Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
How to spell Lord in coptic.
How do you spell lord in coptic?
Comments
Transliteration: shoic
Transliteration: shoic
Choic*. There is a difference between a shai and a cheema
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12175.msg143587#msg143587 date=1314138303]
Transliteration: shoic
Choic*. There is a difference between a shai and a cheema
Thank you for the "correction" . . . maybe ophadece can chime in (without starting another pronounciation debate). ;)
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12175.msg143587#msg143587 date=1314138303]
Transliteration: shoic
Choic*. There is a difference between a shai and a cheema
It is actually shois. The emphasis on saying the sound ch is a very recent one and is not correct.
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12175.msg143592#msg143592 date=1314142760]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12175.msg143587#msg143587 date=1314138303]
Transliteration: shoic
Choic*. There is a difference between a shai and a cheema
It is actually shois. The emphasis on saying the sound ch is a very recent one and is not correct.
so why would there be two letters that make the same sounds?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12175.msg143593#msg143593 date=1314143241]
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12175.msg143592#msg143592 date=1314142760]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12175.msg143587#msg143587 date=1314138303]
Transliteration: shoic
Choic*. There is a difference between a shai and a cheema
Thank you for the "correction" . . . maybe ophadece can chime in (without starting another pronounciation debate). ;)
Sorry if I am wrong. I am only inputting information I have learned from elders
Oujai
According to many studies, the letter shima may have at one stage been pronounced as /ch/ or even /k/, but with evolution it became /sh/. So no one denies Coptic has undergone evolution as all the other languages but not as what happened with the introduction of Greco-Bohairic... oops, another pronunciation debate! Sorry Unworthy1, just trying to make a clear point... hehe
Oujai
I still don't understand... How recent was this change? Why would there be 2 letters for the same sound? For the past 13 years, I have been taught that "chima" made the CH sound and it is called chima and shai made the sh sound. Every priest I have listened to say "PenChois" or "AkeChi", not Penshois or Akeshi. Can you point to a resource that shows this pronunciation?
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12175.msg143600#msg143600 date=1314152997]
According to many studies, the letter shima may have at one stage been pronounced as /ch/ or even /k/, but with evolution it became /sh/. So no one denies Coptic has undergone evolution as all the other languages but not as what happened with the introduction of Greco-Bohairic... oops, another pronunciation debate! Sorry Unworthy1, just trying to make a clear point... hehe
Oujai
I still don't understand... How recent was this change? Why would there be 2 letters for the same sound? For the past 13 years, I have been taught that "chima" made the CH sound and it is called chima and shai made the sh sound. Every priest I have listened to say "PenChois" or "AkeChi", not Penshois or Akeshi. Can you point to a resource that shows this pronunciation?
The emphasis has not started till around 20 or 25years ago. If you listen to the hymns by M Mikhail and Farag you won't notice the "ch". So are the old recorded liturgies. The transliteration in Arabic was just the letter "sheen". The modern transliteration uses both letters the "teh" and the "sheen"
This trend is being pushed by Ibrahim Ayad (who himself used to pronounce bshoyce) and Albeir Mikhail.
As for why two letters exist for the same sound, I have to say that all languages have the same thing and that is not strange. What is fictitious is to fix a language's letters to have one and only one sound.
Oujai
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12175.msg143601#msg143601 date=1314157130]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12175.msg143600#msg143600 date=1314152997]
According to many studies, the letter shima may have at one stage been pronounced as /ch/ or even /k/, but with evolution it became /sh/. So no one denies Coptic has undergone evolution as all the other languages but not as what happened with the introduction of Greco-Bohairic... oops, another pronunciation debate! Sorry Unworthy1, just trying to make a clear point... hehe
Oujai
I still don't understand... How recent was this change? Why would there be 2 letters for the same sound? For the past 13 years, I have been taught that "chima" made the CH sound and it is called chima and shai made the sh sound. Every priest I have listened to say "PenChois" or "AkeChi", not Penshois or Akeshi. Can you point to a resource that shows this pronunciation?
