[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11828.msg141346#msg141346 date=1310489420] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141341#msg141341 date=1310485818] It seems to me every generation comes of a new way of saying things in Coptic. The reason is that we try to apply "rules" to pronunciation. These rules change every 5 - 10 years or so and the result is this confusion.
Now you know where 1975 comes from. It is Fr Shenouda's thesis. He reconstructed one version of OB. But like you said "every generation comes of a new way to say things in Coptic." But simple reasoning, this means there are other ways to say things in (OB) Coptic that an earlier generation constructed. (Even before Eryan Moftah).
That is not true factually and historically.
The invention of Moftah is what keeps changing. It is very easy to verify that through comparing Coptic books that attempt to teach Coptic reading as well as the Arabic transliteration in the last 30 years.
As for OB it is consistent and was not the invention of Abouna shenouda. In fact it is not an invention at all.
But simple reasoning, this means there are other ways to say things in (OB) Coptic that an earlier generation constructed. (Even before Eryan Moftah)
Again, this is wrong.
It seems that you have not read the thesis. If you did you would have noticed the consistency of OB since pre-Christianity.
In OB, at least as it is reconstructed today, there is no rule on which "e" vowel is pronounced "a". So both Senou] and Senoute are both pronounced /shanouda/.
Wong.
In OB "e" is always said "a" as in man
The lack of a rule is so rampant that certain words become theological heresy.
Please, provide an example of OB where this is true.
This is the main reason why Erian Moftah changed the rule for Coptic pronunciation.
No, it was not for this reason.
The reason was he though, wrongly, that since the alphabet is Greek, then it must be pronounced as the current Greek. There was no theological reason at all in changing the Coptic sounds.
Again, I am putting a challenge out there as to the theological argument.
The case in point that Moftah used was Pipneuma e;ouab (which means "Holy Spirit"). In OB, it becomes Babnauma adwab, which is exactly the same way you pronounce Pipneuma a;ouab (which means "the Unclean Spirit")
Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Holy in OB is atwab not utwab or adwab.
Please, do not pretend that you know OB when you do not and then misrepresent it.
Guys please... pay attention to something important. Forgetting about legislations, jurisdictions, fame, favourite or preferred names - there are names which are "translatable", i.e. each language will say it its own way, such as names of major figures in history. That for us as Copts include the popes, and the martyrs, and therefore St. George in English is equivalent to Gawargeyos, or Gerges in Coptic. That is why I can understand Kyrillos can become Cyril in translations. Of course Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are Mattaos, Markos, Loukas, and Ioannas in Coptic. As for Shenouda however, it is not a translatable name in the first place. When the pope is reposed, his name will stay as Shenouda, as is the case with pope Khristodolos for example... Oujai
Dear Remenkimi, I fail to understand why your unshakable defence of Greco-Bohairic in such a manner, when you are someone who are well-learned. I am not sure if you say people don't pay attention to what you are saying, when you probably have to give more heed to people who are not as learned as you are. First of all, reasoning of Mr. Moftah shouldn't change a language. In my reasoning I exactly fail (not true, but just for the sake of debate) the difference in the same vein like Coptic, between a symmetrical and asymmetrical. A typical, and atypical. A theism, and atheism. Of course you can argue that you pay close attention those opposites are not really the exact same pronunciation. It is exactly the same argument with Coptic dispensing with any heretical allusions (as you or Mr. Moftah point out). "e" in Coptic is pronounced "a" but a slight vowel "a", which the alpha "a" is pronounced usually (not always) as in "car". Therefore atwab, is different to a:twab. Hope you get what I mean. I still can't edit Coptic on my computer for some reason. Also you can still pronounce the "e" in Shenouda as /shenouda/ or /shanouda/. The word came commonly to be pronounced in such a manner - there is no harm in that. As is the difference between Shoubra (in Coptic spells as janja ou weida ro aya ("e" the letter in question)) and helbic... As a side note: seriously Remenkimi, do you take someone's word when he bases the pronunciation of a language on facts and observation? Seriously? I take it you started reading, if not even finished the manuscript "al adella al rabeteya". Oujai
That being the case, the old kholagies (euchologion) before Aryan Moftah must have had the old spelling is that so? Also, if this is the case, then there must be some old kholagies from the 19th century that we can reprint and start pronouncing the Coptic properly! Yes?
with the Coptic "Shenouti." He may have been ordained "Shenouda" as some say but I'm pretty sure the ordination was done in Arabic, not Coptic. That's why he was called "Shenouda."
