Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a fake language. These unfounded statements only show that we either don't know what linguistic, social, anthropological science is or we are too biased to recognize that statments like this are opinions, not facts.
Please show any scientific article, journal, or study that says introducted languages are by definition fake, especially if they utilize linguistic characteristics found in organically developed languages. I'll alloborate more in a little while. George
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133437#msg133437 date=1300680253] Old Bohairic is scientifically proven to be the authentic pronunciation. I would say 80% of the Church's prayers and alhan have been recorded in OB. Listening to them makes it clear that GB is fake.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10771.msg133461#msg133461 date=1300732675] Ya Mina, please... it doesn't have to "click in your mind", so a respectable member of this forum start using it. If you are well-educated, believe in proper research methodology, and aim at applying this in whatever you love, Coptic language proper being one, then please start using it. Oujai
Lets say, I agree with all the evidence about OB and with the arguments you provided. (thank you dzheremi ;) ) Also, you are right in that we should know more about OB and if we love our language we should try to master the correct pronunciation. However, I still think that USING the correct pronunciation is something completely different and almost impossible to apply in my church.
First of all, if nobody else uses this pronunciation in church, how would I be sure that I do it right?
Secondly, if I am the only one of my church, when will I be able to use it? (I am a woman not a deacon). Besides, there wont be anybody else to practise my language skills with and the few people I know who speak coptic use the GB pronunciation. Would it not be better to just accept that GB has gain more popularity in stead of trying to correct everybody around me and be bothered contineously when words are pronounced wrong?
Third, i would only confuse the kids of my coptic class if I would teach them OB, cause they wont use it during church services since our abouna and deacons dont pray in this way. Furthermore, I am afraid they will start questioning more things in church if they discover that the coptic we use in church is fake. Not that I suggest to keep things hidden from them, but it is all very confusing and they are just too young to understand the differnces of OB and GB. So, I think it i will continue teaching GB.
Please dont understand me wrong, I loooooooove coptic and I am very glad you have shown me the truth about our coptic language (although it was quite a shock by the way :o) but I dont think it is appealing for me to start USING the OB nor teach it.
If we believe OB to be the authentic Coptic, then as a Christian and Orthodox I have a duty to teach what is right. Our Fathers left us a heritage that we should preserve and hand it down to the future generations in its purest form as we have received it. Orthodox means straight; teaching the right thing.
Jeremy, Thank you for responding. It's not often that I get to discuss Coptic linguistics with an actual certified linguist. I hope you understand that my intenion is not to argue for the sake of arguing but to explore linguistic evidence in support of both pronunciation schemes.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10771.msg133240#msg133240 date=1300342967] Well, no, but what we can say is that GB does not represent an organic development in the pronunciation of Coptic. Even the teachers of GB do not contest this point, as far as I've seen. I'll discuss organic development below. I would just add that teachers of GB, for the most part, are not linguists. With the exception of Fr. Shenouda's thesis, it's only empirical data that attests to a historical, abrupt, inorganic shift of pronunciation. In fact, some GB proponents like the Basilli family claim Pope Cyril IV never commissioned Erian Moftah to change the pronunciation or that there was any documented attempt to unite with the Greek Church and hence no intentional attempt to change Coptic pronunciation. Some also claim OB has as many inconsistencies as GB, making it just as instable as GB. The point I want to focus on is to find linguistic, social or anthropologic data to support the existence and equality of GB (or one more than the other).
It is precisely because GB is an introduced pronunciation that we can say that it is not an organic pronunciation.
Now we've entered a circular argument. Just like your observation of modern Hebrew, an "introduced" pronunciation does not equate to an inorganic development. If GB has linguistic characteristics found in other naturally obtained, "organically-developed" Coptic dialects, or other languages in the Semitic family, then one can't assume GB must be categorized as inorganic. If GB is inorganic because a pronunciation was introduced, then the same is true for modern Hebrew, Welsh, Navajo, and many other re-introduced languages.
This brings me to RLS (Reverse Language Shift) as described by Joshua Fishman and others. Any attempt to revitalize an indigenous "dead" language is an introduction. Any language shift may be considered "inorganic". But since so many languages undergo introduced language shifts, then one may also consider language shift is organic. Artifical introduction is not a small exception to be considered inorganic. It may be considered the rule.