The emphasis has not started till around 20 or 25years ago. If you listen to the hymns by M Mikhail and Farag you won't notice the "ch". So are the old recorded liturgies. The transliteration in Arabic was just the letter "sheen". The modern transliteration uses both letters the "teh" and the "sheen"
This trend is being pushed by Ibrahim Ayad (who himself used to pronounce bshoyce) and Albeir Mikhail.
As for why two letters exist for the same sound, I have to say that all languages have the same thing and that is not strange. What is fictitious is to fix a language's letters to have one and only one sound.
Just so I am understanding correctly, Ibrahim Ayad is pushing towards CH or SH?
Oujai
Both Ibrahim Ayad and newer versions of HICS recordings, and HCOC are pushing towards Greco-Bohairic, that is "ch". Interestingly the Greek language doesn't even have that sound as per my understanding... but maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. So it seems to me to have been introduced so that the Coptic language may sound SO FOREIGN, and that was the target!
Oujai
So if the church says this is how we are pronouncing these letters, why is there such a revolt against it?
Didn't expect that kind of argument from someone like yourself.
First, language is not a church property, is it?
Second, if you sing any hymn in your own tongue, and another person from the same city sings the same hymn, there will still be subtle differences in pronunciation - so why should we all adopt the flawed Greco-Bohairic just because the argument of some is "standardisation"? What a word...
Third, the church didn't use to say this before; so does that mean every time the church clergy change their minds, we have to follow blindly? Beware, blind faith, and blind obedience are needed, much needed, in dogmatic and creed related things, but for language... I don't think so...
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear copticuser20,
Didn't expect that kind of argument from someone like yourself.
First, language is not a church property, is it?
Second, if you sing any hymn in your own tongue, and another person from the same city sings the same hymn, there will still be subtle differences in pronunciation - so why should we all adopt the flawed Greco-Bohairic just because the argument of some is "standardisation"? What a word...
Third, the church didn't use to say this before; so does that mean every time the church clergy change their minds, we have to follow blindly? Beware, blind faith, and blind obedience are needed, much needed, in dogmatic and creed related things, but for language... I don't think so...
Oujai qen `P[C
Language changes doesn't it? If the church changes how a few letters sound for whatever reasons, then ok! They aren't going to change the "rules" and then change them back to a previous way that no one knows and is accustomed to. Language isn't like our traditions and prayers which are to be orthodox. And what is wrong with making a standard? Doesn't a difference in pronunciation change the hymn? If two letters make two different sounds in different regions, isn't that a problem? I don't see the problem of standardizing a language. It isn't a change in dogma... Standardizing Coptic can probably make us more unified if anything but I really do not see the huge deal that everyone on this forum has made it into.
I am naive and I don't know much but I am just stating my view and confusion. Please don't take anything to offence.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12175.msg143623#msg143623 date=1314204303]
Dear copticuser20,
Didn't expect that kind of argument from someone like yourself.
First, language is not a church property, is it?
Second, if you sing any hymn in your own tongue, and another person from the same city sings the same hymn, there will still be subtle differences in pronunciation - so why should we all adopt the flawed Greco-Bohairic just because the argument of some is "standardisation"? What a word...
Third, the church didn't use to say this before; so does that mean every time the church clergy change their minds, we have to follow blindly? Beware, blind faith, and blind obedience are needed, much needed, in dogmatic and creed related things, but for language... I don't think so...
Oujai qen `P[C
Language changes doesn't it? If the church changes how a few letters sound for whatever reasons, then ok! They aren't going to change the "rules" and then change them back to a previous way that no one knows and is accustomed to. Language isn't like our traditions and prayers which are to be orthodox. And what is wrong with making a standard? Doesn't a difference in pronunciation change the hymn? If two letters make two different sounds in different regions, isn't that a problem? I don't see the problem of standardizing a language. It isn't a change in dogma... Standardizing Coptic can probably make us more unified if anything but I really do not see the huge deal that everyone on this forum has made it into.
I am naive and I don't know much but I am just stating my view and confusion. Please don't take anything to offence.
The thing is the I am not sure if this is a Church sponsored change. It seems to be some people taking it upon themselves.
Oujai
No offence taken of course, but I hope you forgive me this time for sounding blunt. I just don't see a point in having that argument all over again. You may like to scroll through other threads in hymns discussion section, and you'll understand better if you're keen... lastly, the church was not given and it is not an authority to standardize a language...
