[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141426#msg141426 date=1310579020] Thanks ophadece for the comment. Now, I know what Reminkimi is referring to.
"Who Knows" is pronounced beeyatcown
"Who does not know" is pronounced bee'atcown
there is very clear difference for those who know the language.
Wait a minute. I thought OB always pronounced e as /a/ as you said in reply #32. vyetcwoun should be /be at swon/ not beeyatsown. Which in turn would be /bats won/ not /betswon/ if you said it fast. And why do you say there is a gliding sound "y" in the beginning (beeyatsown) since neither of the first 2 vowels y or e are gliding vowels? And why do you ignore the gliding vowel in the end? cwoun, where oun is pronounced /won/. The only gliding letters in Coptic are i and ou and maybe b but that's a whole different linguistic problem altogether.
Maybe OB isn't as universal and all-superior as you make it out to be. Could this be another inconsistancy in OB? Forget I said that. Obviously, OB has no inconsistencies. >:(
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11828.msg141441#msg141441 date=1310599362] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141426#msg141426 date=1310579020] Thanks ophadece for the comment. Now, I know what Reminkimi is referring to.
"Who Knows" is pronounced beeyatcown
"Who does not know" is pronounced bee'atcown
there is very clear difference for those who know the language.
Wait a minute. I thought OB always pronounced e as /a/ as you said in reply #32. vyetcwoun should be /be at swon/ not beeyatsown. Which in turn would be /bats won/ not /betswon/ if you said it fast. And why do you say there is a gliding sound "y" in the beginning (beeyatsown) since neither of the first 2 vowels y or e are gliding vowels? And why do you ignore the gliding vowel in the end? cwoun, where oun is pronounced /won/. The only gliding letters in Coptic are i and ou and maybe b but that's a whole different linguistic problem altogether.
Maybe OB isn't as universal and all-superior as you make it out to be. Could this be another inconsistancy in OB? Forget I said that. Obviously, OB has no inconsistencies. >:(
Reminkimi,
Are you being sarcastic or are you being ignorant. You keep claiming yourself to be knowledgeable about languages and keep repeating this phrase "any linguist will tell you ....". So, I am not sure where the above comment comes from?
Are you really honest with yourself and others when you claim that the gliding y is an inconsistency?
What is consistency in your mind?
The word “linguist” has the sound “w”, is this inconsistency?
How about the word bicycle and “cycle”: the y in bicycle has the sound of “I” while the y in cycle has the y sound. Do you call this inconsistency?
How about the “rapid” where the I has the sound of “e” is this inconsistency?
These examples exist in all languages and in Coptic. Aryan Afandi made Coptic an artificial language where every letter has to be pronounced exactly with its value. This made GB sound like a robot speaking.
I can go on and on, but I hope you get the point. If you call these inconsistencies , then I am afraid you are ignorant of what a language should be.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11828.msg141435#msg141435 date=1310589982] [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.
May be if you do some research, statements like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 won't get under your skin anymore.
Have you read Abouna Shenouda's thesis as I suggesed. If you did, you would have never, honestly, let a statement like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 get under your skin.
You need to stop using your wonderful deduction capabilities before you have done research.
Tracing does not mean that every Coptic word that existed in the 12th century existed exactly in the pre Christian era. However, it means that the word of the 12th century existed in a pretty close form 1200 years before.
For example, we can trace the word Egyptian colloquial "ward" which mean "flower" to the Coptic word "ward". Does this tracing suggest that Coptic is being used in Egypt. No, it means that we can reasonably say that the word "ward" has its roots in the original Coptic word.
This was the heart of Abouna Shenouda's thesis and the basis of the OB authenticity as it existed in the Coptic/Arabic manuscripts.
Now you may ask, how he arrived at his conclusions? Well, by comparing Coptic as it was written in Latin, Aramaic, Demotic, Hieroghlifics, Greek, Phoenician. Yes, it is a very complex process but quite comprehensive.
