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.
Common, should we apply this logic to the English language?
Then how about these words:
ice and justice
Cycle and bicycle
cat and ceremony.
Are you saying that the sounds of c like K was invented because of different dialects? So, the sound of s as z, the two sounds of g, h, e, ....
Is e always sounds e in English?
What Aryan did was fixed the sounds with rigid artificial rules that sounds of places and people were funny. No one till today can apply these rules. And the rule of having different letter values for words, people, places as ophadece pointed out.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142710#msg142710 date=1312682949] Common, should we apply this logic to the English language?
Then how about these words:
ice and justice
Cycle and bicycle
cat and ceremony
This has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about rhyming. And if you bothered to read the whole thing, you will notice I specifically said English has the same irregularities that caused invented dialects. So yes, apply it to the English language but make sure you actually know what I'm talking about.
I'll use your example. Would it make any sense that someone reads "ice" and hears "aka"? The letters represent the sounds they make, which represent a cognitive word that is intelligible to the reader and the hearer. This is Semiotics 101. But when you start to see manuscripts write "ice" and "aka" both to represent the solid form of H2O, then there is a problem with the use of the language or the language itself.
The English phonetic inventory has irregularities where "c" has /c/ and /k/. But overall, the letter "i" gives a specific sound not found or represented by another letter. Yet in Coptic, "e" and "h" and "a" all have nearly identical sounds for every word with those letters. We are not talking about a small percentage of synonyms, homonyms, allophones or irregularities. Bohairic, which had an alphabetic (segmental) writing system somehow changed where one sound is represented by multiple graphemes. In additional support of this argument, Sahidic, which pre-dates Bohairic as the spoken dialect of Egypt did not have this phenomenon (as far as we know). Words with an "e" were most likely pronounced "e". The different sounds of "a" were all collectively represented by the "a" letter, not "e" or "h".
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.
So what you wrote in Post #32 is inaccurate? "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."
Maybe you're right. I can't give you a reference that Arian Moftah changed it for political reasons. I'm only going by what you and so many OB proponents have claimed.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about rhyming. And if you bothered to read the whole thing, you will notice I specifically said English has the same irregularities that caused invented dialects. So yes, apply it to the English language but make sure you actually know what I'm talking about.
You probably did not get my point .. so let me be clear.
The word ice is pronounced 'ayce. But when it is written as part of of the word justice it is pronounce "iss". You were arguing that a letter has a specific sound, yet in this example the vowel "i" has two different sounds. This can be found all over the English language.
The same is true under OB. So your argument against the letter "e" to be pronounced as in "cat" or the letter "a" to have more than one sound as in either "cat" or "Balaat" is an invalid argument.
Every language has different sounds for the same letters. Aryan instead fixed those sounds and added new ones that lead to the language's mutilation.
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.
So what you wrote in Post #32 is inaccurate? "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."
Maybe you're right. I can't give you a reference that Arian Moftah changed it for political reasons. I'm only going by what you and so many OB proponents have claimed.
If you call this unification process politics that is your choice. I, myself, do not call two Churches agreeing on dogma to be a political movement.
The English phonetic inventory has irregularities where "c" has /c/ and /k/. But overall, the letter "i" gives a specific sound not found or represented by another letter.
The last part of your comment is not true.
How about (bi)cycle, bye .. here the the (bi) sounded like a y.
How about tie and shy .. again the i gave the sound of a y
How about ie and ea that have the same sound where the i in ie gives the sound of an "e" that is part of ea.