All indigenous languages (and there are thousands) have undergone an introduced suppression system. Take Quecha for example. As Fishman says, "The Bolivian government took a quite different approach: in 1980, the government approved a 'unified alphabet'... In Equador, in contrast, an Equadorian 'National Unified Alphabet' was established for all Quichua varieties...this form diverged linguistically from what was commonly used in Boliva and Peru." The point here is that language shift, which occurs abruptly like GB's introduction, does not make the language inorganic.
there is nothing to prevent GB from being considered alongside the Akhmimic, Sahidic and other dialects. Indeed, that is how I see it. This does not preclude recognizing that the GB pronunciation is an artificial standard. The same fact is always taken into account when dealing with other standardized varieties of languages, such as Modern Standard Arabic.
I agree with you. Yet, OB proponents continue to conclude and assert that GB is "fake" because it is an introduced artifical variety. GB should be considered as legitimate and accurate as our current reconstruction of OB, or Sahidic or Akhmimic Coptic.
Because Coptic is no longer a living language, such processes as those that affect language change do not apply to it, thereby making any standard established so many years post-mortem necessarily inorganic. This was the point in specifying that the Old Bohairic pronunciation is also a reconstruction. It is not less inorganic than GB (heck, it was introduced in 1960s, wasn't it?), but it nevertheless appears to more closely mirror what evidence we do have to support what Coptic probably sounded like when it still was an everyday spoken language in Egypt.
No one ever actually reconstructed OB. Fr. Shenouda's 1975 thesis attempted to argue that OB was the pronunciation pre-1865. In the process, he had to reconstruct OB but it wasn't as systematic or comprehensive as it should be. And it was not his intention to do so.
Regardless, the evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation. Most linguistic studies deal with morpho-synctactic rules of each Coptic dialect. I have not yet read Lopriano's text in detail. But I believe pronunciation was not a comprehensively studied linguistic topic, as much as grammar and literary evidence was.
Coptic is rich linguistically. And while I prefer OB, I think it's a shame to devalue GB because of personal opinion. George
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10771.msg133550#msg133550 date=1300766157] Jeremy, Thank you for responding. It's not often that I get to discuss Coptic linguistics with an actual certified linguist. I hope you understand that my intenion is not to argue for the sake of arguing but to explore linguistic evidence in support of both pronunciation schemes.
Yes, certainly.
I'll discuss organic development below. I would just add that teachers of GB, for the most part, are not linguists. With the exception of Fr. Shenouda's thesis, it's only empirical data that attests to a historical, abrupt, inorganic shift of pronunciation.
Hmm. I'm not sure if I'd agree with the last sentence. I would think that any writing that does not attest to Greek pronunciation for Bohairic is in effect at least not attesting to the historicity of GB. And there are many such professional linguistic articles to chose from (see the links in my first post).
In fact, some GB proponents like the Basilli family claim Pope Cyril IV never commissioned Erian Moftah to change the pronunciation or that there was any documented attempt to unite with the Greek Church and hence no intentional attempt to change Coptic pronunciation.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Some also claim OB has as many inconsistencies as GB, making it just as instable as GB. The point I want to focus on is to find linguistic, social or anthropologic data to support the existence and equality of GB (or one more than the other).
Again, you might be arguing this to the wrong person, as I don't advocate treating GB as any sort of "lesser" pronunciation, only an inorganic one.
Now we've entered a circular argument. Just like your observation of modern Hebrew, an "introduced" pronunciation does not equate to an inorganic development.
It might seem that way, but this is a misreading of my original post. When I introduced the Modern Hebrew question, it was within the confines of the original question which the paper concerned was written to address: Modern Hebrew's (incorrectly) supposed Slavic/non-Semitic origin and/or character (full disclosure: I have not read Wexler's original essay; only Kapeliuk's response to it). This was for only for the purpose of introducing the GB/OB situation by analogy to a similar (not directly comparable) situation.
If GB has linguistic characteristics found in other naturally obtained, "organically-developed" Coptic dialects, or other languages in the Semitic family, then one can't assume GB must be categorized as inorganic.
Please define your terms a little more clearly. "Linguistic characteristics" is very vague, so I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Can you give an example of what you mean by that? Also, Egyptian is NOT a Semitic language. It is its own distinct branch of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages, which also includes the Semitic languages, the Chadic languages, the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, and (by some classifications) the Omotic languages.
If GB is inorganic because a pronunciation was introduced, then the same is true for modern Hebrew, Welsh, Navajo, and many other re-introduced languages.
Please remember that GB is itself a pronunciation, not a separate language. With regard to Modern Hebrew: Definitely! In fact, though I don't have the references on me at the moment, I seem to remember reading that there was more than a bit of resistance to the introduction of Hebrew as the everyday language of Israel, partly on that very basis.