Again you need to read and research before you make statements like the one above.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141444#msg141444 date=1310603331] Are you being sarcastic or are you being ignorant. Sarcastic. But if you can't tell the difference, don't accuse me of being ignorant.
You keep claiming yourself to be knowledgeable about languages and keep repeating this phrase "any linguist will tell you ....". So, I am not sure where the above comment comes from?
I have given you references to numerous books on Google. I have given you examples from the Coptic Encyclopedia. You have given absolutely no references.
Are you really honest with yourself and others when you claim that the gliding y is an inconsistency?
Obviously, you're not understanding what I am saying. There are gliding vowels in Coptic, you just transliterated the ones that are not. There's the inconsistency.
The word “linguist” has the sound “w”, is this inconsistency?
/ui/ and /y/ are gliding letters in English. Coptic only has "ou" and "i" and "b" as gliding phonemes. Period. eeta is not a gliding vowel. Period.
I can go on and on, but I hope you get the point. If you call these inconsistencies , then I am afraid you are ignorant of what a language should be.
Again, what a language should be is irrelevant. Do you want references for that too?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141445#msg141445 date=1310604361] May be if you do some research, statements like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 won't get under your skin anymore. Who is the ignorant one now. I'm not going to even dignify this with a response.
Have you read Abouna Shenouda's thesis as I suggesed. If you did, you would have never, honestly, let a statement like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 get under your skin.
Why don't you get us the actual reference where Fr Shenouda said this? Why don't you actually find some historical fact that Bohairic, not Sahidic, not Coptic, not Demotic, not Egyptian existed before the Arab invasion? Get any references that we can verify.
Tracing does not mean that every Coptic word that existed in the 12th century existed exactly in the pre Christian era. However, it means that the word of the 12th century existed in a pretty close form 1200 years before.
We are not talking about the etymology of a certain Coptic word. We are talking about the Bohairic dialect. Senate comes from Latin. Does that mean the Senate in English existed in in Roman Empire? Does that mean English existed in the Roman Empire? No. Bohairic Coptic took it form after the Arab invasion. Find me any other reference to say otherwise.
Again you need to read and research before you make statements like the one above.
I have given you references to numerous books on Google. I have given you examples from the Coptic Encyclopedia. You have given absolutely no references.
I am not sure what references mean in your own mind.
Tell me if the following do meet your definition of references:
1 - Al Adella Al Rabteya, 2 - Fr. Shounada Maher's Thesis
Here are additional References: 1 - The Coptic Encycclopedia by Ateya Soriel - The pronunciation of late Bohairic Vol 8 2 - Sobhy, Georgy PG (1915). The pronunciation of Coptic in the Church of Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 2(1):15-19.) 3 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic sounds. University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; XXVI. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan press, 1934 4 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection (With a study in the popular traditions of Coptic). University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; 46. Ann Arbor : London, 1942. 5 - http://www.coptic.org/language/pronounciation.html 6 - Al Asas Al Matine fi dabt notk loghat al masriyin - by Fr Abdel Messih Salib Al Baramousi 7 - Torath Al Adab Al Qebti - by Fr Shenouda Maher and Dr Youhanna Nessim (Pages 19-39) 8 - The Modern Pronunciation of Coptic in the Mass, J. Dyneley Prince, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 23, (1902), pp. 289-306, Published by: American Oriental Society 9 - The Sounds of Old Bohairic, A short phological outline, by Mike S 10 - Damanhour Euchologion 1525 a.m., 1809 (Early 19th Century) 11- Common words in the spoken Arabic of Egypt, of Greek or Coptic origin, by Dr Georgy Sobhy Bey
Are you really honest with yourself and others when you claim that the gliding y is an inconsistency?
Obviously, you're not understanding what I am saying. There are gliding vowels in Coptic, you just transliterated the ones that are not. There's the inconsistency.
Why don't you get us the actual reference where Fr Shenouda said this?
For copyright issues I cannot quote you the thesis. However, Fr. Shenouda wrote two books that have some of his thesis research which I listed in an earlier post.
Also check the other references I posted.
