It's irrelevant if the pronunciation was invented by one person.
May irrelevant to you .. but not to me and those who love their heritage. It is precisely because men like Eliezer Ben Yehuda loved their heritage that they created Modern Hebrew and other languages. Your premise that one who invents a language hates their heritage is not based on any fact other than your opinion. In fact, it is precisely because of nationalism and national pride that Canada Official Language Act of 1969 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom insisted on the use of English and French for all Canadian government functions. There are so many examples of language standardization for the promotion of a culture and a heritage. Since you didn't bother to read my previous article I'll repeat it again - all of these standardization reforms are artificial; inventend by one person or one group. You can continue to argue that invented languages and invented reforms (or rectifications) make a language or a reform fake while ignoring the hundreds of examples that say otherwise.
Hundreds of languages are invented. Excellent .. Coptic is not one of these languages. So, you cannot use them to support your argument.
Again, you continue to ignore what I said. Do not confuse Coptic the language with Bohairic Coptic pronunciation. We have always been talking about pronunciation and you continue to divert the discussion about the language. So I'll repeat again. Even if the second Bohairic pronunciation is invented, it still as valid as the original pronunciation.
Coptic did not need standardization as its pronunciation was already in use.
Again there were multiple versions of OB in use (especially in the 17-18th century). Worrell's article proves this point. Even today, there is no full agreement on how words are pronounced. I've already given you examples of how OB was not standardized. So yes, it needed a standardization. You continue to argue about English pronunciation variety. Well even English has a standard form with many non-standard forms, many distinguished by pronunciation only. There are prescriptive bodies and private societies who exist to make sure standard English survives, such as The Queen's English Society. This in itself is an artifical process.
Arabic was in use in the 7th century as Classical Arabic. Yet, there was a standardization process that developed into Modern Standard Arabic. Look at what this article says: "In spite of the romantic and variously successful attempts of modern Arab authors to follow... Classical Arabic (CA), the exigencies of modernity have led to the adoption of numerous terms which would have been mysterious to a Classical author, whether taken from other languages (e.g. فيلم film) or coined from existing lexical resources (e.g. هاتف hātif "telephone" < "caller")." In other words, Arabic (like Coptic) has a movement to move away from the modern form MSA to CA but this cannot linguistically occur because of the adoption of numerous terms. Pronunciation is no different. You can't go back to an arbitrary version of OB without knowing the intricacies and nuances of the pronunciations. You can't simply un-standardize a language or pronunciation simply because you don't like it's inventor.
May be if you educate yourself on how Modern Hebrew developed and compare it to what Aryan Moftah did, you will stop using it as an example or rather an excuse of Aryan's mutilation to the Coptic language.
Maybe you can actually give references and develop a respectable argument based on facts instead of pretending I didn't. You want to argue how Modern Hebrew is not like GB, then give references. At least come up with an argument instead of attacking me. I've given plenty of references and resources. If you want to argue any one of them in particular, go ahead. The fact that you continue to attack me instead of my argument only shows you don't have a valid counter-argument, much less a previous argument. You simply want us to consider your opinion as fact.
It is precisely because men like Eliezer Ben Yehuda loved their heritage that they created Modern Hebrew and other languages.
There is a FUNDAMENTAL flaw in your logic. Here it goes:
The pronunciation of Bohairic was known and received down from generation to generation. It is well documented in our ritual books and manuscripts.
Modern Hebrew was different. What was done was an integration of existing dialects, purification of the language from certain idioms, return to the liturgical Hebrew.
Contrast this with Aryan Moftah changing the sounds of the letters of existing language that was known accross Egypt. There was no need to do that other than the unification between the Melekite and the Coptic Church. In essence what was done was a KISS UP to the Greek so that the unification may proceed.
So, to keep comparing what Aryan did with Modern Hebrew is a flawed comparison.
Eliezer went back to the roots of Hebrew, Aryan abandoned the roots of Bohairic
Your premise that one who invents a language hates their heritage is not based on any fact other than your opinion.
You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said that Aryan hated the language. The process Aryan used was unscholarly, unacademic and was adopted out of ignorance. Till today Egyptians have what is called "3okdat Al Agnaby" meany that anything foreign is better than the local.
In fact, it is precisely because of nationalism and national pride that Canada Official Language Act of 1969 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom insisted on the use of English and French for all Canadian government functions.
What does that have to do with changing the Coptic sounds that noone in Egypt can pronounce and as a result Coptic language mutilation is continuing.
There are so many examples of language standardization for the promotion of a culture and a heritage. Since you didn't bother to read my previous article I'll repeat it again - all of these standardization reforms are artificial; inventend by one person or one group. You can continue to argue that invented languages and invented reforms (or rectifications) make a language or a reform fake while ignoring the hundreds of examples that say otherwise.
Again flawed logic.
Your premise is that Coptic needed standardization when in fact all it needed was teaching the language. Instead, Aryan invented sounds that no one till today can pronounce and as a result Coptic language mutilation is continuing.
Again, you continue to ignore what I said. Do not confuse Coptic the language with Bohairic Coptic pronunciation. We have always been talking about pronunciation and you continue to divert the discussion about the language. So I'll repeat again. Even if the second Bohairic pronunciation is invented, it still as valid as the original pronunciation.
INVENTION CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC.
Coptic language was handed down to us just as the ritual and the faith. The Church ignored the heritage and invented sounds that the clergy could not, cannot and will not be able to pronounce and as a result Coptic language mutilation is continuing.
We as Copts should preserve our heritage instead of inventing it.
Again there were multiple versions of OB in use (especially in the 17-18th century). Worrell's article proves this point. Even today, there is no full agreement on how words are pronounced. I've already given you examples of how OB was not standardized. So yes, it needed a standardization. You continue to argue about English pronunciation variety. Well even English has a standard form with many non-standard forms, many distinguished by pronunciation only. There are prescriptive bodies and private societies who exist to make sure standard English survives, such as The Queen's English Society. This in itself is an artifical process.
Standardization comes out of usage not out of invention.
What happened is Aryan Moftah INVENTED NEW SOUNDS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE COPTIC LANGUAGE. As a result no one can pronounce what he advocated and the mutilation is continuing.
By your logic what Aryan did was artificial. So, let's go back to the authentic Bohairic.