Do you have sources to show that Welsh and Navajo are reintroduced? This is a separate issue, but I would say that, from a sociolinguistic standpoint, it also does not bode well for GB: Unlike languages which are reintroduced with the goal of making them everyday spoken languages again (for which some amount of phonological retooling is unavoidable, as the underlying phonologies of the first generation of learners are bound to be different since they're native speakers of other languages), the GB pronunciation was introduced to Coptic...why? The phonology of GB is certainly farther off from the Bohairic than OB, and additionally fits the phonology of the first language of the majority of Coptic speakers better, too. So if the story regarding the proposed union of the Copts and the Greeks is not true, then I have no idea why this even happened (linguistically-speaking).
This brings me to RLS (Reverse Language Shift) as described by Joshua Fishman and others. Any attempt to revitalize an indigenous "dead" language is an introduction.
Indeed. I never have and never would argued otherwise.
Any language shift may be considered "inorganic".
Perhaps by some other definition of "organic", but not by the definition I am using, which has to do with phonology because, again, we're dealing with a pronunciation, not a different language altogether. Let's not muddy the waters here, please. I hope I've sufficiently explained why I brought up Modern Hebrew. It certainly wasn't to discuss situations not comparable to the discussion of GB and OB pronunciations of Coptic (as fascinating as they are).
But since so many languages undergo introduced language shifts, then one may also consider language shift is organic. Artifical introduction is not a small exception to be considered inorganic. It may be considered the rule.
Again, I used "organic" with regard to phonology, not language shift. I'm certainly willing to discuss these other issues in some other discussion, but not this one. It is not necessary, and actually gets into some pretty messy, not necessarily purely linguistic territory.
All indigenous languages (and there are thousands) have undergone an introduced suppression system. Take Quecha for example. As Fishman says, "The Bolivian government took a quite different approach: in 1980, the government approved a 'unified alphabet'... In Equador, in contrast, an Equadorian 'National Unified Alphabet' was established for all Quichua varieties...this form diverged linguistically from what was commonly used in Boliva and Peru." The point here is that language shift, which occurs abruptly like GB's introduction, does not make the language inorganic.
We are not talking about language shift. Well, okay, it seems you are, but I'm not. I don't know what definition of language shift you are using, but the adoption of a standardized pronunciation of a language is not part of the definition I was taught and that operates in my mind (i.e., actual shift from one language to another). The example above is NOT an example of language shift. It the introduction of a standardized writing system, which has no bearing at all on the spoken language itself (which is what I thought we were talking about). For a point of comparison, when Ataturk's Turkey established the modern Latin writing system for Turkish, it wasn't because Turkish had evolved in some way by 1927 (or whenever it was; around then) that necessitated a Latin alphabet. It was for pragmatic reasons involving what could most accurately represent the sounds of Turkish. Because the previous Arabic-derived writing system was deficient for representing many features of Turkish (not the least of which is the process of vowel harmony which is common to the Turkic languages), a Latin-based system was devised that could handle Turkish in a less cumbersome manner. It was not because the language itself had changed. There was no language shift.
No one ever actually reconstructed OB. Fr. Shenouda's 1975 thesis attempted to argue that OB was the pronunciation pre-1865. In the process, he had to reconstruct OB but it wasn't as systematic or comprehensive as it should be. And it was not his intention to do so.
What have you read regarding Bohairic? ("Old Bohairic" is the name of the reconstruction; I've never seen it used to refer to Bohairic as it existed during its days as a spoken dialect. If you know something I don't, feel free to share.)
Regardless, the evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation. Most linguistic studies deal with morpho-synctactic rules of each Coptic dialect. I have not yet read Lopriano's text in detail. But I believe pronunciation was not a comprehensively studied linguistic topic, as much as grammar and literary evidence was.
You are free to believe as you wish. I very much disagree.
Coptic is rich linguistically. And while I prefer OB, I think it's a shame to devalue GB because of personal opinion. George
I don't intend to devalue anything. I'm only interested in what the linguistic evidence shows.
The evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation.
I am not sure what evidence you have and what research have you done. Have you read Fr. Shenouda's thesis? If you did then there is a tremendous evidence from Coptic, Greek, Hebrew and Roman manuscripts, hieroglyphic and Phoenician inscriptions.
Even Arabic manuscripts point to the authenticity of OB. The Coptic names used today point to OB. I would go as far as to say everyday words we use in the Egyptian dialect of Arabic point to the authenticity of OB.