Oujai
(emphasis mine)
I agree. It would be odd, if for example, the Russian Orthodox Church changed the pronunciation of letters in the Russian language because they wanted to.
The fact is Coptic was around before the Church in Egypt began.
Oujai qen `P[C
I will refer to a statement I made on another thread:
The reason there exist different ways of pronouncing the same words differently is because we lost discipleship and humility. Every generation think they know better without submitting themselves to our fathers.
This started with the change Aryan introduced and the outrageous rules he put for the Coptic language. His disciples think that they know better than the fathers. The result is that these days anyone can come up with an excuse of saying a particular word a certain way and justifying his way through endless debates. We hear the argument well the Greek hymns should be pronounced like Greek. My question would be: "Who gave you the right to change the pronunciation?" Are you better than those who came before you? Were they ignorant and you are the all-knowing?
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where there is no humility in receiving the hymns the way they were delivered, the pronunciation the way they were delivered, the tune the way they were delivered, the rituals the way they were delivered. We want to leave our mark by changing what we have received.
The cure is quite simple: Submit to the fathers through the heritage they delivered through humbleness and through the spirit of discipleship.
This page contains many great articles. Some of them are very informative, and some in my opinion are only personal efforts not of great value, but worth the read of course...
http://copticsounds.wordpress.com/resources/
Oujai qen `P[C
So if someone asks about a word or pronunciation, for example this post, you will give them the old way and not the modern way the church uses?
I have refrained from contributing to this topic because I didn't want to start another, repeated thread about this same topic. I just wanted to say, not everyone thinks the old way is better than the modern way. Not everyone assigns value statements on the different pronunciation schemes.
If you asked me for a pronunciation of a word, I would give you both. And personally, I would probably use both depending on my surroundings. To the Greeks I will use Greek to win the Greeks. To the Greco-Bohairic camp, I will use GB to share in prayer with the GB's. To the Old-Bohairic cam, I will use OB to share in prayer with the OB's. No one pronunciation scheme is more authentic or more correct.
I have refrained from contributing to this topic because I didn't want to start another, repeated thread about this same topic. I just wanted to say, not everyone thinks the old way is better than the modern way. Not everyone assigns value statements on the different pronunciation schemes.
Language is not a matter of preference but of authenticity. Old Bohairic is well documented and scientifically valid. Greco Bohairic is an invention and unfortunately spread because of mainly two factors:
1 - Ignorance of the Coptic heritage.
2 - Foreign is always better.
There is no room for messing with our heritage. The simple way to regain and revive our heritage is to learn and educate others of it.
Some people need to study up on evolutionary linguistics.
Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English (Chapter 2 is particularly pertinent)
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Some people need to study up on evolutionary linguistics.
Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English (Chapter 2 is particularly pertinent)
I am not sure what does evolutionary linguistics have to with Aryan's invention of the so called Greco Bohairic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12175.msg143934#msg143934 date=1314769282]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12175.msg143927#msg143927 date=1314767168]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Some people need to study up on evolutionary linguistics.
Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English (Chapter 2 is particularly pertinent)
I am not sure what does evolutionary linguistics have to with Aryan's invention of the so called Greco Bohairic.
That comes as no surprise.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12175.msg143934#msg143934 date=1314769282]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12175.msg143927#msg143927 date=1314767168]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Some people need to study up on evolutionary linguistics.
Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English (Chapter 2 is particularly pertinent)
I am not sure what does evolutionary linguistics have to with Aryan's invention of the so called Greco Bohairic.
That comes as no surprise.
Edit: I have changed the original message to reflect the spirit of this forum.
What Cephas meant was that no matter what theories, evidence, articles, or arguments we present about language evolution, language shift, or language pronunciation (whether natural languages or constructed languages) as it applies to Coptic, you continue to believe all these theories and evidences don't apply to Coptic or GB because of what Moftah did. The universality or near-universality of linguistic evolution or shift appears to apply to all languages. Yet you insist it doesn't apply to Coptic and anyone who supports GB doesn't know what he is talking about.
By the way, Cephas has demonstrated a high degree of knowledge and caliber in everything he has discussed in the past. Stop attacking people instead of discussing the issue.