Arabic was in use in the 7th century as Classical Arabic. Yet, there was a standardization process that developed into Modern Standard Arabic. Look at what this article says: "In spite of the romantic and variously successful attempts of modern Arab authors to follow... Classical Arabic (CA), the exigencies of modernity have led to the adoption of numerous terms which would have been mysterious to a Classical author, whether taken from other languages (e.g. فيلم film) or coined from existing lexical resources (e.g. هاتف hātif "telephone" < "caller")." In other words, Arabic (like Coptic) has a movement to move away from the modern form MSA to CA but this cannot linguistically occur because of the adoption of numerous terms. Pronunciation is no different. You can't go back to an arbitrary version of OB without knowing the intricacies and nuances of the pronunciations. You can't simply un-standardize a language or pronunciation simply because you don't like it's inventor.
Borrowed words have nothing to do with INVENTING SOUNDS.
Aryan Afendi invented sounds that were not part of Coptic whatsoever. As a result no one can pronounce what he advocated and the mutilation is continuing.
Yes I am repeating myself hoping to prove the point that what you are calling standardization has nothing to do with adding sounds that are not part of the language.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142636#msg142636 date=1312624995] Dear Remenkimi, I may go tomorrow to church, and ask them to pronounce every 'a' letter as an 'o' and the followers of the church will follow me blindly. Then next generation Egyptians will adopt the same teaching, and in almost 40- 50 years' time we have 1% of the British pronouncing what comes to be known as Fadenglish. Ironically, this is exactly what happened in England. Look at Mackem. Then look at the list of English variants (which they call dialects) here. And then look at Indian English. (there's 11 different English varieties spoken in India)
How sound is that? How do you think it is going to stand the test of time, the test of reason, and the test of comparativeness with the authentic British English (as I live in Britain). There is no such thing as authentic British English. There is only the standard Received Pronunciation (RP) or Queen's English. There are about 35 non-standard British English dialects. The only reason Received Pronunciation is the standard is because of politics, not authenticity or age. According to the article, RP was established in the 15th century in Lodon and it is "a mixture of London speech elements from East Midlands, Middlesex, and Essex [dialects]". So RP isn't even the oldest.
This created a conflict (something that doesn't usually happen with evolution of languages, or the making up of a newer dialect or lingo as the Jewish), and people started to say "hold on a minute, are you talking the same language I am talking?" Many neighboring dialects have varying degrees of mutually unintelligibility. Danish speakers can understand Norwegian but Norewegian speakers do not understand Danish. Moftah's reform, according to his book, was based on making Coptic more mutually intelligible (to an international community) than it had to do with uniting with the Greeks.
Has this new dialect been an attempt to unify Copts? Yes. With the exeption of Copts who refuse to accept GB, GB is universally spoken by Copts (who actually use Coptic) and the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Has this new dialect been clearly and unequivocally been taught as an addition to the dialects present at that time? NO - it's been taught to be superior and authentic. And now OB proponents are doing the same thing they despise Moftah for doing: Teaching it as superior and authentic. The fact is neither OB or GB is authentic or superior.
Lastly, has this new dialect agreed with people's tongues, their societal norms, or traditions at the time? No, it created a group of society called "khawagat" (= foreigners in English) by the muslim population (at least if not created, it established the already pejorative descriptions). From that article on English dialects in Britian, most dialects, especially in rural areas, are based on class status. People simply choose their dialect simply by many sociolinguistic reasons, including economic status, region, resentment of the ruling class, politics and so on. We shouldn't be surprised that any un-common pronunciation by non-Muslims would be considered "khawagi". The same is true for the Arabic subdialects: Cairenes consider Upper Egyptian substandard, as well as their accent. The educated Cairenes speak one form of colloquial Arabic and uneducated peasants speak another. And so on.
Maybe you can actually give references and develop a respectable argument based on facts instead of pretending I didn't. You want to argue how Modern Hebrew is not like GB, then give references. At least come up with an argument instead of attacking me. I've given plenty of references and resources. If you want to argue any one of them in particular, go ahead. The fact that you continue to attack me instead of my argument only shows you don't have a valid counter-argument, much less a previous argument. You simply want us to consider your opinion as fact.
READ YOUR OWN REFERENCES. However I will make it easy for you. Emphasis is mine and my comments are in read.
Hebrew has been 'revived' several times as a literary language, and most significantly by the Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement of early and mid-19th century Germany. Near the end of that century the Jewish activist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, owing to the ideology of the national revival (Shivat Tziyon,[note 6] later Zionism), began reviving Hebrew as a modern spoken language. Eventually, as a result of the local movement he created, but more significantly as a result of the new groups of immigrants known under the name of the Second Aliyah, it replaced a score of languages spoken by Jews at that time. Those languages were Jewish dialects such as the Judeo-Spanish language (also called Judezmo or Ladino), Yiddish, Judeo-Arabic, and Bukharian language, or local languages spoken in the Jewish diaspora such as Russian, Persian, and Arabic.
Here you notice that the Jewish people were speaking Hebrew mixed with their local languages creating different dialects
Now how Eliezer standardized Hebrew?
The major result of the literary work of the Hebrew intellectuals along the 19th century was a lexical modernization of Hebrew. New words and expressions were adapted as neologisms from the large corpus of Hebrew writings since the Hebrew Bible, or borrowed from Turkish and Arabic (mainly by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda) and older Aramaic and Latin. Many new words were either borrowed from or coined after European languages, especially English, Russian, German, and French. Modern Hebrew became an official language in British-ruled Palestine in 1921 (along with English and Arabic), and then in 1948 became an official language of the newly declared State of Israel. Hebrew is the most widely spoken language in Israel today.
Here we notice that Modern Hebrew was adding words to the Hebrew language that were not part of the Classical Hebrew. There was no change of sounds to the alphabet.
Aryan did not do that; he did not standardize the language the way Eliezer did with the Hebrew language. Aryan simply added new sounds to the Coptic language on the false premise that Coptic letters are Greek and thus Coptic letters should adopt the Modern Greek sounds.
Do you see the difference in the two methodologies? I hope you do.
In the Modern Period, from the 19th century onward, the literary Hebrew tradition as pronounced in Jerusalem revived as the spoken language of modern Israel, called variously Israeli Hebrew, Modern Israeli Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, New Hebrew, Israeli Standard Hebrew, Standard Hebrew, and so on. Israeli Hebrew exhibits many features of Sephardic Hebrew from its local Jerusalemite tradition but adapts it with numerous neologisms, borrowed terms (often technical) from European languages and adopted terms (often colloquial) from Arabic.
Here tradition influenced standardization. Eliezer went to the roots of the Hebrew language and added the new words with the Hebrew pronunciation. NO INVENTION OF SOUNDS HERE.