How do we know that Coptic names used today (I'm assuming you're speaking of names of Egyptian cities) are not originally found in Sahidic, Akhmimi, Fayummic Coptic? Or Demotic or Egyptian (ie, pre-Roman occupation language)? How do we know that everyday words used in Egyptian Arabic originated from Bohairic and not Sahidic? We don't know.
The tremendous evidence from Coptic, Greek, Roman inscriptions and literary documents are not in Bohairic. There is only a small amount of Bohairic evidence compared to Sahidic and Fayummic. We can't simply assume that this evidence authenticates OB's pronunciation.
Fr. Shendoua's thesis described pre-Erian Moftah pronunciation of Bohairic Coptic. It did not address various stages of Bohairic phonology. There is an assumption that 8th century Bohairic pronunciation is the same as 19th century Bohairic pronunciation. This is probably not true. There was a development of Bohairic Coptic phonology that eventually ended up with GB. It's true GB can be considered an inorganic development or evolution of Bohairic phonology (although I'm not totally convinced) but it doesn't mean OB is any more authentic than GB.
I am referring to Coptic names like Esedoros, Bawla, Tawadoros, Bastawros, Tawfilos, Tawdosius, ...etc where it is clear we have a different pronunciation in GB like Esozoros,Pavli, The-odoros,The-odosius, Pistavros, The-ofilos, .....etc
The problem with GB is that it introduced sounds that are not part of the Egyptian toungue and Egyptians cannot pronounce it. Arabic words like Ta3lab, Tamanya, Etnein, Talata, ...etc are pronounced with T where in fact the proper Arabic is with "th" as in think and is pronounced correctly in other countries.
Dear Remenkimi, You are missing quite a lot, inadvertently of course, because you don't read Arabic. The claim of that Bassili family is unfounded. Mr. Erian Moftah himself mentions in his book, the origin of all controversy, that Pope Cyril IV "ordered" him to adopt the new pronunciation system, and publish it, so he can publicise it to all Christians. It of course as expected doesn't mention the purpose of that, which I cannot claim that I agree with myself. Secondly, as dzheremi pointed out, you seem to be treating GB as a language. It is not, it is a dialect. Please, would you define for me what is the English pronuncation of Arabic-speaking countries? Is that a dialect? A topolect? A sociolect? Or would you do the same with the Indian pronunciation of English? oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133599#msg133599 date=1300802554] I am referring to Coptic names like Esedoros, Bawla, Tawadoros, Bastawros, Tawfilos, Tawdosius, ...etc where it is clear we have a different pronunciation in GB like Esozoros,Pavli, The-odoros,The-odosius, Pistavros, The-ofilos, .....etc
The problem with GB is that it introduced sounds that are not part of the Egyptian toungue and Egyptians cannot pronounce it. Since you spoke of names, let's look at a few things. Let me clarify that I 100% agree that GB introduced sounds not found in Egypt. GB has flaws. But so does OB. Let's look at a few.
In OB, the "ou" vowel is a glide vowel giving the "w" sound. the "b" letter is a frictive somewhere between /b/ and /v/ but in OB it became the glide vowel "w". The "o" letter is a hard vowel and it is not supposed to take the "a" sound. So a name, spelled and written as Pambo is pronounced as Bemwa. Herein lies the inconsistencies of OB, "b" becomes a glide and "o" becomes an "a".
Let's look at another name. Vilo;eoc and :eodoroc. Both have ;eo. Yet in OB, there are 2 different pronunciation. Faltaous and Tawadros, respectively. You'll notice that both drop a syllable: Faltaos instead of Falotaos and Tawadros instead of Tawadoros. You'll also notice the "w" glide is present in Tawadros but not in Faltaos. Strictly speaking, Tawadros is wrong because there is no ou vowel. It should be Taodoros, which derived into Tadros. Apparently, the diphthong eo inconsistently took on the same phonetic sound as ou. If one applies this phonetic rule to filo;eoc you get Falothawaos. Where is the consistency in OB? At least in GB, both names have /theos/ pronounced the same way.
This should not imply that GB is better than OB or that GB is always consistent. It's not.
Gb is not perfect. And yes GB introduced foreign sounds. But OB has problems too.
Any language has the inconsistencies you referred to. Let's look at English
C can have the sound of either K or C as in Cat and Ceremony Ph has the F sound as in philosophy s has z or sh sound as in is or sure h has two sounds as hello or hour g has two sounds as in game or Germany
I can go on but you get the point. Your argument actually proves that OB is the authentic pronunciation.