How about the sound i that is given by the letter y as in "party"
Dear Remenkimi and dzheremi, I stand corrected on the point of Indian English. Thanks... I got it. Dear Remenkimi, You reply to my quotes showing that you don't understand what I mean in the first place. I guess it is my fault because I don't have the luxury of the time to write very long posts, and analyse each and every point, and also because I am not as learned as you are. But seriously, you reply with the example you gave for different pronunciations of the word Athanasius by different groups of people, when I am talking about an inherent characteristic Mr. Moftah gave us, about pronouncing some letters differently (FOR THE VERY SAME COPTIC PERSON) in names and in words. One last thing I am going to say in this thread, because with all of the to and fro debates between you and imikhail (and other members when they get in), simply I cannot keep up with. The last thing is when a COPT assumes Coptic language (that hadn't disappeared in his days) need reformation, standardisation, rectification, or whatever you may call it (since the meanings are all the same for you), then there is a grave problem first with that person's premise, and secondly with whoever follows blindly and ignorantly. Mr. Elizier (sorry if I misspelt the name), as I understand, acted like a funnel and gathered all the threads in one hand and fine-tuned Hebrew into a modern Hebrew. Artifical? Yes. Needed? Very much. Any body objected? Maybe, but on a large scale people benefited more than were harmed. Did Mr. Moftah do the same? No. Acted like a funnel? No, he added a new lingo, dialect, system of pronunciation... etc. Did it benefit? No. Did it create unity? No. Oujai qen `P[C
The rules of pronunciation in any natural language, come to describe a fact that applies to the most common pronunciation of a certain letter, not the other way round. This is why in many languages e.g. English, books would say that S: is pronounced is as in sand, however, it is pronounced slightly different in sun, as, sugar, television, she. The same with c: cat, cite, the same with g: goat, age, the same with K: Kite, knight.
OB pronunciation is no exception, this is how people pronounced it. Yes, it varies from one person to the other, and yes, different scholars recorded variations because, OB just like any natural pronunciation is a spectrum not a point.
News flash:This was all pointless. What does it matter what used to happen or what someone did a long time ago? I have never had a serious break in teaching because someone was trying to teach me OB over the (to me, more logical) GB.
My generation learned GB. Unless the collective Coptic youth wants to start reviving OB pronunciation and spelling and grammar, GB will stay. The main body of this thread was written in 2011 and in 2011 my case was still the same: I learned GB and everyone around me was using GB. Personally, I think since we don't use Coptic as a conversational language, like English or Arabic or Hebrew or Spanish or whatever, it's easier to use GB since Greek (the Greco part of Greco-Bohairic) is a bit more familiar. Personally, if I had learned OB instead of GB I'd be a lot more confused. The little kids (6-8 years old) I see trying to learn Coptic have enough of a hard time with GB d, b, y, i, e, u, ,, x, [, and ' as it is. Changing it up suddenly and saying "All 3 of these letters are the short 'a' sound" or something like that is not going to help.
TL;DR: The next generation is learning GB. Let's let this argument go and let them learn GB because that's what we've been taught. Don't worry about invented languages and heritage- this is our heritage.
@ophadece...I am sorry, but now you are pushing it a little. GB is the current accepted pronunciation of Coptic in the church, therefore it's part of our heritage. If for any reason that developed into a different whole new pronunciation, that also will become part of our heritage.
You do know that the main reason almost everyone in academia studies sehidic coptic specifically to stay way from all of these never-ending arguments for and against OB. All of these arguments are simply causing less scholars to study coptic...let that sink in your head for a minute and tell me if it's still worth arguing about.
Also, many coptic scholars are not against OB, they are against the premise that there is such a thing as an "authentic pronunciation" as that breaks the basic laws of language. So define a dialect, you need to answer a couple of questions, and there are more than the followin:
- What is the pronunciation?
- When was that pronunciation dominate?
- Where was dominate?
Now, i don't need answers...but i am just mentioning something that lacks in the OB theory of Abouna Shenouda
Lastly, we will NOT get back into this ever-lasting argument. I am happy with bashandy coming to the forum and gracing us with his knowledge in Coptic, but we will not revive this debate because we just got a new supporter to OB on the forum.
Dear @minatasgeel You stated that correctly "part of our heritage". @Daniel_Kyrillos commented that it was "our heritage". No, it is not. Of course I am not going to re-answer the same questions I did before, some on this very thread, and also because you don't expect me to as well, but please take a little comment from a brother if you would be kind to consider me one: please don't drive people away from this forum. Oujai khan ebshois
I am not trying to drive anyone away. But there are limits to how much we can argue about something and there are standards to someone making a point. One of those standards is to try to understand and tolerate the other party's ideas and opinions. NOT ONE OB SUPPORTER i have spoken too, including my own father of confession, has ever considered understanding why one may allow GB or not accept OB due to the lack dealing with some arguments (not that i am an expert on the topic). Also, very few care about the affect that changing to OB will have to the Church as a whole.