Aryan instead abandoned the traditional pronunciation and added sounds that the Egyptians cannot pronounce till today.
WHAT ARYAN DID WAS NOT STANDARDIZATION BUT MUTILATION.
Dear Remenkimi, Please don't insist on making things complicated when replying to me, as I can't reason with you and your knowledge. That is something with imikhail, but I personally ask you to make it simple for me when you are quoting what I said and replying to it. Remenkimi, I regret the fact that you keep saying things and getting back on what you said earlier to prove a point later. Indian English? What? Are you serious? Is there something called Indian English with 13 (or however many) sub-dialects? You are joking, aren't you? Mr. Moftah did not attempt to unify Copts, but you chose to answer "yes" to my question. That was not the aim of his reformed pronunciation rules. Superior and authentic of OB as I see it, as a matter of defence for a dialect (not a language, only a lingo) that has lived through the years and artificially manipulated at one point in time "rather abruptly". This is not natural. OK, now you started moving on to add a new angle to your argument and say "standardisation" is artificial. OK, Mr. Moftah was not aiming for standardisation, he was aiming for rectification. As for the Queen's English proposed movement, it is drawing so much adversary and objection from British people (and I live in Britain, I know it). As for Canada using a standard language, or two languages in formal "standardised" dealings and practices, that is absolutely fine, because they may invent a technical word or two, or even a thousand (something that we need to be done with Coptic as a LANGUAGE with agreeing on words for "car", "plane", etc) but they are not changing the way people speak. As for the very first point, tracing back how any language may have evolved from another can be viewed as artificial. To me, that wasn't the case with the GB "lingo" or dialect. Dialects are not actually formed artificially with all due respect to what you are saying. In fact, I would even argue that as you quite rightly say no two Copts can agree on how something was pronounced in OB. If anything, that proves its livelihood and the flexibility that any language has this as an inherent character in its subset dialects. However, (even though it may seem the same to the unknowledgeable) GB is constantly being revamped and changed since the day Mr. Moftah invented his system of pronunciation? What? Seriously? And Coptic is not even a day-to-day communication language anymore, but just people dreaming up some ideas about how words should sound... hehe... and you know what? The stranged set of rules in language history, that is: this letter is pronounced so and so in Greek words only, while in Coptic so and so, and in names so and so... Seriously? So if I call my son diakwn his name is pronounced /deyakon/ and the word in other speeches /theyakon/?!!!! Oujai qen `P[C
The stranged set of rules in language history, that is: this letter is pronounced so and so in Greek words only, while in Coptic so and so, and in names so and so... Seriously? So if I call my son diakwn his name is pronounced /deyakon/ and the word in other speeches /theyakon/?!!!!
Thanks imikhail. Of course it goes without saying that that is not my own argument, but I learnt it from my Coptic mentor. I am still learning as you can see... Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142677#msg142677 date=1312666475] Indian English? What? Are you serious? Is there something called Indian English with 13 (or however many) sub-dialects? You are joking, aren't you?
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but as far as this is concerned, there is most definitely a variety of English known as Indian English. In fact, it's one of the more well-studied world varieties of English. I would guess that any academic book that you could find on world varieties of English would include more than a bit of information on it. There are also books devoted entirely to this dialect, like this one. I've never read anything about a specific number of sub-dialects, but given the linguistic complexity of the subcontinent, this number does not seem outrageous to me.
If you think about, Ophadece, this is really no more strange than the situation of Arabic, or any other language with wide geographical distribution. You have the macro-language ("generic" Arabic, English, Hebrew, Spanish, etc.), the regional variety, the national variety, the "regional" variety again (regions within the nation/varieties distinct from the national dialect), and what I guess you could call the "local varieties" related to smaller administrative/geographical units.
For instance, with Arabic, you could have: Arabic > Levantine Arabic > Lebanese Arabic > Jbeili Arabic > etc (something else, if necessary; I don't know of any more specific than this, for this example)
In Egypt, you could have Arabic > Egyptian Arabic > Sa'idi Arabic > etc.
The example of the many local/regional varieties of English in Great Britain could be a great example of the same phenomena, too, should Fr. Peter decide to grace us with his native-speaker intuition. ;)
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142659#msg142659 date=1312651538] The pronunciation of Bohairic was known and received down from generation to generation. It is well documented in our ritual books and manuscripts. Ritual books (I assume you mean liturgical ritual books) do not describe pronunciation. The handful of books like the Damnhour book is 19th century. The manuscripts that have Arabic in Coptic letters are 15-19th century. I have not been able to find the oldest examplar. But it can't be older than the 12th century. You have no proof that Old Bohairic pronunciation was passed from generation to generation in the form we received in the 19th-20th century.
Modern Hebrew was different. What was done was an integration of existing dialects, purification of the language from certain idioms, return to the liturgical Hebrew.
It is by definition an invention spontaneously emerged by one person or a few people. Regardless of what it replaced, it is an invention.
Contrast this with Aryan Moftah changing the sounds of the letters of existing language that was known accross Egypt.
Please provide a reference that OB was known across Egypt. Worrell's article only speaks of 2 rural villages that differed from other places (he mentioned Assuit).
There was no need to do that other than the unification between the Melekite and the Coptic Church. In essence what was done was a KISS UP to the Greek so that the unification may proceed.
I'm not going to dignify this with a response.
So, to keep comparing what Aryan did with Modern Hebrew is a flawed comparison.
Eliezer went back to the roots of Hebrew, Aryan abandoned the roots of Bohairic
It is apparant that you object to the reasons and motives of the reform than the actual reform. Both Modern Hebrew (MH) and GB are inventions. MH reformed for Israeli nationalism, GB reformed for international politics. Both are still political reasons. Moftah, although he didn't know it, actually reformed Bohairic pronunciation to conform to a phonemic alphabetic writing system.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142677#msg142677 date=1312666475] Remenkimi, I regret the fact that you keep saying things and getting back on what you said earlier to prove a point later. I don't understand what you are saying. I keep repeating the things I say because the same point keeps coming back. Are you referring to something in particular?
Indian English? What? Are you serious? Is there something called Indian English with 13 (or however many) sub-dialects? You are joking, aren't you?
If you don't want to believe me, at least read the references. And Dzheremi has given additional references.
Mr. Moftah did not attempt to unify Copts, but you chose to answer "yes" to my question. That was not the aim of his reformed pronunciation rules.