Thank you, Mikhail. I was about to post just that. Many languages do not have perfectly phonemic orthography, meaning there is some degree of mismatching between the writing and the pronunciation. This is why no linguists observe the written form of a given word in presenting their ideas (unless that's the point, as in studies on writing systems). This reality of irregularity is especially true for Coptic, as the Loprieno article linked earlier shows quite clearly. As Loprieno states in the introduction: "As for Coptic, in which vowels are indeed rendered, one should not underestimate the methodological difficulty inherent in the widespread assumption of a phonological or phonetic identity between a specific Coptic sign and its original value in the Greek system- an identity which is by no means unquestionable."
GB essentially ignores this reality and simply assigns Greek values to everything. I'm sorry, but Coptic is not Greek and GB has no verifiable antecedent.
Well said imikhail and dzheremi... Dear Remenkimi, what about row vs row in English? Bow and bow? Tear and tear? Cent and scent? Oujai Ps: did you choose to ignore answering my questions above? OUjai
This is not exactly what I was talking about. I'm sorry I was not clear. I'm not saying other languages don't have multiple phenomes for letters (which have been called inconsistencies), I'm saying OB displays random linguistic choices.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133625#msg133625 date=1300819475] C can have the sound of either K or C as in Cat and Ceremony Ph has the F sound as in philosophy But in English ph is always pronounced /f/. Philosophy is always pronounced /fil os ofe/. If a person pronounced philosophy as /eb hil os ob he/ and also pronounced sophia as /so fe a/, while speaking to another person who pronounced philosophy as /fil os ofe/ and sophia as /sob he a/ then we have multiple phenomes for the letters ph based on random linguistic decision making. This is different than just saying there are multiple phenomes or irregularities for the letters ph.
The same is true for the other examples you gave. If half the country pronounces Germany as /jer many/ and in the same sentence the same people prounce Germany the second time as /gar mani/, we can conclude the English has inconsistencies.
I can go on but you get the point. Your argument actually proves that OB is the authentic pronunciation. Inconsistencies are expected in any language.
Don't misunderstand me. GB has inconsistencies too, just like OB. Inconsistency is not a function of authenticity. If it were then inconsistency would prove GB is the authentic pronunciation as much as OB. It's the amount of inconsistencies and the randomness and degree of inconsistency that makes one question how to view a language. In my opinion, OB is just as inconistant as Gb if not more. This doesn't make GB better or more authentic than OB.
Ophadece, I thought I answered your question in another topic. I apologize if I didn't. To answer your question, I would consider the pronunciation of English in Arabic speaking countries as an accent or phonological variety. The same with the English in India. Of course, this assumes these people in these countries are competant enough to carry out a conversation and use proper English grammar. Otherwise, it's not English at all.
DEar Remenkimi, I'm so surprised by your steadfastness in debating for GB against all solid evidence. If your answer about Egyptian English and Indian English is mere accent phonological variant then I'd argue that GB is the same, nothing more. In addition, note in English language these words: negotiation, association, dissociated, either, neither, often, cephalic, fillet, and garage as examples... Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10771.msg133712#msg133712 date=1300868543] DEar Remenkimi, I'm so surprised by your steadfastness in debating for GB against all solid evidence. If your answer about Egyptian English and Indian English is mere accent phonological variant then I'd argue that GB is the same, nothing more. In addition, note in English language these words: negotiation, association, dissociated, either, neither, often, cephalic, fillet, and garage as examples... Oujai
i don't think he is debating for GB. he is debating on putting GB and OB on the same level.
There is no way, scientifically, we can put both on the same level.
Historically we know the sounds of the Coptic letters till 1857 when one person using false premise changed them. The premise was that just because Coptic uses Greek letters then Coptic sounds in current use (during his time) are wrong and thus need to be changed.
This has nothing to do with the personality of Arian Afandy and his intentions. I am just saying that the process and the method he used were wrong and consequently mutilated the Coptic language.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10771.msg133616#msg133616 date=1300813681] Dear Remenkimi, The claim of that Bassili family is unfounded. Mr. Erian Moftah himself mentions in his book, the origin of all controversy, that Pope Cyril IV "ordered" him to adopt the new pronunciation system, and publish it, so he can publicise it to all Christians. It of course as expected doesn't mention the purpose of that, which I cannot claim that I agree with myself.