I was teaching Bible study yesterday, the first class to a new group of high school youth. I started by, "if you ever get into an argument with anyone concerning the Bible, you first need to set the premise that the Bible is open to interpretation if there isn't a guide to help (in our orthodox case, that is the Church and Her Fathers". If that premise is not accepted, than it'll just be a matter of me forcing my interpretation of the Bible on you--in which case no one should bother with that argument because it will not be fruitful any way and even cause some anger. This is what I get from every single supporter of OB--"This is the authentic bohairic coptic and Iryan Moftah destroyed Coptic in the Church"
I know there is every good intention towards the Church and the language. But that needs to be framed correcting concerning the current reality and the affect of non-ending arguments in the Church--from either sides.
I appreciate that this topic is a never ending one. I am willing to speak so long the admin did not close the topic officially. I assume there still is a room for discussion. So, long we don't shout or use biggish fonts.
Scholars do not study Sahidic Coptic because of pronunciation, they study Sahidic because most manuscripts of St Shenouda Archmandrite & St Pachomious, in addition to Gnostic literary heritage are written in Sahidic. Pronounciation is irrelevant to the topic.
There is no clear logic for pronunciation in both OB & GB just like natural languages, both are not constructed languages, so there are many letters with multiple voices pronounced as if they were the voices of another letter e.g. the first gamma 'G' in Aggelos is pronounced angelos etc.
The Coptic Orthodox Church has the right to adopt whatever language or pronunciation or theology inside the church it legitimises the usage of GB inside the church.
I guess the argument is carrying on for long, because both parties are not on the same page. OB supporters are mostly concerned with the authenticity of the pronunciation, its legacy, heritage, that goes over 1000 year in Bohairic and the appeal to its aesthetics and beauty, which is more in-line with colloquial Egyptian Arabic by the lack of dh, th, v, p, and the presence of voiced consononants of d instead of t in many Coptic words, was well as the smoothness of the w in words like won, woini instead of ou-on & ou-oini.
OB supporters approach the language from the view point of phonetic transcriptions, and other forms of comparing the usage of vowels to each other within mansucripts and within the same manuscript. The results are compelling, and factual.
GB supporters are concerned with how hymns were handed to use, and how to be pragmatic in dealing with the existing pronunciation and legitimising it. As a substantial work by R. Moftah was done for recording it in GB.
GB approach the language from the prespective of a conlang that has to follow a certain preset rules. Thus the pronunciation follows these rules rigidly no matter how absurd the rules are e.g. delta is pronounced as d in names and dh in other words, theta is pronounced as t in names and th in words. So, far anyone concerned with applying rules to pronunciation in a straightforward manner would appreciate GB.
I believe that there are false claims on both camps. GB team can get sceptical about the authenticity of OB. I have met with people starting from a for gone conclusion that it is wrong, without even bothering to read proper references to the book. The whole point is that OB defies logic, seems hard, is archaic, etc.
OB team attirbutes the destruction of Coptic to GB which is not true as Coptic has been a dead language for decades maybe more than a century before the advent of GB. I don't think that either GB or OB can save a dead language. It takes more than pronunciation to work it out.
The Church is not an arbiter of truth when it comes to phonetics and linguistics. So, having the church embracing GB is the church exercising its rights, no more no less. Biblical interpretation is different from OB/GB The Bible is classified - outside theology - as a literary text, these are open to interpretations. Phonetics/linguistics are philosophical and scientific endeavours, there is evidence to be followed.
Whether OB is authentic or not I came to conclude that it is an authentic spectrum of pronunciation. Whether it should be used in church or not this is not my call; and it is not in my authority to decide. However, I'll quote a conversation with Fr Shenouda Maher Ishak (Dr Emile Maher Ishak) regarding this.
Q: Why don't we accept the current ecclesiastical pronunciation inside the church? A: The Coptic Orthodox Church was built on 'testifying for the truth'. This is the whole cornerstone. If we know that something is authentic and we 'let go'' of it how can we justify this to future generations, that we knew that something was precious and historical we just cannot let that go.
Comments
Then how about these words:
ice and justice
Cycle and bicycle
cat and ceremony.
Are you saying that the sounds of c like K was invented because of different dialects? So, the sound of s as z, the two sounds of g, h, e, ....
Is e always sounds e in English?
What Aryan did was fixed the sounds with rigid artificial rules that sounds of places and people were funny. No one till today can apply these rules. And the rule of having different letter values for words, people, places as ophadece pointed out.