Why don't you actually find some historical fact that Bohairic, not Sahidic, not Coptic, not Demotic, not Egyptian existed before the Arab invasion? Get any references that we can verify.
Obviously you did not understand what I wrote earlier.
Bohairic Coptic took it form after the Arab invasion. Find me any other reference to say otherwise.
Mr. Reminkimi
Our discussion here is not about when Coptic Bohairic started. Rather, which sounds of the Coptic Bohairic are authentic.
Let me go over the example I presented earlier.
The word 'ward' is used in modern Egypt to mean flower. Where does this word come from?
First, we can discount Arabic for it is not an Arabic word (btw this is a fact and not an opinion and I will leave it up to you to verify this fact)
Second, I know that the word existed in Coptic and is written as "Bert".
Third, I would compare the GB and the OB. GB, under Aryan's system, pronounce it "Vert". OB pronounce it "Ward". Voila, OB system makes sense because it resembles a current live word.
We can follow the same process with many words that are in current usage and we find that OB makes sense.
Fourth, you study transliteration as preserved prior to Aryan's era. Again, this agrees with how the OB sounds. At this stage you only worry about the values for the Coptic letters.
Fifth, to strengthen the evidence we need to compare OB with other languages and other Egyptian words.
This is the process of reconstructing how OB sounds.
The bottom line is we have tremendous scientific evidence that point to the authenticity of OB. Aryan came forward and messed it up and introduced sounds that indigenous Copts cannot pronounce.
It is very difficult to transliterate Coptic to show exactly how a word may sound. This adds confusion to the discussion like the one we are having here.
Dear imikhail and Remenkimi, In support of what imikhail has been arguing I found this website: http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic/coptic_MSS.html It states: "For a discussion of Bohairic one may still refer to Kahle (Bala'izah, pages 250f). We have proof that it existed in pre-fourth century Egypt. Kahle points out that Bohairic was the main dialect of the delta region of Egypt. Consequently, the value of the New Testament Bohairic version is enhanced, it is probably much older than many neo-critics will admit to! The Bohairic version seems to be more stable than the Sahidic version, but future analyses wil prove or disprove this. Even if this is an "exercise book" the script is fairly well written. See if you can find several of the "Old Coptic" characters in the image!" Oujai qen `P[C
Comments
Thanks ophadece for the comment. Now, I know what Reminkimi is referring to.
"Who Knows" is pronounced beeyatcown
"Who does not know" is pronounced bee'atcown
there is very clear difference for those who know the language.
Wait a minute. I thought OB always pronounced e as /a/ as you said in reply #32. vyetcwoun should be /be at swon/ not beeyatsown. Which in turn would be /bats won/ not /betswon/ if you said it fast. And why do you say there is a gliding sound "y" in the beginning (beeyatsown) since neither of the first 2 vowels y or e are gliding vowels? And why do you ignore the gliding vowel in the end? cwoun, where oun is pronounced /won/. The only gliding letters in Coptic are i and ou and maybe b but that's a whole different linguistic problem altogether.
Maybe OB isn't as universal and all-superior as you make it out to be. Could this be another inconsistancy in OB? Forget I said that. Obviously, OB has no inconsistencies. >:(
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11828.msg141426#msg141426 date=1310579020]
Thanks ophadece for the comment. Now, I know what Reminkimi is referring to.
"Who Knows" is pronounced beeyatcown
"Who does not know" is pronounced bee'atcown
there is very clear difference for those who know the language.
Wait a minute. I thought OB always pronounced e as /a/ as you said in reply #32. vyetcwoun should be /be at swon/ not beeyatsown. Which in turn would be /bats won/ not /betswon/ if you said it fast. And why do you say there is a gliding sound "y" in the beginning (beeyatsown) since neither of the first 2 vowels y or e are gliding vowels? And why do you ignore the gliding vowel in the end? cwoun, where oun is pronounced /won/. The only gliding letters in Coptic are i and ou and maybe b but that's a whole different linguistic problem altogether.
