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
What is a Shirat ?
Hey guys i was looking through a lot of hymns albums and i always find a hymn called shirat for every season. What is it and when do we sing it.
Comments
Hey guys i was looking through a lot of hymns albums and i always find a hymn called shirat for every season. What is it and when do we sing it.
it is the saturday theotokia lobsh. the thing is that every part of it begins with 'Shere' (hail).....so because it has unique way that depends on the season of the Church, it was loved by many cantors--and they are not easy-- they were called Sherat in arabic, which is just the word shere from coptic with the feminine conjugation of arabic. it's like the word "shoria"....that is not an arabic word (the arabic word for censer is Magmarah).
imikhail,
Yes. More accurately, "xere" is only used by people in Egypt or Egyptians who emmigrated out of Egypt, while standard Greek would have "xaire".
I need to make a correction. In Byzantine, Koine or Modern Greek it would be "xairetismous" or "ta xaire". In Egyptian Greek, it would be "xeretismous". The closest thing in Coptic would be "nishere" but this would be the Coptic plural definite article + the Greek loan word xere. One could argue that a loan word is not "authentic" Coptic. But after thinking about it since my last post, I would say "nishere" is Coptic.
imikhail,
Yes. More accurately, "xere" is only used by people in Egypt or Egyptians who emmigrated out of Egypt, while standard Greek would have "xaire".
Never heard of nishara. Can you please point me to a text where the word is used?
My understanding is that in Coptic the Greek words that have ei become e as indicted in the Kiahk psalmody and the kholagion. So, Shara is the same Greek word.
Never heard of nishara. Can you please point me to a text where the word is used?
As far as I know nishere is not found in any text. However, "oushere" is found in the Cymbals verse for the Virgin. The same principle of code switching applies. The Greek diphthong "ei" becomes "i" in Egyptian Greek and Coptic. The Greek diphthong "ai" becomes "e". If xere is the same as the Greek word xaire, why not just use Greek? If it is the same exact word, why have 2 spellings in 2 (maybe 3) different languages? It's not the same. If it were the same it would be Greek. Xere is Egyptian Greek or Coptic, not Greek.
,ere is the Coptic variant of the Greek ,aire as ke is to kai, and e to ai. I don't know the exact reason for simplifying the spelling, but you can argue that it has to do with subtle differences in pronunciation, or imposing the Coptic stamp on the Greek loan word.
For Greek loan words inserted into Coptic language, are still treated as part of the "authentic" Coptic. Not sure why you argue against this.
Lastly, mio can be used to mean the same.
Oujai qen `P[C
moi is not a noun. It is a greeting phrase. The closest translation is "bravo". You can't make it a noun and make it "bravos". It has no meaning in any language.
Oujai
When a word starts off being borrowed from another language, and get "integrated" into another, they are said to be loanwords, and still authentic. Takes these examples:
English words of Gaulish origin:
ambassador, car, cream, budget, down, piece, truant, etc - source wikipedia.
English words of French origin:
joy, homage, villain, peasant, baron, duke, dame, etc - source wikipedia stating almost 30% of English words have Old French origins
English words of Arabic origin:
adobe, admiral, alchemy, algebra, alcohol, alkali, candy, carat, etc - source wikipedia
English words of Scandinavian origin:
flounder, nudge, snug, wicker, etc - source wikipedia.
To me all of these words are authentic English words although they are derived from another language, and they were originally treated as loan words.
mio is a word with four meanings, that I came to actually learn very recently, according to Muawad Dawood's dictionary who derives most of the information from Crum. I can't remember the four senses of the word (I can look them up when at home), but as you said it means "well done sb" as does it mean "welcome sb", with the pertinent conjugations.
Oujai qen `P[C
Shara is a Greek loan word in the Coptic language. It's Coptic...
Oujai
No imikhail,
Shara is a Greek loan word in the Coptic language. It's Coptic...
Oujai
Ok ophadece .. this is what I meant. Thanks.
Dear Remenkimi,
When a word starts off being borrowed from another language, and get "integrated" into another, they are said to be loanwords, and still authentic. Takes these examples:
Ophadece, I don't believe there is such a thing as language authenticity to begin with. To me, all the examples you illustrated show language evolution, language contact and bilingualism. I was simply questioning your point, using your terminology, that something cannot be both authentic and borrowed at the same time. If I were to ascribe to the notion of authenticity, I would claim that if it is borrowed, it can never be authentic. Only English words derived from Old English would be considered authentic English words. Everything else is borrowed or an evolution from Latin or the Romance languages. I understand you probably meant that a borrowed word that has been assimilated in the donor language for a long time becomes "authentic". But this is not the same as a word that was never borrowed. This is applies only if you use this authentic jargon. Shere cannot be considered etymologically derived from Egypt, Ancient Egyptian language or Coptic language proper. As such it is considered a Greek loan word, not an "authentic" Coptic word. However, nishere or sherat would be considered "authentic". Again, I don't think it even applies since all languages at one point or another have borrowed words to form new words. Once Shere is used differently than Koine or Byzantine Greek, it belongs to a different dialect or language. So both "shere" (not shaire) used in Coptic and "nishere" or "Sherat" would be equally Coptic. This theoretical hypothesis would apply to a general framework of language contact and evolution. Practically speaking however, there is a short-coming here because sherat is never written in Coptic. So one can argue it is an colloquial Egyptian Christian Arabic rather than a Coptic word. But even if we find one or two or a few exceptions, the theoretical framework still applies.