The name Shenouda is a composite name of two syllables sha and nouda. The syllable nouda means God in sahidic Coptic. In Bohairic it is noudi.
When Aryan Moftah changed the the Coptic sounds, the letter "dee" (the last letter in the alphabet) became only ti. So, this has nothing to do with Arabic.
Shanoudi or Shanouda are both acceptable. However, I would call the Pope by the name of his ordination "Shanouda"
That being the case, the old kholagies (euchologion) before Aryan Moftah must have had the old spelling is that so? Also, if this is the case, then there must be some old kholagies from the 19th century that we can reprint and start pronouncing the Coptic properly! Yes?
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
This does go for all of Coptic not just the name "shanouda"
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141349#msg141349 date=1310490482] In OB "e" is always said "a" as in man If that is true, then Senou] must be pronounced Shanoudi, not Shanouda, since the last vowel is not e.
Please, provide an example of OB where this is true.
Why do you split my remarks and ask questions when the answer is already in the part you split apart.
This is the main reason why Erian Moftah changed the rule for Coptic pronunciation.
No, it was not for this reason.
The reason was he though, wrongly, that since the alphabet is Greek, then it must be pronounced as the current Greek. There was no theological reason at all in changing the Coptic sounds.
I'll admit I didn't read the whole book. I do notice he spent a few pages presenting his argument for Pipneuma e;ouab. It may not have been the main reason. But since he repeated his example many times, I would guess it a large part of his argument.
The case in point that Moftah used was Pipneuma e;ouab (which means "Holy Spirit"). In OB, it becomes Babnauma adwab, which is exactly the same way you pronounce Pipneuma a;ouab (which means "the Unclean Spirit")
Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Holy in OB is atwab not utwab or adwab.
My mistake. Both Pipneuma e;ouab and Pipneuma a;ouab are pronounced Babnauma atwab, not Babnauma adwab. This doesn't change the fact that both words have one pronounciation.
Here's another example from Moftah. P[oic vyetcwoun n`nihyt n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who knows the hearts of everyone") and P[oic vyatcwoun n`nihat n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who does not know the silver of everyone"). Both are pronounced exactly the same way.
Please, do not pretend that you know OB when you do not and then misrepresent it.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=11828.msg141362#msg141362 date=1310499053] That being the case, the old kholagies (euchologion) before Aryan Moftah must have had the old spelling is that so? Also, if this is the case, then there must be some old kholagies from the 19th century that we can reprint and start pronouncing the Coptic properly! Yes?
As far as I know, all old euchologian books do not write how to pronouce the words of the Liturgy. They simply are books with the words, not the pronunciation of the words. Books that do have pronunciation, as Coptic Sounds show us, vary on pronunciation. I haven't done a full study of it. But I have seen enough examples of inconsistency in OB. Shenouda is one of them. George
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11828.msg141353#msg141353 date=1310491619] Dear Remenkimi, I fail to understand why your unshakable defence of Greco-Bohairic in such a manner, when you are someone who are well-learned. You misunderstand me Ophadece. I think GB is faulty. But I also think OB is just as inconsistent. And OB is definitely not superior or more authentic.
I am not sure if you say people don't pay attention to what you are saying, when you probably have to give more heed to people who are not as learned as you are. If I have let pride get the best of me, I sincerely apologize. I wish to learn from everyone. I am not as well-learned as you think I am.
First of all, reasoning of Mr. Moftah shouldn't change a language. It's irrelevant what one should or shouldn't do to a language. This is a function of politics and social pressure, not linguistics. Regardless of why it happened. It happened. And the changes in GB, in my opinion, can be compared to other language shift examples.