Ophadecee, do you have a reference of Erian Moftah's comment you mentioned? Do you have his book? Can you send me a copy?
I know Fr. Shenouda's thesis has some documentation on Erian's correspondances with Pope Cyril but I couldn't find get a hold of Fr. Shenouda's thesis. I'd like to see if anyone can corroborate Erian Moftah's claim that Pope Cyril told him to change the pronunciation. If all we have is his book with no corresponding evidence of this union between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches, then it may be possible that he had alterior motives to change Bohairic pronunciation.
As I understand it the union was considered but not achieved, so what evidence should we expect to find? And if not for the sake of this union, what other motives were there? Erian just really like voiceless stops for some reason?
There seems to be plenty of evidence. Here is one personal account by a Westerner of conversations with those who would know...
The Rev. G. Greenwood's Account of a Visit to the Christian Churches in Cairo, 1884-1885, published by the "Association for the Furtherance of Christianity in Egypt" (pp. 27), contains the following :—
" About thirty years ago, when Abbas was Pacha of Egypt, the Coptic Patriarch Cyril and the Greek Patriarch Kallinicas were great friends, and they conceived the idea of drawing the two Churches together. With true Oriental caution they set nothing down in writing; but the particulars of the scheme were thoroughly worked out between them, and the basis of the arrangement — as Sophronius informed me — was, that the Greek Kallinicas should acknowledge the supremacy of his Coptic friend as Patriarch of all Egypt, by resigning his office into his hands, and that Cyril should then reinstate him as Patriarch of the Greek-* speaking residents. It seemed an eminently sensible solution of the difficulty, grounded on the actual facts of the position ; and it affords a valuable precedent, in case of any future attempt being made of the same kind. And further, this very important deduction may be made from the transaction — that, in the judgment of Kallinicas, the heretical tendencies of the Coptic Church, which happily, as far as I could learn, have never found expression in its Liturgies and forms of worship, had in the lapse of ages become so shrivelled and lifeless, that it would be easy for the Coptic Patriarch to give assurances and explanations which would satisfy the ecclesiastics of the Orthodox Church. But the reconciliation between the Churches was not destined to be carried out then; two parties supposed themselves to be interested in defeating it. The Pacha feared that if the Copts were admitted into communion with the Orthodox Church, Russia, as the protector of that Church, might make this an excuse for demanding that the exemptions of the Capitulations should be extended to them. The Pacha, therefore, was in no mood to see the proposed arrangement carried out. The English Government of the day, or, at any rate, its representatives in Egypt, heard of what was being planned between the heads of the two Churches^ and they only cared to view it in the light of the everlasting struggle gomg on between England and Russia for ascendency in the East. Possibly they had some reason ; Russia was the recognized ^protector of the Orthodox Church at that time, and her statesmen have never hesitated to make religious and ecclesiastical movements subservient to political ends. It would have been a great stroke for them if they could have turned the Coptic Church into an instrument for promoting Russian interests in Egypt. At the time, then, of my narrative, the English authorities may have had some apparently plausible excuse for what my Coptic informant told me they did : it was believed that they put pressure upon the Egyptian Pacha to prevent the union of the Churches. This was just what he wanted ; Abbas was an unscrupulous and cruel man, and he took a simple method of satisfying the requirements of British policy. He invited Cyril to an interview, at which — as invariably on such occasions — a cup of Turkish coffee was brought in, and was sipped by the Patriarch, who then went home, was taken ill, and died. Perhaps it was not unnatural that his namesake and successor in the Patriarchate should seem to shudder at the mention of union between the Churches'' .
The other part that plays in the mix, and it is true till today, that the Copts are fond of anything that is Western or foreign. They try to imitate what is foreign to them whether it is right or wrong and detest what is true Egyptian.
This ideology was a big factor in Arian's decision to adopt the Greek sounds as he mentions in his book. He thought that they know better than the Egyptians about the sounds of the Coptic Alphabet.
As Orthodox, we need to always adhere to the Fathers teachings and do not belittle them as ignorant and we know better. This concept is applicable to whether the issue is a nationalistic or dogmatic. To do that, though, it requires us to research and learn.
I would also like to point out that most of the Greek hymns we now have were borrowed from the Greek Church during that period during the attempt of unity between Melekite and the Coptic Churches.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133796#msg133796 date=1300906697] I would also like to point out that most of the Greek hymns we now have were borrowed from the Greek Church during that period when the attempt of unity between Melekite and the Coptic Churches.
other Greek hymns within our Church are from other sources across time. The liturgies were written in Greek before they were translated into coptic. and that was loooong before Pope Kerrelos
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133798#msg133798 date=1300907407] You for got: Ton Cina, To lithos Actually, i am sorry, the list is not complete. there is Ton sina, To letho and ten-anastaseen of the Resurrection feast.