Maybe OB isn't as universal and all-superior as you make it out to be. Could this be another inconsistancy in OB? Forget I said that. Obviously, OB has no inconsistencies. >:(
Reminkimi,
Are you being sarcastic or are you being ignorant. You keep claiming yourself to be knowledgeable about languages and keep repeating this phrase "any linguist will tell you ....". So, I am not sure where the above comment comes from?
Are you really honest with yourself and others when you claim that the gliding y is an inconsistency?
What is consistency in your mind?
The word “linguist” has the sound “w”, is this inconsistency?
How about the word bicycle and “cycle”: the y in bicycle has the sound of “I” while the y in cycle has the y sound. Do you call this inconsistency?
How about the “rapid” where the I has the sound of “e” is this inconsistency?
These examples exist in all languages and in Coptic. Aryan Afandi made Coptic an artificial language where every letter has to be pronounced exactly with its value. This made GB sound like a robot speaking.
I can go on and on, but I hope you get the point. If you call these inconsistencies , then I am afraid you are ignorant of what a language should be.
[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.
May be if you do some research, statements like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 won't get under your skin anymore.
Have you read Abouna Shenouda's thesis as I suggesed. If you did, you would have never, honestly, let a statement like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 get under your skin.
You need to stop using your wonderful deduction capabilities before you have done research.
Tracing does not mean that every Coptic word that existed in the 12th century existed exactly in the pre Christian era. However, it means that the word of the 12th century existed in a pretty close form 1200 years before.
For example, we can trace the word Egyptian colloquial "ward" which mean "flower" to the Coptic word "ward". Does this tracing suggest that Coptic is being used in Egypt. No, it means that we can reasonably say that the word "ward" has its roots in the original Coptic word.
This was the heart of Abouna Shenouda's thesis and the basis of the OB authenticity as it existed in the Coptic/Arabic manuscripts.
Now you may ask, how he arrived at his conclusions? Well, by comparing Coptic as it was written in Latin, Aramaic, Demotic, Hieroghlifics, Greek, Phoenician. Yes, it is a very complex process but quite comprehensive.
Again you need to read and research before you make statements like the one above.
Are you being sarcastic or are you being ignorant.
Sarcastic. But if you can't tell the difference, don't accuse me of being ignorant. I have given you references to numerous books on Google. I have given you examples from the Coptic Encyclopedia. You have given absolutely no references. Obviously, you're not understanding what I am saying. There are gliding vowels in Coptic, you just transliterated the ones that are not. There's the inconsistency. /ui/ and /y/ are gliding letters in English. Coptic only has "ou" and "i" and "b" as gliding phonemes. Period. eeta is not a gliding vowel. Period. Again, what a language should be is irrelevant. Do you want references for that too?
May be if you do some research, statements like OB can be traced to the pre Christianity (thousands of years). This proves authenticity. GB is an invention that dates to 1858 won't get under your skin anymore.
Who is the ignorant one now. I'm not going to even dignify this with a response. Why don't you get us the actual reference where Fr Shenouda said this? Why don't you actually find some historical fact that Bohairic, not Sahidic, not Coptic, not Demotic, not Egyptian existed before the Arab invasion? Get any references that we can verify. We are not talking about the etymology of a certain Coptic word. We are talking about the Bohairic dialect. Senate comes from Latin. Does that mean the Senate in English existed in
in Roman Empire? Does that mean English existed in the Roman Empire? No. Bohairic Coptic took it form after the Arab invasion. Find me any other reference to say otherwise. Pot, stop calling the kettle black.
Tell me if the following do meet your definition of references:
1 - Al Adella Al Rabteya,
2 - Fr. Shounada Maher's Thesis
Here are additional References:
1 - The Coptic Encycclopedia by Ateya Soriel - The pronunciation of late Bohairic Vol 8
2 - Sobhy, Georgy PG (1915). The pronunciation of Coptic in the Church of Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 2(1):15-19.)
3 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic sounds. University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; XXVI. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan press, 1934
4 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection (With a study in the popular traditions of Coptic). University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; 46. Ann Arbor : London, 1942.