Whether or not it was his intention or to change pronunciation rules doesn't matter. The vast majority of people who use, speak and pray in Bohairic Coptic use GB. In this broad sense, he unified Copts who had different pronunciations.
Superior and authentic of OB as I see it,
At least you acknowledge it's your opinion. Factually, there is no such thing as linguistically superior or authentic.
as a matter of defence for a dialect (not a language, only a lingo) that has lived through the years and artificially manipulated at one point in time "rather abruptly". This is not natural.
I don't know why you have such a problem with spontaneous emergence of languages, dialects or accents. I gave you a long list of constructed languages. This wasn't even exhaustive. I also gave a list of dialects and accents, many that have come about within the last 50 years. Are you telling me that all these hundred of languages, dialects and accents that have spontaneously emerged are not natural? The simple statistics say opposite. Whether spontaneously emerged or gradually evolved, it is a natural linguistic process that occurs. In addition, I gave some evidence that GB also evolved and is in the process of "natural" language evolution.
OK, now you started moving on to add a new angle to your argument and say "standardisation" is artificial. OK, Mr. Moftah was not aiming for standardisation, he was aiming for rectification.
Are we playing semantics here? Someone who rectifies conflicting practices is in essence standardizing the process. The same thing happened with the Julian/Gregorian calendar.
In fact, I would even argue that as you quite rightly say no two Copts can agree on how something was pronounced in OB. If anything, that proves its livelihood and the flexibility that any language has this as an inherent character in its subset dialects.
So why is it such a problem with GB? By this standard, GB is more lively and flexible than OB.
However, (even though it may seem the same to the unknowledgeable) GB is constantly being revamped and changed since the day Mr. Moftah invented his system of pronunciation?
The same is true with half a dozen constructed languages that I mentioned, specifically Esperanto. So is the problem Moftah invented it or that it is constantly being reinvented?
The stranged set of rules in language history, that is: this letter is pronounced so and so in Greek words only, while in Coptic so and so, and in names so and so... Seriously?
OB has similar phonological rules, you just don't know about them. I already listed the the 2 sets of rules for pronouncing y as /a/ sometimes and /i/ in another. It depends on the phonological placement of the stress and the sound it came from. And it's different in Greek words than Coptic words.
So if I call my son diakwn his name is pronounced /deyakon/ and the word in other speeches /theyakon/?!!!!
Yeah so what. I already showed how Athanasius is pronunced /A tha NA si OOS/ by Coptic Americans and /ATH na shus/ by nearly everybody else. I also gave the examples of Bishoy, Maximus, Dometius, Dioscorus and many others. And some day someone will come along and say Athanasius must be pronounced /ATH na shus/ not /A tha NA si OOS/ to standardize it with the non-Coptic community. And 150 years from then, this person will be called a mutilator and an anti-Copt, even though sociolinguistics gives us multiple, similar examples of language shift and language revival.
Ritual books (I assume you mean liturgical ritual books) do not describe pronunciation.
Are you serious? Do you mean that all the books that have Coptic in Arabic letters, which are also used on the net like Tasbeha.org do not describe pronunciation?
Are you suggesting that transliteration do not have any value in describing how a language should be pronounced?
The handful of books like the Damnhour book is 19th century. The manuscripts that have Arabic in Coptic letters are 15-19th century. I have not been able to find the oldest examplar. But it can't be older than the 12th century. You have no proof that Old Bohairic pronunciation was passed from generation to generation in the form we received in the 19th-20th century.
Your inability to not find any manuscripts that have Arabic ib Coptic letters does not really mean much OR disprove of their nonexistence. You need to read the manuscripts that explain the rituals like:
Tarteeb Al Kahana by Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century) Al Dor Al Thamin fi Edah Al Deen Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century) Tarteeb Al Bayya according to Pope Gabrial Ibn Trak (12th century) Musbah AlZolma fi Edah Al khedma Ibn Kabar (12th century) Al Gawhara Al nafeesa fi oloom al kaneesa Ibn Sebaa (13th century)
Please provide a reference that OB was known across Egypt. Worrell's article only speaks of 2 rural villages that differed from other places (he mentioned Assuit).
Refer back to all the references I gave you in addition to the ones I gave in my earlier post.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142663#msg142663 date=1312652303] INVENTION CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC. Tell that to the thousands of people who speak one of the many constructed languages I listed. Tell that to the millions of Jews speaking Modern Hebrew. Whether you like it or not, MH is an invention. And I repeat again, there is no such thing as authentic or superior in linguistics. Such subjective words are personal opinions and interpretations.
The Church ignored the heritage and invented sounds that the clergy could not, cannot and will not be able to pronounce
Funny, no one has ever complained that any priest cannot say /shleel/ because its not part of our heritage. The fact is OB is completely unintelligible to Coptic Church. People who hear OB can't tell what language is being said. So what sounds are foreign now?
It is apparant that you object to the reasons and motives of the reform than the actual reform. Both Modern Hebrew (MH) and GB are inventions.
I thought you said that Modern Hebrew was a standardization effort. Are you saying now that Eliezer invented Hebrew? :o
MH reformed for Israeli nationalism, GB reformed for international politics. Both are still political reasons.
To my knowledge, Moftah did not mention any political reasons as to why he added sounds to the Coptic language. Do you have a reference from Moftah? Or is this your own rationale?
Moftah, although he didn't know it, actually reformed Bohairic pronunciation to conform to a phonemic alphabetic writing system.
So, are you suggesting that all the languages that use latin letters (English, French, Italian, ...) to be pronounced the same since they use the same letter system?
Tell that to the thousands of people who speak one of the many constructed languages I listed. Tell that to the millions of Jews speaking Modern Hebrew. Whether you like it or not, MH is an invention. .
No I am not going to tell any one anything because your logic is flawed and you do not make any sense.
And I repeat again, there is no such thing as authentic or superior in linguistics.
That is your own opinion for what it is worth.
Such subjective words are personal opinions and interpretations
How can all the scholarly research be subjective? How can the Copts who cannot pronounce the "th" as Thaalab or "vert" for ward be subjective?
Funny, no one has ever complained that any priest cannot say /shleel/ because its not part of our heritage. The fact is OB is completely unintelligible to Coptic Church. People who hear OB can't tell what language is being said. So what sounds are foreign now?
Ritual books (I assume you mean liturgical ritual books) do not describe pronunciation.