Does this make sense?
Correct me if I misunderstood you. You say that Shara is a Greek loan word that was borrowed and used in Coptic. I agree completely with this.
You say that nishara is authentic Coptic word. I am afraid I do not agree with this because the word simply does not exist in the Coptic literature. I do not know who came up with this word or where it is used in the Church hymns. Do you have any reference(s) as to the history of this word?
Thanks.
Theory #1
Shere is a Greek loan word and it has been assimilated long enough into Coptic that it can be considered "authentic" Coptic. Nishere is a neologism and it hasn't been assimilated yet so it can't be considered a loan word, even though it follows acceptable Coptic grammar.
Theory #2
There is no such thing as loan words. Every language that borrows a word and changes to adapt to the donor language's grammar and idiom becomes part of a new language or new dialect. Therefore, shere, nishere or sherat are all considered acceptable words for 21st century Coptic. (If such a thing really exists ???)
I ascribe to theory #2. I don't believe theory #1 adequately describes sociolinguistic characteristics of language contact phenomena.
I really got confused by your first reply to me, and you cleared things up in my head in your reply to imikhail. I don't believe there is something (at least as far as Coptic language is concerned) to go by for your theory #2. Please be careful, there is no Coptic construct for "ni,ere" although theoretically possible, but I don't recall having ever seen this word to be perfectly honest. This probably can be likened to the case in English of never seeing "I am knowing" in English literature, although it can be fine to use (however awkward for grammar).
However, on the other hand, sharat (and I never intend to write this word in Coptic) is not a Coptic word, and cannot be considered Coptic FULL STOP. It is the plural of the word in Arabic terms (not COPTIC, and hence cannot be assimilated into Coptic and considered authentic) as is the case with "awashy" the plural of eu,y (and yes authentic Bohairic would allow for this pronunciation, and not only STRICTLY /awka/), tobhat, the plural of twbh, and ebsaleyat, the Arabic plural of 'ali.
As for theory #1, I support it with all my heart. That is what I have been saying all along, and hope I was clear before. In any case you made it crystal clear. Thanks...
Oujai qen `P[C
Oujai qen `P[C
So if awashy or ebsaleyat are not Arabic and they are not Coptic, then what language are they?
They are Arabic words, used in the Church, of Coptic roots.
Oujai qen `P[C
They are not Arabic words strictly speaking. They CANNOT be called "authentic" Arabic words... that's my argument... I hope that is clear...
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear imikhail,
They are not Arabic words strictly speaking. They CANNOT be called "authentic" Arabic words... that's my argument... I hope that is clear...
Oujai qen `P[C
I agree ophadece that they are not pure Arabic. Just like the words "sandawitchat" for sandwiches, "seedeehat" for Cds, "battareyat" for batteries, ....
OUjai
Dear imikhail,
They are not Arabic words strictly speaking. They CANNOT be called "authentic" Arabic words... that's my argument... I hope that is clear...
Oujai qen `P[C
Made up words (or loan words) that are used in Arabic conversation that communicate a thought (i.e., they are intelligible and not jibberish) must be considered part of some language. If they can't be Arabic and they can't be English, what are they? The answer is theory #2.
And if awashy or sherat cannot be considered authentic Arabic or Coptic words, then neither should shere be considered a Greek loan word or an authentic Coptic word....which is what I said about theory #2.
And if sherat or awashy communicate an intelligible thought in Arabic conversation, it must mean these words are part of the Christian Egyptian (Coptic) Arabic dialect....which brings me back to theory #2 that a new dialect is formed. (I can give linguistic references)
I know this is very different than what many have grown accustomed to. After all, theory #1 is the generally held view of Coptic loan words. But the latest research in language contact leans to the theoretical framework I described in theory #2.
So "au revoirs", and "ciaos" are authentic English?
Dear timothym,
Very interesting question. I can look it up. I'm sure there must be some if not many, but the complication is that there are similar-sounding words with close meanings, so were they borrowed or just similar? I'll try to find out.
Oujai
No they are French words. I might consider their English equivalents, if they are intelligible to English speakers, as part of American English or British English (or maybe another more localized topolect/regiolect like French Louisiana English or Quebec English). As I said before I don't ascribe to this authentic argument. So there is no such thing as authentic English.
Oujai qen `P[C