5 - http://www.coptic.org/language/pronounciation.html
6 - Al Asas Al Matine fi dabt notk loghat al masriyin - by Fr Abdel Messih Salib Al Baramousi
7 - Torath Al Adab Al Qebti - by Fr Shenouda Maher and Dr Youhanna Nessim (Pages 19-39)
8 - The Modern Pronunciation of Coptic in the Mass, J. Dyneley Prince, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 23, (1902), pp. 289-306, Published by: American Oriental Society
9 - The Sounds of Old Bohairic, A short phological outline, by Mike S
10 - Damanhour Euchologion 1525 a.m., 1809 (Early 19th Century)
11- Common words in the spoken Arabic of Egypt, of Greek or Coptic origin, by Dr Georgy Sobhy Bey
can you please give me a list of the English gliding letters?
For copyright issues I cannot quote you the thesis. However, Fr. Shenouda wrote two books that have some of his thesis research which I listed in an earlier post.
Also check the other references I posted. Obviously you did not understand what I wrote earlier.
Our discussion here is not about when Coptic Bohairic started. Rather, which sounds of the Coptic Bohairic are authentic.
Let me go over the example I presented earlier.
The word 'ward' is used in modern Egypt to mean flower. Where does this word come from?
First, we can discount Arabic for it is not an Arabic word (btw this is a fact and not an opinion and I will leave it up to you to verify this fact)
Second, I know that the word existed in Coptic and is written as "Bert".
Third, I would compare the GB and the OB. GB, under Aryan's system, pronounce it "Vert". OB pronounce it "Ward". Voila, OB system makes sense because it resembles a current live word.
We can follow the same process with many words that are in current usage and we find that OB makes sense.
Fourth, you study transliteration as preserved prior to Aryan's era. Again, this agrees with how the OB sounds. At this stage you only worry about the values for the Coptic letters.
Fifth, to strengthen the evidence we need to compare OB with other languages and other Egyptian words.
This is the process of reconstructing how OB sounds.
The bottom line is we have tremendous scientific evidence that point to the authenticity of OB. Aryan came forward and messed it up and introduced sounds that indigenous Copts cannot pronounce.
I hope this clears up the issue.
Does anyone have suggestions?
Does anyone know how to display them on this forum?
Insert them as symbols in a word document, then copy and paste here...
Oujai
In support of what imikhail has been arguing I found this website:
http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic/coptic_MSS.html
It states: "For a discussion of Bohairic one may still refer to Kahle (Bala'izah, pages 250f). We have proof that it existed in pre-fourth century Egypt. Kahle points out that Bohairic was the main dialect of the delta region of Egypt. Consequently, the value of the New Testament Bohairic version is enhanced, it is probably much older than many neo-critics will admit to! The Bohairic version seems to be more stable than the Sahidic version, but future analyses wil prove or disprove this. Even if this is an "exercise book" the script is fairly well written. See if you can find several of the "Old Coptic" characters in the image!"
Oujai qen `P[C
Please find Emile Maher Ishak's D.Phil Thesis entitled ‘The phonetics and phonology of the Bohairic dialect of Coptic and the survival of Coptic words in the colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic grammatical constructions in colloquial Egyptian Arabic’ (University of Oxford, 1975) available for download on my blog Copticsounds, here: http://copticsounds.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/online-emile-maher-ishaks-the-phonetics-and-phonology-of-the-bohairic-dialect-of-coptic/.
Regards,
Ambrose
Dear All,
Please find Emile Maher Ishak's D.Phil Thesis entitled ‘The phonetics and phonology of the Bohairic dialect of Coptic and the survival of Coptic words in the colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic grammatical constructions in colloquial Egyptian Arabic’ (University of Oxford, 1975) available for download on my blog Copticsounds, here: http://copticsounds.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/online-emile-maher-ishaks-the-phonetics-and-phonology-of-the-bohairic-dialect-of-coptic/.
Regards,
Ambrose
this si amazing btw...but it's HUGEEEE