Are you serious? Do you mean that all the books that have Coptic in Arabic letters, which are also used on the net like Tasbeha.org do not describe pronunciation? Transliterating Coptic in Arabic or Latin script is a recent invention. All of these books and sites like Tasbeha.org that transliterate Coptic are using GB, not OB. The handful of manuscripts that transliterate OB are 17-19th century with very few before the 17th century.
Are you suggesting that transliteration do not have any value in describing how a language should be pronounced?
It describes how current speakers pronounce it, not past speakers. It has more to do with how the recipient script (Arabic or English) can accurately describe Coptic sounds. Most recipient scripts can't. That is why there is an Internation Phonetic Alphabet.
You need to read the manuscripts that explain the rituals like:
Tarteeb Al Kahana by Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century) Al Dor Al Thamin fi Edah Al Deen Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century) Tarteeb Al Bayya according to Pope Gabrial Ibn Trak (12th century) Musbah AlZolma fi Edah Al khedma Ibn Kabar (12th century) Al Gawhara Al nafeesa fi oloom al kaneesa Ibn Sebaa (13th century)
I have Musbah al Zolma. Please show me where it describes pronunciation. Listing old references that superficially transliterate Coptic doesn't prove how OB should be pronounced. Most of these books are not speaking of pronunciation, but theology, eccelsiology and maybe some history.
Please provide a reference that OB was known across Egypt. Worrell's article only speaks of 2 rural villages that differed from other places (he mentioned Assuit).
Refer back to all the references I gave you in addition to the ones I gave in my earlier post.
At least have the courtesy to give references that can be verified. I've given you specific page numbers and text.
Please provide a reference that OB was known across Egypt. Worrell's article only speaks of 2 rural villages that differed from other places (he mentioned Assuit).
Refer back to all the references I gave you in addition to the ones I gave in my earlier post.
At least have the courtesy to give references that can be verified. I've given you specific page numbers and text.
This has nothing to do with courtesy.
You need to read the whole thing to get the spirit of the manuscript. It is very easy to get hyped up about one line or one word. Instead read and be a disciple rather than a critic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142698#msg142698 date=1312680369] I thought you said that Modern Hebrew was a standardization effort. Are you saying now that Eliezer invented Hebrew? :o The standardization was the invention. He didn't invent Hebrew. Obviously after many years of non-use, he had to standardize and modernize words, pronunciation and usage.
To my knowledge, Moftah did not mention any political reasons as to why he added sounds to the Coptic language. Do you have a reference from Moftah? Or is this your own rationale?
You are the one who quoted Moftah as saying he invented GB for unification with the Greek Church. This is a political reason. Do I really need to show you where your reference is?
So, are you suggesting that all the languages that use latin letters (English, French, Italian, ...) to be pronounced the same since they use the same letter system?
No. Even within a language, the Latin script can't articulate the different pronunciations. That is why the International Phonetic Alphabet was created.
Coptic has an alphabetic writing system. Each letter represents a sound, not an entire word or a thought like Heiroglyphics. Since Coptic adopted the writing system of the Greek alphabet: vowels, consonants partially articulate phonetics. You spell a word with an "e", it should be recognized by the reader to represent a specific "e" sound. When all the sounds go together, you conceptualize the meaning of word. But somewhere along the way, OB decided to break this trend. There are multiple graphemes with the same sound. So the distinction between the sound the Coptic letter "e" makes is blurred and very similiar to the sound of another letter ("a"). The same is true with "b" and "ow", "o" and "oo". And it's not just vowels. The same is true with "n" and "gg", "dj" and "s", "g" and "k", "s" and "sh", "d" and "t", and so on. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with other languages. But such irregularities cause linguistic inventions. Simplified invented dialects of English (like Basic English and English pidgins) were created because English has many similiar irregularities and complexities. It's no suprise that Coptic also underwent the same invention process.
The standardization was the invention. He didn't invent Hebrew. Obviously after many years of non-use, he had to standardize and modernize words, pronunciation and usage.
Did he invent new sounds to the Hebrew alphabet as part of the process?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142704#msg142704 date=1312681263] This has nothing to do with courtesy.
You need to read the whole thing to get the spirit of the manuscript. It is very easy to get hyped up about one line or one word. Instead read and be a disciple rather than a critic.
Again, you attack me instead of giving verifiable references. This has everything to do with lack of respect and courtesy.
You are the one who quoted Moftah as saying he invented GB for unification with the Greek Church. This is a political reason. Do I really need to show you where your reference is?
Yes, please.
I will reiterate what was mentioned in the manuscript Aldella. The reason he added sounds that were not part of the Coptic language is the premise that the Coptic letters were Greek so they have to follow the Greek sounds.
Comments
It is precisely because men like Eliezer Ben Yehuda loved their heritage that they created Modern Hebrew and other languages. Your premise that one who invents a language hates their heritage is not based on any fact other than your opinion. In fact, it is precisely because of nationalism and national pride that Canada Official Language Act of 1969 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom insisted on the use of English and French for all Canadian government functions. There are so many examples of language standardization for the promotion of a culture and a heritage. Since you didn't bother to read my previous article I'll repeat it again - all of these standardization reforms are artificial; inventend by one person or one group. You can continue to argue that invented languages and invented reforms (or rectifications) make a language or a reform fake while ignoring the hundreds of examples that say otherwise. Again, you continue to ignore what I said. Do not confuse Coptic the language with Bohairic Coptic pronunciation. We have always been talking about pronunciation and you continue to divert the discussion about the language. So I'll repeat again. Even if the second Bohairic pronunciation is invented, it still as valid as the original pronunciation. Again there were multiple versions of OB in use (especially in the 17-18th century). Worrell's article proves this point. Even today, there is no full agreement on how words are pronounced. I've already given you examples of how OB was not standardized. So yes, it needed a standardization. You continue to argue about English pronunciation variety. Well even English has a standard form with many non-standard forms, many distinguished by pronunciation only. There are prescriptive bodies and private societies who exist to make sure standard English survives, such as The Queen's English Society. This in itself is an artifical process.
Arabic was in use in the 7th century as Classical Arabic. Yet, there was a standardization process that developed into Modern Standard Arabic. Look at what this article says: "In spite of the romantic and variously successful attempts of modern Arab authors to follow... Classical Arabic (CA), the exigencies of modernity have led to the adoption of numerous terms which would have been mysterious to a Classical author, whether taken from other languages (e.g. فيلم film) or coined from existing lexical resources (e.g. هاتف hātif "telephone" < "caller")." In other words, Arabic (like Coptic) has a movement to move away from the modern form MSA to CA but this cannot linguistically occur because of the adoption of numerous terms. Pronunciation is no different. You can't go back to an arbitrary version of OB without knowing the intricacies and nuances of the pronunciations. You can't simply un-standardize a language or pronunciation simply because you don't like it's inventor.