Common, should we apply this logic to the English language?
Then how about these words:
ice and justice
Cycle and bicycle
cat and ceremony
This has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about rhyming. And if you bothered to read the whole thing, you will notice I specifically said English has the same irregularities that caused invented dialects. So yes, apply it to the English language but make sure you actually know what I'm talking about.
I'll use your example. Would it make any sense that someone reads "ice" and hears "aka"? The letters represent the sounds they make, which represent a cognitive word that is intelligible to the reader and the hearer. This is Semiotics 101. But when you start to see manuscripts write "ice" and "aka" both to represent the solid form of H2O, then there is a problem with the use of the language or the language itself.
The English phonetic inventory has irregularities where "c" has /c/ and /k/. But overall, the letter "i" gives a specific sound not found or represented by another letter. Yet in Coptic, "e" and "h" and "a" all have nearly identical sounds for every word with those letters. We are not talking about a small percentage of synonyms, homonyms, allophones or irregularities. Bohairic, which had an alphabetic (segmental) writing system somehow changed where one sound is represented by multiple graphemes. In additional support of this argument, Sahidic, which pre-dates Bohairic as the spoken dialect of Egypt did not have this phenomenon (as far as we know). Words with an "e" were most likely pronounced "e". The different sounds of "a" were all collectively represented by the "a" letter, not "e" or "h".
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.
So what you wrote in Post #32 is inaccurate? "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."
Maybe you're right. I can't give you a reference that Arian Moftah changed it for political reasons. I'm only going by what you and so many OB proponents have claimed.
The word ice is pronounced 'ayce. But when it is written as part of of the word justice it is pronounce "iss". You were arguing that a letter has a specific sound, yet in this example the vowel "i" has two different sounds. This can be found all over the English language.
The same is true under OB. So your argument against the letter "e" to be pronounced as in "cat" or the letter "a" to have more than one sound as in either "cat" or "Balaat" is an invalid argument.
Every language has different sounds for the same letters. Aryan instead fixed those sounds and added new ones that lead to the language's mutilation.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142709#msg142709 date=1312682645] 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.
So what you wrote in Post #32 is inaccurate? "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."
Maybe you're right. I can't give you a reference that Arian Moftah changed it for political reasons. I'm only going by what you and so many OB proponents have claimed.
If you call this unification process politics that is your choice. I, myself, do not call two Churches agreeing on dogma to be a political movement.
How about (bi)cycle, bye .. here the the (bi) sounded like a y.
How about tie and shy .. again the i gave the sound of a y
How about ie and ea that have the same sound where the i in ie gives the sound of an "e" that is part of ea.
How about the sound i that is given by the letter y as in "party"
I can go on
I stand corrected on the point of Indian English. Thanks... I got it.
Dear Remenkimi,
You reply to my quotes showing that you don't understand what I mean in the first place. I guess it is my fault because I don't have the luxury of the time to write very long posts, and analyse each and every point, and also because I am not as learned as you are. But seriously, you reply with the example you gave for different pronunciations of the word Athanasius by different groups of people, when I am talking about an inherent characteristic Mr. Moftah gave us, about pronouncing some letters differently (FOR THE VERY SAME COPTIC PERSON) in names and in words.
One last thing I am going to say in this thread, because with all of the to and fro debates between you and imikhail (and other members when they get in), simply I cannot keep up with. The last thing is when a COPT assumes Coptic language (that hadn't disappeared in his days) need reformation, standardisation, rectification, or whatever you may call it (since the meanings are all the same for you), then there is a grave problem first with that person's premise, and secondly with whoever follows blindly and ignorantly. Mr. Elizier (sorry if I misspelt the name), as I understand, acted like a funnel and gathered all the threads in one hand and fine-tuned Hebrew into a modern Hebrew. Artifical? Yes. Needed? Very much. Any body objected? Maybe, but on a large scale people benefited more than were harmed. Did Mr. Moftah do the same? No. Acted like a funnel? No, he added a new lingo, dialect, system of pronunciation... etc. Did it benefit? No. Did it create unity? No.
Oujai qen `P[C
OB pronunciation is no exception, this is how people pronounced it. Yes, it varies from one person to the other, and yes, different scholars recorded variations because, OB just like any natural pronunciation is a spectrum not a point.
