truly the case.
i was told by some trust worthy....and i have seen it in colleges. it's not that they don't teach coptic as a language but they don't concentrate on Bohairic. like they'll acknowledge the existence of of other dialects but only chooses mostly sahadic to use in studies. also this have to do with many coptic biblical manuscripts that are in sahadic.
Mo3allem Mikhail was the first disciple of Gerges Moftah and Aryan Afandi.
Thanks.
i was told by some trust worthy....and i have seen it in colleges. it's not that they don't teach coptic as a language but they don't concentrate on Bohairic. like they'll acknowledge the existence of of other dialects but only chooses mostly sahadic to use in studies. also this have to do with many coptic biblical manuscripts that are in sahadic.
Ah, I see. Thank you for this explanation.
Your facts are not correct regarding Abouna Shenouda's recordings. He learned or rather received the hymns from a Mo3allem who himself received the hymns in OB.
and again, as a chanter, i like to hear sources....and probably will also want to hear the source of the source till it ends around m mikhael. so you are throwing all of our hymns in the garbage because of that.....
So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue.
Thanks.