Zefte Pantes, o kirios
i believe that these are older than Pope Kerrelos and were not used for the reason you are presenting. also, Remenkimi did a research paper about o kerios....i hope he posts the link cuz i can't remember where it was
The kiahk expositions said in the vesper praises
only the roumi that is greek and it was written by Fr. Sarkees (cantor previously) around 14-15 century. not even close to the papacy of Pope Kerrelos.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=10771.msg133766#msg133766 date=1300898658] i don't think he is debating for GB. he is debating on putting GB and OB on the same level.
I'm actually trying to stop people who make statements like "GB is fake" and "OB is authentic" based on "scientific data". I know there is data to support the dubious historicity of GB's creation and even this data has been challenged (albeit unsuccessfully). I also know OB has inconsistencies and irregularities. Some of these inconsistencies are found in all languages, some atypical and maybe attributed to OB's shortcomings. GB has more shortcomings. This doesn't authenticate OB and automatically repuridate or vacate GB's value.
I don't think people should simply claim one pronunciation is better on "facts" they heard from someone else or "facts" based on science without referencing and discussing specific arguments. I think people should recognize that they may have misconceptions on GB (or OB) which only reflect a personal preference or biase and refuse to call it a preference. I'll give you an example, every time I use OB in Church someone always says to me, "Why are you using Sahidic Coptic?" I'm sure this has happened to others. It's usually a priest or bishop. I try to explain it's not Sahidic, it's Bohairic. And I hit a brick wall because the other person's bias has completely convinced him of a fact that is actually a preference at best or unequivocally false data at worse.
Dear Remenkimi, Frustration at other people's opinions is not a good reason in itself to stop doing what is right. Actually from now on I'll base my pronunciation of English on French letters, and albeit a false premise still a dialect in itself... is zat coghect misteagh ghemenkemee? Oujai
Comments
Please show any scientific article, journal, or study that says introducted languages are by definition fake, especially if they utilize linguistic characteristics found in organically developed languages. I'll alloborate more in a little while.
George
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133437#msg133437 date=1300680253]
Old Bohairic is scientifically proven to be the authentic pronunciation. I would say 80% of the Church's prayers and alhan have been recorded in OB. Listening to them makes it clear that GB is fake.
Thanks
Ya Mina, please... it doesn't have to "click in your mind", so a respectable member of this forum start using it. If you are well-educated, believe in proper research methodology, and aim at applying this in whatever you love, Coptic language proper being one, then please start using it.
Oujai
Lets say, I agree with all the evidence about OB and with the arguments you provided. (thank you dzheremi ;) ) Also, you are right in that we should know more about OB and if we love our language we should try to master the correct pronunciation. However, I still think that USING the correct pronunciation is something completely different and almost impossible to apply in my church.
First of all, if nobody else uses this pronunciation in church, how would I be sure that I do it right?
Secondly, if I am the only one of my church, when will I be able to use it? (I am a woman not a deacon). Besides, there wont be anybody else to practise my language skills with and the few people I know who speak coptic use the GB pronunciation.
Would it not be better to just accept that GB has gain more popularity in stead of trying to correct everybody around me and be bothered contineously when words are pronounced wrong?
Third, i would only confuse the kids of my coptic class if I would teach them OB, cause they wont use it during church services since our abouna and deacons dont pray in this way. Furthermore, I am afraid they will start questioning more things in church if they discover that the coptic we use in church is fake. Not that I suggest to keep things hidden from them, but it is all very confusing and they are just too young to understand the differnces of OB and GB. So, I think it i will continue teaching GB.
Please dont understand me wrong, I loooooooove coptic and I am very glad you have shown me the truth about our coptic language (although it was quite a shock by the way :o) but I dont think it is appealing for me to start USING the OB nor teach it.
I like to hear your opinion :)
Pray for me
Marian
Thanks
Thank you for responding. It's not often that I get to discuss Coptic linguistics with an actual certified linguist. I hope you understand that my intenion is not to argue for the sake of arguing but to explore linguistic evidence in support of both pronunciation schemes.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10771.msg133240#msg133240 date=1300342967]
Well, no, but what we can say is that GB does not represent an organic development in the pronunciation of Coptic. Even the teachers of GB do not contest this point, as far as I've seen.