In my reasoning I exactly fail (not true, but just for the sake of debate) the difference in the same vein like Coptic, between a symmetrical and asymmetrical. A typical, and atypical. A theism, and atheism. I agree with you. The fact that 2 words sound the same doesn't mean people would confuse them, especially if they are educated enough to extract the meaning from context. In this regard, Moftah's argument is weak. But in a time when there was very little education as documented by British and American missionarians, many people would not have known the difference between two opposite homophones. And if one were to attempt a linguistic revival, then one would have to at least address potential errors in pronunciation. Moftah's system is artificial, but at least he discussed the same issue that started this thread 155 years ago. And we still can't come up with a resolution.
you pay close attention those opposites are not really the exact same pronunciation. ... "e" in Coptic is pronounced "a" but a slight vowel "a", which the alpha "a" is pronounced usually (not always) as in "car". Therefore atwab, is different to a:twab. Hope you get what I mean. So you are saying e;ouab is pronounced atwab, where the first phoneme is a light "a" (like attention) and the second phoneme is a heavy "a" (like Asian), while a;ouab is pronounced atwab, where both phonemes are heavy "a"'s (like Asian)? Is that correct? That could be true. I will agree with that. I would like to have some references. And if this is accurate, atwab with a light "a" is not much different at all than atwab with a heavy "a". It would still be 2 homophones. And again, I don't think Copts of the 19th century were educated enough to know the difference.
I still can't edit Coptic on my computer for some reason. Also you can still pronounce the "e" in Shenouda as /shenouda/ or /shanouda/. The word came commonly to be pronounced in such a manner - there is no harm in that. As is the difference between Shoubra (in Coptic spells as janja ou weida ro aya ("e" the letter in question)) and helbic... I've never seen Shoubra spelled in Coptic. So I will agree with you but I could not understand what you meant.
As a side note: seriously Remenkimi, do you take someone's word when he bases the pronunciation of a language on facts and observation? Seriously? Other than Moftah's book, what other information do we have about GB that we can consider a primary source? Nothing else. Everyone after him simply repeated GB without explanation. On the flip side of the argument, everyone bases OB pronunciation on observations from certain manuscripts that wrote Arabic in Coptic letters, or Coptic in Arabic letters. These are still observations and many have based their pronunciation of OB exclusively on these manuscripts. So what other evidence that we can produce is adequate enough to base our pronunciation on?
Dear timothym, I hope you don't get disappointed in Copts as a whole, but it is true that because of so much pressure, and societal influences Copts do not act in a very Christian way. There are euchologions as an answer to your question, but unfortunately people who had studies in the past (including Fr. Shenouda) aren't putting these up as references except as material in their books. I am not sure where (I don't actually live in Egypt now) we may find those euchologions (a famous source is Damanhour euchologion) but if any member here is still living in Egypt and can help out, please do. Contrary to what Remenkimi says they include Arabic transliteration columns (if you are not familiar with such a term, it defines the pronunciation of Coptic words written in Arabic - unfortunately not any other language), and most probably as imikhail cheers so loudly on such a move, due to the lack of such resources, people are still focussed on Greco-Bohairic including high figures like Bshp Raphael, and such, besides so many other reasons of course... Dear Remenkimi, Why do you make assumptions in something we don't know? If Copts have lived through the ages speaking the language one way, why would it make no sense if they use /atwab/ in some instances and /a:twab/ [a: as in car] in other instances meaning a different word altogether. What does knowledge and well-learnedness have anything to do with that? For example can you follow your own argument and explain simply to me the difference between Sini /shini/ as * news, or * decision, or af as either * fly, or * meat, in the light of Copts' knowledge and amount of education?!!! Oujai
Ophadece, I already did get disappointed as a whole but thats another story. These days when I get disappointed with Copts (such as when they put the Sacred Heart image as the main Christ icon on the iconostasis ??? :o >:() I just try to explain to people what is right and wrong...often I get the typical answer that it doesn't matter...that all that matters is where the heart is, (and while that is partially true), being dogmatically/ritually correct is not a bad thing! In any case, I myself am a Copt through and through and on that note, I was speaking with a relative Coptic priest of mine and he was telling me that in Egypt he saw some old kholagies that had written in them "Eshlaal" rather than what we are used to seeing "Eshlil"...so this is what I meant by having the Old Bohairic written out. Of course, the pronounciation will never be there, but I mean if I were to see a text with Eshlaal it would never occur to me pronounce it Eshlil unless it was written that way...now I wish I could