Personally, I think since we don't use Coptic as a conversational language, like English or Arabic or Hebrew or Spanish or whatever, it's easier to use GB since Greek (the Greco part of Greco-Bohairic) is a bit more familiar. Personally, if I had learned OB instead of GB I'd be a lot more confused. The little kids (6-8 years old) I see trying to learn Coptic have enough of a hard time with GB d, b, y, i, e, u, ,, x, [, and ' as it is. Changing it up suddenly and saying "All 3 of these letters are the short 'a' sound" or something like that is not going to help.
Greco-Bohairic is not our heritage actually..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡ̀ϭⲥ
You stated that correctly "part of our heritage". @Daniel_Kyrillos commented that it was "our heritage". No, it is not.
Of course I am not going to re-answer the same questions I did before, some on this very thread, and also because you don't expect me to as well, but please take a little comment from a brother if you would be kind to consider me one: please don't drive people away from this forum.
Oujai khan ebshois
Scholars do not study Sahidic Coptic because of pronunciation, they study Sahidic because most manuscripts of St Shenouda Archmandrite & St Pachomious, in addition to Gnostic literary heritage are written in Sahidic. Pronounciation is irrelevant to the topic.
There is no clear logic for pronunciation in both OB & GB just like natural languages, both are not constructed languages, so there are many letters with multiple voices pronounced as if they were the voices of another letter e.g. the first gamma 'G' in Aggelos is pronounced angelos etc.
The Coptic Orthodox Church has the right to adopt whatever language or pronunciation or theology inside the church it legitimises the usage of GB inside the church.
OB spectrum of pronunciation is backed up by huge amount of evidence towards its authenticity https://copticsounds.wordpress.com/resources/
I guess the argument is carrying on for long, because both parties are not on the same page. OB supporters are mostly concerned with the authenticity of the pronunciation, its legacy, heritage, that goes over 1000 year in Bohairic and the appeal to its aesthetics and beauty, which is more in-line with colloquial Egyptian Arabic by the lack of dh, th, v, p, and the presence of voiced consononants of d instead of t in many Coptic words, was well as the smoothness of the w in words like won, woini instead of ou-on & ou-oini.
OB supporters approach the language from the view point of phonetic transcriptions, and other forms of comparing the usage of vowels to each other within mansucripts and within the same manuscript. The results are compelling, and factual.
GB supporters are concerned with how hymns were handed to use, and how to be pragmatic in dealing with the existing pronunciation and legitimising it. As a substantial work by R. Moftah was done for recording it in GB.
GB approach the language from the prespective of a conlang that has to follow a certain preset rules. Thus the pronunciation follows these rules rigidly no matter how absurd the rules are e.g. delta is pronounced as d in names and dh in other words, theta is pronounced as t in names and th in words. So, far anyone concerned with applying rules to pronunciation in a straightforward manner would appreciate GB.
I believe that there are false claims on both camps. GB team can get sceptical about the authenticity of OB. I have met with people starting from a for gone conclusion that it is wrong, without even bothering to read proper references to the book. The whole point is that OB defies logic, seems hard, is archaic, etc.
OB team attirbutes the destruction of Coptic to GB which is not true as Coptic has been a dead language for decades maybe more than a century before the advent of GB. I don't think that either GB or OB can save a dead language. It takes more than pronunciation to work it out.
The Church is not an arbiter of truth when it comes to phonetics and linguistics. So, having the church embracing GB is the church exercising its rights, no more no less. Biblical interpretation is different from OB/GB The Bible is classified - outside theology - as a literary text, these are open to interpretations. Phonetics/linguistics are philosophical and scientific endeavours, there is evidence to be followed.
Whether OB is authentic or not I came to conclude that it is an authentic spectrum of pronunciation. Whether it should be used in church or not this is not my call; and it is not in my authority to decide. However, I'll quote a conversation with Fr Shenouda Maher Ishak (Dr Emile Maher Ishak) regarding this.
Q: Why don't we accept the current ecclesiastical pronunciation inside the church?
A: The Coptic Orthodox Church was built on 'testifying for the truth'. This is the whole cornerstone. If we know that something is authentic and we 'let go'' of it how can we justify this to future generations, that we knew that something was precious and historical we just cannot let that go.
Thank you very much dear Mina..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡ̀ϭⲥ