Maybe you can actually give references and develop a respectable argument based on facts instead of pretending I didn't. You want to argue how Modern Hebrew is not like GB, then give references. At least come up with an argument instead of attacking me. I've given plenty of references and resources. If you want to argue any one of them in particular, go ahead. The fact that you continue to attack me instead of my argument only shows you don't have a valid counter-argument, much less a previous argument. You simply want us to consider your opinion as fact.
The pronunciation of Bohairic was known and received down from generation to generation. It is well documented in our ritual books and manuscripts.
Modern Hebrew was different. What was done was an integration of existing dialects, purification of the language from certain idioms, return to the liturgical Hebrew.
Contrast this with Aryan Moftah changing the sounds of the letters of existing language that was known accross Egypt. There was no need to do that other than the unification between the Melekite and the Coptic Church. In essence what was done was a KISS UP to the Greek so that the unification may proceed.
So, to keep comparing what Aryan did with Modern Hebrew is a flawed comparison.
Eliezer went back to the roots of Hebrew, Aryan abandoned the roots of Bohairic
Your premise is that Coptic needed standardization when in fact all it needed was teaching the language. Instead, Aryan invented sounds that no one till today can pronounce and as a result Coptic language mutilation is continuing.
Coptic language was handed down to us just as the ritual and the faith. The Church ignored the heritage and invented sounds that the clergy could not, cannot and will not be able to pronounce and as a result Coptic language mutilation is continuing.
We as Copts should preserve our heritage instead of inventing it.
Standardization comes out of usage not out of invention.
What happened is Aryan Moftah INVENTED NEW SOUNDS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE COPTIC LANGUAGE. As a result no one can pronounce what he advocated and the mutilation is continuing.
By your logic what Aryan did was artificial. So, let's go back to the authentic Bohairic.
Borrowed words have nothing to do with INVENTING SOUNDS.
Aryan Afendi invented sounds that were not part of Coptic whatsoever. As a result no one can pronounce what he advocated and the mutilation is continuing.
Yes I am repeating myself hoping to prove the point that what you are calling standardization has nothing to do with adding sounds that are not part of the language.
Dear Remenkimi,
I may go tomorrow to church, and ask them to pronounce every 'a' letter as an 'o' and the followers of the church will follow me blindly. Then next generation Egyptians will adopt the same teaching, and in almost 40- 50 years' time we have 1% of the British pronouncing what comes to be known as Fadenglish.
Ironically, this is exactly what happened in England. Look at Mackem. Then look at the list of English variants (which they call dialects) here. And then look at Indian English. (there's 11 different English varieties spoken in India)
How sound is that? How do you think it is going to stand the test of time, the test of reason, and the test of comparativeness with the authentic British English (as I live in Britain).
There is no such thing as authentic British English. There is only the standard Received Pronunciation (RP) or Queen's English. There are about 35 non-standard British English dialects. The only reason Received Pronunciation is the standard is because of politics, not authenticity or age. According to the article, RP was established in the 15th century in Lodon and it is "a mixture of London speech elements from East Midlands, Middlesex, and Essex [dialects]". So RP isn't even the oldest.
This created a conflict (something that doesn't usually happen with evolution of languages, or the making up of a newer dialect or lingo as the Jewish), and people started to say "hold on a minute, are you talking the same language I am talking?"
Many neighboring dialects have varying degrees of mutually unintelligibility. Danish speakers can understand Norwegian but Norewegian speakers do not understand Danish. Moftah's reform, according to his book, was based on making Coptic more mutually intelligible (to an international community) than it had to do with uniting with the Greeks.
Has this new dialect been an attempt to unify Copts?
Yes. With the exeption of Copts who refuse to accept GB, GB is universally spoken by Copts (who actually use Coptic) and the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Has this new dialect been clearly and unequivocally been taught as an addition to the dialects present at that time? NO - it's been taught to be superior and authentic.
And now OB proponents are doing the same thing they despise Moftah for doing: Teaching it as superior and authentic. The fact is neither OB or GB is authentic or superior.
Lastly, has this new dialect agreed with people's tongues, their societal norms, or traditions at the time? No, it created a group of society called "khawagat" (= foreigners in English) by the muslim population (at least if not created, it established the already pejorative descriptions).
From that article on English dialects in Britian, most dialects, especially in rural areas, are based on class status. People simply choose their dialect simply by many sociolinguistic reasons, including economic status, region, resentment of the ruling class, politics and so on. We shouldn't be surprised that any un-common pronunciation by non-Muslims would be considered "khawagi". The same is true for the Arabic subdialects: Cairenes consider Upper Egyptian substandard, as well as their accent. The educated Cairenes speak one form of colloquial Arabic and uneducated peasants speak another. And so on.
Hebrew has been 'revived' several times as a literary language, and most significantly by the Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement of early and mid-19th century Germany. Near the end of that century the Jewish activist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, owing to the ideology of the national revival (Shivat Tziyon,[note 6] later Zionism), began reviving Hebrew as a modern spoken language. Eventually, as a result of the local movement he created, but more significantly as a result of the new groups of immigrants known under the name of the Second Aliyah, it replaced a score of languages spoken by Jews at that time. Those languages were Jewish dialects such as the Judeo-Spanish language (also called Judezmo or Ladino), Yiddish, Judeo-Arabic, and Bukharian language, or local languages spoken in the Jewish diaspora such as Russian, Persian, and Arabic.
Here you notice that the Jewish people were speaking Hebrew mixed with their local languages creating different dialects
Now how Eliezer standardized Hebrew?
The major result of the literary work of the Hebrew intellectuals along the 19th century was a lexical modernization of Hebrew. New words and expressions were adapted as neologisms from the large corpus of Hebrew writings since the Hebrew Bible, or borrowed from Turkish and Arabic (mainly by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda) and older Aramaic and Latin. Many new words were either borrowed from or coined after European languages, especially English, Russian, German, and French. Modern Hebrew became an official language in British-ruled Palestine in 1921 (along with English and Arabic), and then in 1948 became an official language of the newly declared State of Israel. Hebrew is the most widely spoken language in Israel today.
Here we notice that Modern Hebrew was adding words to the Hebrew language that were not part of the Classical Hebrew. There was no change of sounds to the alphabet.