go to Egypt and photocopy an entire OB kholagie and put it in print. It would be a neat comparison thats for sure. [quote author=ophadece link=topic=11828.msg141375#msg141375 date=1310507177] Dear timothym, I hope you don't get disappointed in Copts as a whole, but it is true that because of so much pressure, and societal influences Copts do not act in a very Christian way. There are euchologions as an answer to your question, but unfortunately people who had studies in the past (including Fr. Shenouda) aren't putting these up as references except as material in their books. I am not sure where (I don't actually live in Egypt now) we may find those euchologions (a famous source is Damanhour euchologion) but if any member here is still living in Egypt and can help out, please do. Contrary to what Remenkimi says they include Arabic transliteration columns (if you are not familiar with such a term, it defines the pronunciation of Coptic words written in Arabic - unfortunately not any other language), and most probably as imikhail cheers so loudly on such a move, due to the lack of such resources, people are still focussed on Greco-Bohairic including high figures like Bshp Raphael, and such, besides so many other reasons of course... Dear Remenkimi, Why do you make assumptions in something we don't know? If Copts have lived through the ages speaking the language one way, why would it make no sense if they use /atwab/ in some instances and /a:twab/ [a: as in car] in other instances meaning a different word altogether. What does knowledge and well-learnedness have anything to do with that? For example can you follow your own argument and explain simply to me the difference between Sini /shini/ as * news, or * decision, or af as either * fly, or * meat, in the light of Copts' knowledge and amount of education?!!! Oujai
Dear timothym, I share with you your sentiments and reasoning behind every thing you said. But how valuable is me sharing those with you? Yes, in fact it turns out that the letter y is not pronounced as /ee/ but as /ai/ and sometimes /eə/ (or even /æ/) as in "bake" and "pair" (or even "bat") respectively. Even more interestingly, sometimes as /a:/ as in "heart". Examples of the former are `slyl - sihyt - hyt because you are Coptic through and through (if your parents ever argue in colloquial Arabic you will understand what I mean by the very last example), and examples of the latter are ;ys - hryi. Oujai
Here's another example from Moftah. P[oic vyetcwoun n`nihyt n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who knows the hearts of everyone") and P[oic vyatcwoun n`nihat n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who does not know the silver of everyone"). Both are pronounced exactly the same way.
What is your point Reminkimi?
Are you saying that the word "nihat" has two different meanings? If so, what is wrong with that?
Please, write the Coptic in English so we can follow you.
And the changes in GB, in my opinion, can be compared to other language shift examples.
We do not need comparisons with other languages. We have our heritage that we received from our saintly fathers.
The change that took place was based on faulty logic.
I am not saying the M. Moftah is evil. Most likely, he did what he did with good intentions. But since we know what is the truth, we should abide by it and in it.
Moftah's system is artificial, but at least he discussed the same issue that started this thread 155 years ago. And we still can't come up with a resolution.
So, are you suggesting that Aryan's system solved the problem?
The solution should have been EDUCATION not MUTILATION.
everyone bases OB pronunciation on observations from certain manuscripts that wrote Arabic in Coptic letters, or Coptic in Arabic letters. These are still observations and many have based their pronunciation of OB exclusively on these manuscripts.
Wrong.
The manuscripts we have extend beyond Coptic/Arabic ones. If you have access to Abouna Shenouda's thesis, you will see hundreds of other sources.
So what other evidence that we can produce is adequate enough to base our pronunciation on?
Dear imikhail, Remenkimi in his Coptic quoted text (not sure why you are not able to view Coptic) recites what Mr. Moftah argues in the book "el adella el rabeteya". The latter argues that since the ayya in Coptic is pronounced by COPTS before him (!!!!) as "a" simulating the pronunciation of the alpha, that changes meanings of all the sentences of the whole Coptic literature until he came up with the solution for this defect in coining up what is now known as Greco-Bohairic. To him, that was still Coptic, and not Hellenised by any means, but of course we all including Remenkimi with enough understanding can refute this part of the argument (at least). The quoted Coptic text questions the words hyt and hat (hæt and ha:t), that is heart and silver. The other two words are vyetcwoun and vyatcwoun (batsown and ba:tsown), that is who knows, and who doesn't know. Mr. Moftah goes on to argue that it makes a severe difference that of course COPTS before him (!!!) were so unaware of, and subsequently fell in major theological traps. NO FURTHER COMMENTS FOR FEAR OF RIDICULING A GOOD PERSON (who may really have strived so genuinely for Coptic revival). Oujai
I'm just dissatisfied that, while I thought I finally understood the pronunciation, it seems to be much harder. So I need to work and study more to find out how to correctly pronounce all Coptic words in all instances in the Bohairic dialect.
