Coptic Katholikon

Daniel_Kyrillos

So I'm preparing to learn the Catholic Epistle in Coptic, and I used this video to learn from. However, I noticed that the way the words are set up for the letters of John and Peter don't match up with what are on this site. Is this a matter of conflicting sources?
To me, the way it is on here makes more sense: Ka;olikon `ebolqen (Houi] / ]mah`cnou] / ]mahsom]) `n`epictoly... However, in the video, he says `ebolqen ]`epictoly `nte peniwt (Petroc/Iwannyc)oui/`cnou]/som]... Is this just a case of conflicting sources? Or is this a Coptic grammar thing?

minatasgeel

It's a matter of oral source and teaching. Books text is very basic and not always uniform actually, this is looking through all known khidmit shamas books and two separate liturgy books. But M Tawfik records it with "Ka;olikon `ebolqen" as well as Zaher and Gad, and the following live recordings by the Cathedral Chorus (led by M Ibrahim):

http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Hymns/Major_Feasts_of_the_Lord/Nativity/2005_Liturgy_at_Cathedral.html ;

http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Hymns/Major_Feasts_of_the_Lord/Resurrection/2004_Liturgy_at_Cathedral.html (That's Fr. Filopateer Kamal currently if I am not mistaking)

I would like to get some detailed word-to-word translation of both sentances if anyone is available :-)  

Daniel_Kyrillos

@minatasgeel I just realized I never linked the video >.< here it is:

ophadece

Dear @Daniel_Kyrillos,
I used to question those very recordings but I searched for an answer and found out that both styles are grammatically correct..
Oujai khan ebshois

Remnkemi

I think Ka;olikon `ebolqen (Houi]) `n`epictoly is not correct. I think it has to have the feminine definite article. So it would be Ka;olikon `ebolqen ]houi] `n`epictoly. Otherwise, everything Ophadece said is correct. 

Daniel_Kyrillos

@Remnkemi @ophadece Thank you guys so much :)