Aryan did not do that; he did not standardize the language the way Eliezer did with the Hebrew language. Aryan simply added new sounds to the Coptic language on the false premise that Coptic letters are Greek and thus Coptic letters should adopt the Modern Greek sounds.
Do you see the difference in the two methodologies? I hope you do.
In the Modern Period, from the 19th century onward, the literary Hebrew tradition as pronounced in Jerusalem revived as the spoken language of modern Israel, called variously Israeli Hebrew, Modern Israeli Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, New Hebrew, Israeli Standard Hebrew, Standard Hebrew, and so on. Israeli Hebrew exhibits many features of Sephardic Hebrew from its local Jerusalemite tradition but adapts it with numerous neologisms, borrowed terms (often technical) from European languages and adopted terms (often colloquial) from Arabic.
Here tradition influenced standardization. Eliezer went to the roots of the Hebrew language and added the new words with the Hebrew pronunciation. NO INVENTION OF SOUNDS HERE.
Aryan instead abandoned the traditional pronunciation and added sounds that the Egyptians cannot pronounce till today.
WHAT ARYAN DID WAS NOT STANDARDIZATION BUT MUTILATION.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language
Please don't insist on making things complicated when replying to me, as I can't reason with you and your knowledge. That is something with imikhail, but I personally ask you to make it simple for me when you are quoting what I said and replying to it.
Remenkimi, I regret the fact that you keep saying things and getting back on what you said earlier to prove a point later. Indian English? What? Are you serious? Is there something called Indian English with 13 (or however many) sub-dialects? You are joking, aren't you?
Mr. Moftah did not attempt to unify Copts, but you chose to answer "yes" to my question. That was not the aim of his reformed pronunciation rules.
Superior and authentic of OB as I see it, as a matter of defence for a dialect (not a language, only a lingo) that has lived through the years and artificially manipulated at one point in time "rather abruptly". This is not natural. OK, now you started moving on to add a new angle to your argument and say "standardisation" is artificial. OK, Mr. Moftah was not aiming for standardisation, he was aiming for rectification. As for the Queen's English proposed movement, it is drawing so much adversary and objection from British people (and I live in Britain, I know it). As for Canada using a standard language, or two languages in formal "standardised" dealings and practices, that is absolutely fine, because they may invent a technical word or two, or even a thousand (something that we need to be done with Coptic as a LANGUAGE with agreeing on words for "car", "plane", etc) but they are not changing the way people speak.
As for the very first point, tracing back how any language may have evolved from another can be viewed as artificial. To me, that wasn't the case with the GB "lingo" or dialect. Dialects are not actually formed artificially with all due respect to what you are saying. In fact, I would even argue that as you quite rightly say no two Copts can agree on how something was pronounced in OB. If anything, that proves its livelihood and the flexibility that any language has this as an inherent character in its subset dialects. However, (even though it may seem the same to the unknowledgeable) GB is constantly being revamped and changed since the day Mr. Moftah invented his system of pronunciation? What? Seriously? And Coptic is not even a day-to-day communication language anymore, but just people dreaming up some ideas about how words should sound... hehe... and you know what? The stranged set of rules in language history, that is: this letter is pronounced so and so in Greek words only, while in Coptic so and so, and in names so and so... Seriously? So if I call my son diakwn his name is pronounced /deyakon/ and the word in other speeches /theyakon/?!!!!
Oujai qen `P[C
Oujai qen `P[C
Indian English? What? Are you serious? Is there something called Indian English with 13 (or however many) sub-dialects? You are joking, aren't you?
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but as far as this is concerned, there is most definitely a variety of English known as Indian English. In fact, it's one of the more well-studied world varieties of English. I would guess that any academic book that you could find on world varieties of English would include more than a bit of information on it. There are also books devoted entirely to this dialect, like this one. I've never read anything about a specific number of sub-dialects, but given the linguistic complexity of the subcontinent, this number does not seem outrageous to me.
If you think about, Ophadece, this is really no more strange than the situation of Arabic, or any other language with wide geographical distribution. You have the macro-language ("generic" Arabic, English, Hebrew, Spanish, etc.), the regional variety, the national variety, the "regional" variety again (regions within the nation/varieties distinct from the national dialect), and what I guess you could call the "local varieties" related to smaller administrative/geographical units.
For instance, with Arabic, you could have: Arabic > Levantine Arabic > Lebanese Arabic > Jbeili Arabic > etc (something else, if necessary; I don't know of any more specific than this, for this example)
In Egypt, you could have Arabic > Egyptian Arabic > Sa'idi Arabic > etc.
The example of the many local/regional varieties of English in Great Britain could be a great example of the same phenomena, too, should Fr. Peter decide to grace us with his native-speaker intuition. ;)
The pronunciation of Bohairic was known and received down from generation to generation. It is well documented in our ritual books and manuscripts.
Ritual books (I assume you mean liturgical ritual books) do not describe pronunciation. The handful of books like the Damnhour book is 19th century. The manuscripts that have Arabic in Coptic letters are 15-19th century. I have not been able to find the oldest examplar. But it can't be older than the 12th century. You have no proof that Old Bohairic pronunciation was passed from generation to generation in the form we received in the 19th-20th century. It is by definition an invention spontaneously emerged by one person or a few people. Regardless of what it replaced, it is an invention. Please provide a reference that OB was known across Egypt. Worrell's article only speaks of 2 rural villages that differed from other places (he mentioned Assuit). I'm not going to dignify this with a response. It is apparant that you object to the reasons and motives of the reform than the actual reform. Both Modern Hebrew (MH) and GB are inventions. MH reformed for Israeli nationalism, GB reformed for international politics. Both are still political reasons. Moftah, although he didn't know it, actually reformed Bohairic pronunciation to conform to a phonemic alphabetic writing system.
Remenkimi, I regret the fact that you keep saying things and getting back on what you said earlier to prove a point later.
I don't understand what you are saying. I keep repeating the things I say because the same point keeps coming back. Are you referring to something in particular? If you don't want to believe me, at least read the references. And Dzheremi has given additional references. Whether or not it was his intention or to change pronunciation rules doesn't matter. The vast majority of people who use, speak and pray in Bohairic Coptic use GB. In this broad sense, he unified Copts who had different pronunciations. At least you acknowledge it's your opinion. Factually, there is no such thing as linguistically superior or authentic. I don't know why you have such a problem with spontaneous emergence of languages, dialects or accents. I gave you a long list of constructed languages. This wasn't even exhaustive. I also gave a list of dialects and accents, many that have come about within the last 50 years. Are you telling me that all these hundred of languages, dialects and accents that have spontaneously emerged are not natural? The simple statistics say opposite. Whether spontaneously emerged or gradually evolved, it is a natural linguistic process that occurs. In addition, I gave some evidence that GB also evolved and is in the process of "natural" language evolution.