Well in addition, some people these days going as far as saying that it is also pronounced as "v" when Mr. Moftah didn't really indicate that (or did he?) Oujai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141412#msg141412 date=1310565869] OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858
It's statements like this that really gets under my skin.
Egyptian, whether late Egyptian or Demotic, is NOT OB. It's not even Old Coptic. How can you possibly say it can be traced to pre-Christianity?
OB is Bohairic. According to the Coptic Encyclopedia, "Bohairic spread dramatically (beginning after, and as an indirect result of the Arab conquest of Egypt)...In the 8th and 9th century it broke the monopoly of Sahidic...the old controversial question of its prehistory - whether it was never a literary language before the Arab conquest or was, on contrary, an old literary dialect has not yet been settled. What survives of in the way of Bohairic documents consists, on the one hand of manuscripts later than the ninth century (scriptural, hagiographical, liturgical), and a smaller collection of fourth and fifth-century fragments, all biblical."
And this only speaks of literary documents, not pronunciation documents. All of which date from 13th-17th century. So there is no way to prove OB is older than 13th century.
I'm confused. Doesn't the quote you just gave date Biblical fragments in Bohairic to the 4th and 5th century? So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it cannot be dated to earlier than that (not the ninth)? It wouldn't really make sense for them to write anything in a dialect that didn't exist yet... :)
But you're right, none of this says anything about pronunciation. This conversation is very silly.
dzhermi, What the quote is saying is that full manuscripts (full books of the Bible, full hagiographical saint stories, heuremetics (sermons), and liturgical texts) are dated to the ninth century. Very small fragments (sometimes not even a sentence long) are from the 4th century.
Comments
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141341#msg141341 date=1310485818]
It seems to me every generation comes of a new way of saying things in Coptic. The reason is that we try to apply "rules" to pronunciation. These rules change every 5 - 10 years or so and the result is this confusion.
Now you know where 1975 comes from. It is Fr Shenouda's thesis. He reconstructed one version of OB. But like you said "every generation comes of a new way to say things in Coptic." But simple reasoning, this means there are other ways to say things in (OB) Coptic that an earlier generation constructed. (Even before Eryan Moftah).
That is not true factually and historically.
The invention of Moftah is what keeps changing. It is very easy to verify that through comparing Coptic books that attempt to teach Coptic reading as well as the Arabic transliteration in the last 30 years.
As for OB it is consistent and was not the invention of Abouna shenouda. In fact it is not an invention at all. Again, this is wrong.
It seems that you have not read the thesis. If you did you would have noticed the consistency of OB since pre-Christianity.
In OB "e" is always said "a" as in man
Please, provide an example of OB where this is true.
No, it was not for this reason.
The reason was he though, wrongly, that since the alphabet is Greek, then it must be pronounced as the current Greek. There was no theological reason at all in changing the Coptic sounds.
Again, I am putting a challenge out there as to the theological argument.
Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Holy in OB is atwab not utwab or adwab.
Please, do not pretend that you know OB when you do not and then misrepresent it.
As for Shenouda however, it is not a translatable name in the first place. When the pope is reposed, his name will stay as Shenouda, as is the case with pope Khristodolos for example...
Oujai
I fail to understand why your unshakable defence of Greco-Bohairic in such a manner, when you are someone who are well-learned. I am not sure if you say people don't pay attention to what you are saying, when you probably have to give more heed to people who are not as learned as you are.
First of all, reasoning of Mr. Moftah shouldn't change a language. In my reasoning I exactly fail (not true, but just for the sake of debate) the difference in the same vein like Coptic, between a symmetrical and asymmetrical. A typical, and atypical. A theism, and atheism. Of course you can argue that you pay close attention those opposites are not really the exact same pronunciation. It is exactly the same argument with Coptic dispensing with any heretical allusions (as you or Mr. Moftah point out). "e" in Coptic is pronounced "a" but a slight vowel "a", which the alpha "a" is pronounced usually (not always) as in "car". Therefore atwab, is different to a:twab. Hope you get what I mean. I still can't edit Coptic on my computer for some reason.
Also you can still pronounce the "e" in Shenouda as /shenouda/ or /shanouda/. The word came commonly to be pronounced in such a manner - there is no harm in that. As is the difference between Shoubra (in Coptic spells as janja ou weida ro aya ("e" the letter in question)) and helbic...
As a side note: seriously Remenkimi, do you take someone's word when he bases the pronunciation of a language on facts and observation? Seriously? I take it you started reading, if not even finished the manuscript "al adella al rabeteya".
Oujai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141218#msg141218 date=1310388575] The name Shenouda is a composite name of two syllables sha and nouda. The syllable nouda means God in sahidic Coptic. In Bohairic it is noudi.
When Aryan Moftah changed the the Coptic sounds, the letter "dee" (the last letter in the alphabet) became only ti. So, this has nothing to do with Arabic.
Shanoudi or Shanouda are both acceptable. However, I would call the Pope by the name of his ordination "Shanouda"
This does go for all of Coptic not just the name "shanouda"
In OB "e" is always said "a" as in man
If that is true, then Senou] must be pronounced Shanoudi, not Shanouda, since the last vowel is not e. Why do you split my remarks and ask questions when the answer is already in the part you split apart. I'll admit I didn't read the whole book. I do notice he spent a few pages presenting his argument for Pipneuma e;ouab. It may not have been the main reason. But since he repeated his example many times, I would guess it a large part of his argument. My mistake. Both Pipneuma e;ouab and Pipneuma a;ouab are pronounced Babnauma atwab, not Babnauma adwab. This doesn't change the fact that both words have one pronounciation.
Here's another example from Moftah. P[oic vyetcwoun n`nihyt n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who knows the hearts of everyone") and P[oic vyatcwoun n`nihat n`te ouon niben (which means "The Lord who does not know the silver of everyone"). Both are pronounced exactly the same way.
Please, do not pretend that you know OB when you do not and then misrepresent it.
That being the case, the old kholagies (euchologion) before Aryan Moftah must have had the old spelling is that so? Also, if this is the case, then there must be some old kholagies from the 19th century that we can reprint and start pronouncing the Coptic properly! Yes?
As far as I know, all old euchologian books do not write how to pronouce the words of the Liturgy. They simply are books with the words, not the pronunciation of the words. Books that do have pronunciation, as Coptic Sounds show us, vary on pronunciation. I haven't done a full study of it. But I have seen enough examples of inconsistency in OB. Shenouda is one of them.
George
Dear Remenkimi,
I fail to understand why your unshakable defence of Greco-Bohairic in such a manner, when you are someone who are well-learned.
You misunderstand me Ophadece. I think GB is faulty. But I also think OB is just as inconsistent. And OB is definitely not superior or more authentic.
I am not sure if you say people don't pay attention to what you are saying, when you probably have to give more heed to people who are not as learned as you are.
If I have let pride get the best of me, I sincerely apologize. I wish to learn from everyone. I am not as well-learned as you think I am.
First of all, reasoning of Mr. Moftah shouldn't change a language.
It's irrelevant what one should or shouldn't do to a language. This is a function of politics and social pressure, not linguistics. Regardless of why it happened. It happened. And the changes in GB, in my opinion, can be compared to other language shift examples.
In my reasoning I exactly fail (not true, but just for the sake of debate) the difference in the same vein like Coptic, between a symmetrical and asymmetrical. A typical, and atypical. A theism, and atheism.
I agree with you. The fact that 2 words sound the same doesn't mean people would confuse them, especially if they are educated enough to extract the meaning from context. In this regard, Moftah's argument is weak. But in a time when there was very little education as documented by British and American missionarians, many people would not have known the difference between two opposite homophones. And if one were to attempt a linguistic revival, then one would have to at least address potential errors in pronunciation. Moftah's system is artificial, but at least he discussed the same issue that started this thread 155 years ago. And we still can't come up with a resolution.
you pay close attention those opposites are not really the exact same pronunciation. ... "e" in Coptic is pronounced "a" but a slight vowel "a", which the alpha "a" is pronounced usually (not always) as in "car". Therefore atwab, is different to a:twab. Hope you get what I mean.