Are we playing semantics here? Someone who rectifies conflicting practices is in essence standardizing the process. The same thing happened with the Julian/Gregorian calendar. So why is it such a problem with GB? By this standard, GB is more lively and flexible than OB. The same is true with half a dozen constructed languages that I mentioned, specifically Esperanto. So is the problem Moftah invented it or that it is constantly being reinvented? OB has similar phonological rules, you just don't know about them. I already listed the the 2 sets of rules for pronouncing y as /a/ sometimes and /i/ in another. It depends on the phonological placement of the stress and the sound it came from. And it's different in Greek words than Coptic words. Yeah so what. I already showed how Athanasius is pronunced /A tha NA si OOS/ by Coptic Americans and /ATH na shus/ by nearly everybody else. I also gave the examples of Bishoy, Maximus, Dometius, Dioscorus and many others. And some day someone will come along and say Athanasius must be pronounced /ATH na shus/ not /A tha NA si OOS/ to standardize it with the non-Coptic community. And 150 years from then, this person will be called a mutilator and an anti-Copt, even though sociolinguistics gives us multiple, similar examples of language shift and language revival.
Are you suggesting that transliteration do not have any value in describing how a language should be pronounced? Your inability to not find any manuscripts that have Arabic ib Coptic letters does not really mean much OR disprove of their nonexistence. You need to read the manuscripts that explain the rituals like:
Tarteeb Al Kahana by Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century)
Al Dor Al Thamin fi Edah Al Deen Bishop Sawiros of Asmunin (10th century)
Tarteeb Al Bayya according to Pope Gabrial Ibn Trak (12th century)
Musbah AlZolma fi Edah Al khedma Ibn Kabar (12th century)
Al Gawhara Al nafeesa fi oloom al kaneesa Ibn Sebaa (13th century)
INVENTION CANNOT BE AUTHENTIC.
Tell that to the thousands of people who speak one of the many constructed languages I listed. Tell that to the millions of Jews speaking Modern Hebrew. Whether you like it or not, MH is an invention. And I repeat again, there is no such thing as authentic or superior in linguistics. Such subjective words are personal opinions and interpretations. Funny, no one has ever complained that any priest cannot say /shleel/ because its not part of our heritage. The fact is OB is completely unintelligible to Coptic Church. People who hear OB can't tell what language is being said. So what sounds are foreign now?
To my knowledge, Moftah did not mention any political reasons as to why he added sounds to the Coptic language. Do you have a reference from Moftah? Or is this your own rationale? So, are you suggesting that all the languages that use latin letters (English, French, Italian, ...) to be pronounced the same since they use the same letter system?
Are these the kind of pronunciation Moftah yearned for?
Transliterating Coptic in Arabic or Latin script is a recent invention. All of these books and sites like Tasbeha.org that transliterate Coptic are using GB, not OB. The handful of manuscripts that transliterate OB are 17-19th century with very few before the 17th century. It describes how current speakers pronounce it, not past speakers. It has more to do with how the recipient script (Arabic or English) can accurately describe Coptic sounds. Most recipient scripts can't. That is why there is an Internation Phonetic Alphabet. I have Musbah al Zolma. Please show me where it describes pronunciation. Listing old references that superficially transliterate Coptic doesn't prove how OB should be pronounced. Most of these books are not speaking of pronunciation, but theology, eccelsiology and maybe some history.
At least have the courtesy to give references that can be verified. I've given you specific page numbers and text.
The standardization is an invention. If occurs naturally, it's not an invention. It's evolution. But I'm sure my logic is flawed. ::)
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142696#msg142696 date=1312679922] Refer back to all the references I gave you in addition to the ones I gave in my earlier post.
At least have the courtesy to give references that can be verified. I've given you specific page numbers and text.
This has nothing to do with courtesy.
You need to read the whole thing to get the spirit of the manuscript. It is very easy to get hyped up about one line or one word. Instead read and be a disciple rather than a critic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142695#msg142695 date=1312679843] So which is it Reminikimi, invention or standardization?
The standardization is an invention. If occurs naturally, it's not an invention. It's evolution. But I'm sure my logic is flawed. ::)
Explain to me how can invention be natural or evolution.
Also, respond to my comments on the Modern Hebrew if you see an issue in my reasoning.
I thought you said that Modern Hebrew was a standardization effort. Are you saying now that Eliezer invented Hebrew? :o
The standardization was the invention. He didn't invent Hebrew. Obviously after many years of non-use, he had to standardize and modernize words, pronunciation and usage. You are the one who quoted Moftah as saying he invented GB for unification with the Greek Church. This is a political reason. Do I really need to show you where your reference is? No. Even within a language, the Latin script can't articulate the different pronunciations. That is why the International Phonetic Alphabet was created.
Coptic has an alphabetic writing system. Each letter represents a sound, not an entire word or a thought like Heiroglyphics. Since Coptic adopted the writing system of the Greek alphabet: vowels, consonants partially articulate phonetics. You spell a word with an "e", it should be recognized by the reader to represent a specific "e" sound. When all the sounds go together, you conceptualize the meaning of word. But somewhere along the way, OB decided to break this trend. There are multiple graphemes with the same sound. So the distinction between the sound the Coptic letter "e" makes is blurred and very similiar to the sound of another letter ("a"). The same is true with "b" and "ow", "o" and "oo". And it's not just vowels. The same is true with "n" and "gg", "dj" and "s", "g" and "k", "s" and "sh", "d" and "t", and so on. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with other languages. But such irregularities cause linguistic inventions. Simplified invented dialects of English (like Basic English and English pidgins) were created because English has many similiar irregularities and complexities. It's no suprise that Coptic also underwent the same invention process.
This has nothing to do with courtesy.
You need to read the whole thing to get the spirit of the manuscript. It is very easy to get hyped up about one line or one word. Instead read and be a disciple rather than a critic.
Again, you attack me instead of giving verifiable references. This has everything to do with lack of respect and courtesy.
I will reiterate what was mentioned in the manuscript Aldella. The reason he added sounds that were not part of the Coptic language is the premise that the Coptic letters were Greek so they have to follow the Greek sounds.