So you are saying e;ouab is pronounced atwab, where the first phoneme is a light "a" (like attention) and the second phoneme is a heavy "a" (like Asian), while a;ouab is pronounced atwab, where both phonemes are heavy "a"'s (like Asian)? Is that correct? That could be true. I will agree with that. I would like to have some references. And if this is accurate, atwab with a light "a" is not much different at all than atwab with a heavy "a". It would still be 2 homophones. And again, I don't think Copts of the 19th century were educated enough to know the difference.
I still can't edit Coptic on my computer for some reason.
Also you can still pronounce the "e" in Shenouda as /shenouda/ or /shanouda/. The word came commonly to be pronounced in such a manner - there is no harm in that. As is the difference between Shoubra (in Coptic spells as janja ou weida ro aya ("e" the letter in question)) and helbic...
I've never seen Shoubra spelled in Coptic. So I will agree with you but I could not understand what you meant.
As a side note: seriously Remenkimi, do you take someone's word when he bases the pronunciation of a language on facts and observation? Seriously?
Other than Moftah's book, what other information do we have about GB that we can consider a primary source? Nothing else. Everyone after him simply repeated GB without explanation. On the flip side of the argument, everyone bases OB pronunciation on observations from certain manuscripts that wrote Arabic in Coptic letters, or Coptic in Arabic letters. These are still observations and many have based their pronunciation of OB exclusively on these manuscripts. So what other evidence that we can produce is adequate enough to base our pronunciation on?
I hope you don't get disappointed in Copts as a whole, but it is true that because of so much pressure, and societal influences Copts do not act in a very Christian way. There are euchologions as an answer to your question, but unfortunately people who had studies in the past (including Fr. Shenouda) aren't putting these up as references except as material in their books. I am not sure where (I don't actually live in Egypt now) we may find those euchologions (a famous source is Damanhour euchologion) but if any member here is still living in Egypt and can help out, please do. Contrary to what Remenkimi says they include Arabic transliteration columns (if you are not familiar with such a term, it defines the pronunciation of Coptic words written in Arabic - unfortunately not any other language), and most probably as imikhail cheers so loudly on such a move, due to the lack of such resources, people are still focussed on Greco-Bohairic including high figures like Bshp Raphael, and such, besides so many other reasons of course...
Dear Remenkimi,
Why do you make assumptions in something we don't know? If Copts have lived through the ages speaking the language one way, why would it make no sense if they use /atwab/ in some instances and /a:twab/ [a: as in car] in other instances meaning a different word altogether. What does knowledge and well-learnedness have anything to do with that? For example can you follow your own argument and explain simply to me the difference between Sini /shini/ as * news, or * decision, or af as either * fly, or * meat, in the light of Copts' knowledge and amount of education?!!!
Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11828.msg141375#msg141375 date=1310507177]
Dear timothym,
I hope you don't get disappointed in Copts as a whole, but it is true that because of so much pressure, and societal influences Copts do not act in a very Christian way. There are euchologions as an answer to your question, but unfortunately people who had studies in the past (including Fr. Shenouda) aren't putting these up as references except as material in their books. I am not sure where (I don't actually live in Egypt now) we may find those euchologions (a famous source is Damanhour euchologion) but if any member here is still living in Egypt and can help out, please do. Contrary to what Remenkimi says they include Arabic transliteration columns (if you are not familiar with such a term, it defines the pronunciation of Coptic words written in Arabic - unfortunately not any other language), and most probably as imikhail cheers so loudly on such a move, due to the lack of such resources, people are still focussed on Greco-Bohairic including high figures like Bshp Raphael, and such, besides so many other reasons of course...
Dear Remenkimi,
Why do you make assumptions in something we don't know? If Copts have lived through the ages speaking the language one way, why would it make no sense if they use /atwab/ in some instances and /a:twab/ [a: as in car] in other instances meaning a different word altogether. What does knowledge and well-learnedness have anything to do with that? For example can you follow your own argument and explain simply to me the difference between Sini /shini/ as * news, or * decision, or af as either * fly, or * meat, in the light of Copts' knowledge and amount of education?!!!
Oujai
I share with you your sentiments and reasoning behind every thing you said. But how valuable is me sharing those with you? Yes, in fact it turns out that the letter y is not pronounced as /ee/ but as /ai/ and sometimes /eə/ (or even /æ/) as in "bake" and "pair" (or even "bat") respectively. Even more interestingly, sometimes as /a:/ as in "heart". Examples of the former are `slyl - sihyt - hyt because you are Coptic through and through (if your parents ever argue in colloquial Arabic you will understand what I mean by the very last example), and examples of the latter are ;ys - hryi.
Oujai
Are you saying that the word "nihat" has two different meanings? If so, what is wrong with that?
Please, write the Coptic in English so we can follow you.
OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858
The change that took place was based on faulty logic.
I am not saying the M. Moftah is evil. Most likely, he did what he did with good intentions. But since we know what is the truth, we should abide by it and in it.
The solution should have been EDUCATION not MUTILATION.
The manuscripts we have extend beyond Coptic/Arabic ones. If you have access to Abouna Shenouda's thesis, you will see hundreds of other sources. Certainly not on an invention.
Remenkimi in his Coptic quoted text (not sure why you are not able to view Coptic) recites what Mr. Moftah argues in the book "el adella el rabeteya". The latter argues that since the ayya in Coptic is pronounced by COPTS before him (!!!!) as "a" simulating the pronunciation of the alpha, that changes meanings of all the sentences of the whole Coptic literature until he came up with the solution for this defect in coining up what is now known as Greco-Bohairic. To him, that was still Coptic, and not Hellenised by any means, but of course we all including Remenkimi with enough understanding can refute this part of the argument (at least).
The quoted Coptic text questions the words hyt and hat (hæt and ha:t), that is heart and silver. The other two words are vyetcwoun and vyatcwoun (batsown and ba:tsown), that is who knows, and who doesn't know. Mr. Moftah goes on to argue that it makes a severe difference that of course COPTS before him (!!!) were so unaware of, and subsequently fell in major theological traps. NO FURTHER COMMENTS FOR FEAR OF RIDICULING A GOOD PERSON (who may really have strived so genuinely for Coptic revival).
Oujai
"Who Knows" is pronounced beeyatcown
"Who does not know" is pronounced bee'atcown
there is very clear difference for those who know the language.
Oujai
The Phi is pronounced as B now?
In all languages, a letter may have different sounds. Coptic is not an exception.
So, the answer to your question is: yes the Phi can be either a b or f. However, Aryan Afendi changed it to only to sound f.
I'm just dissatisfied that, while I thought I finally understood the pronunciation, it seems to be much harder. So I need to work and study more to find out how to correctly pronounce all Coptic words in all instances in the Bohairic dialect.
Oujai
OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858
It's statements like this that really gets under my skin.
Egyptian, whether late Egyptian or Demotic, is NOT OB. It's not even Old Coptic. How can you possibly say it can be traced to pre-Christianity?
OB is Bohairic. According to the Coptic Encyclopedia, "Bohairic spread dramatically (beginning after, and as an indirect result of the Arab conquest of Egypt)...In the 8th and 9th century it broke the monopoly of Sahidic...the old controversial question of its prehistory - whether it was never a literary language before the Arab conquest or was, on contrary, an old literary dialect has not yet been settled. What survives of in the way of Bohairic documents consists, on the one hand of manuscripts later than the ninth century (scriptural, hagiographical, liturgical), and a smaller collection of fourth and fifth-century fragments, all biblical."
And this only speaks of literary documents, not pronunciation documents. All of which date from 13th-17th century. So there is no way to prove OB is older than 13th century.
But you're right, none of this says anything about pronunciation. This conversation is very silly.
What the quote is saying is that full manuscripts (full books of the Bible, full hagiographical saint stories, heuremetics (sermons), and liturgical texts) are dated to the ninth century. Very small fragments (sometimes not even a sentence long) are from the 4th century.