I'll discuss organic development below. I would just add that teachers of GB, for the most part, are not linguists. With the exception of Fr. Shenouda's thesis, it's only empirical data that attests to a historical, abrupt, inorganic shift of pronunciation. In fact, some GB proponents like the Basilli family claim Pope Cyril IV never commissioned Erian Moftah to change the pronunciation or that there was any documented attempt to unite with the Greek Church and hence no intentional attempt to change Coptic pronunciation. Some also claim OB has as many inconsistencies as GB, making it just as instable as GB. The point I want to focus on is to find linguistic, social or anthropologic data to support the existence and equality of GB (or one more than the other). Now we've entered a circular argument. Just like your observation of modern Hebrew, an "introduced" pronunciation does not equate to an inorganic development. If GB has linguistic characteristics found in other naturally obtained, "organically-developed" Coptic dialects, or other languages in the Semitic family, then one can't assume GB must be categorized as inorganic. If GB is inorganic because a pronunciation was introduced, then the same is true for modern Hebrew, Welsh, Navajo, and many other re-introduced languages.
This brings me to RLS (Reverse Language Shift) as described by Joshua Fishman and others. Any attempt to revitalize an indigenous "dead" language is an introduction. Any language shift may be considered "inorganic". But since so many languages undergo introduced language shifts, then one may also consider language shift is organic. Artifical introduction is not a small exception to be considered inorganic. It may be considered the rule.
All indigenous languages (and there are thousands) have undergone an introduced suppression system. Take Quecha for example. As Fishman says, "The Bolivian government took a quite different approach: in 1980, the government approved a 'unified alphabet'... In Equador, in contrast, an Equadorian 'National Unified Alphabet' was established for all Quichua varieties...this form diverged linguistically from what was commonly used in Boliva and Peru." The point here is that language shift, which occurs abruptly like GB's introduction, does not make the language inorganic.
I agree with you. Yet, OB proponents continue to conclude and assert that GB is "fake" because it is an introduced artifical variety. GB should be considered as legitimate and accurate as our current reconstruction of OB, or Sahidic or Akhmimic Coptic. No one ever actually reconstructed OB. Fr. Shenouda's 1975 thesis attempted to argue that OB was the pronunciation pre-1865. In the process, he had to reconstruct OB but it wasn't as systematic or comprehensive as it should be. And it was not his intention to do so.
Regardless, the evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation. Most linguistic studies deal with morpho-synctactic rules of each Coptic dialect. I have not yet read Lopriano's text in detail. But I believe pronunciation was not a comprehensively studied linguistic topic, as much as grammar and literary evidence was.
Coptic is rich linguistically. And while I prefer OB, I think it's a shame to devalue GB because of personal opinion.
George
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10771.msg133550#msg133550 date=1300766157]
Jeremy,
Thank you for responding. It's not often that I get to discuss Coptic linguistics with an actual certified linguist. I hope you understand that my intenion is not to argue for the sake of arguing but to explore linguistic evidence in support of both pronunciation schemes.
Yes, certainly. Hmm. I'm not sure if I'd agree with the last sentence. I would think that any writing that does not attest to Greek pronunciation for Bohairic is in effect at least not attesting to the historicity of GB. And there are many such professional linguistic articles to chose from (see the links in my first post). This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Again, you might be arguing this to the wrong person, as I don't advocate treating GB as any sort of "lesser" pronunciation, only an inorganic one. It might seem that way, but this is a misreading of my original post. When I introduced the Modern Hebrew question, it was within the confines of the original question which the paper concerned was written to address: Modern Hebrew's (incorrectly) supposed Slavic/non-Semitic origin and/or character (full disclosure: I have not read Wexler's original essay; only Kapeliuk's response to it). This was for only for the purpose of introducing the GB/OB situation by analogy to a similar (not directly comparable) situation. Please define your terms a little more clearly. "Linguistic characteristics" is very vague, so I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Can you give an example of what you mean by that? Also, Egyptian is NOT a Semitic language. It is its own distinct branch of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages, which also includes the Semitic languages, the Chadic languages, the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, and (by some classifications) the Omotic languages. Please remember that GB is itself a pronunciation, not a separate language. With regard to Modern Hebrew: Definitely! In fact, though I don't have the references on me at the moment, I seem to remember reading that there was more than a bit of resistance to the introduction of Hebrew as the everyday language of Israel, partly on that very basis.
Do you have sources to show that Welsh and Navajo are reintroduced? This is a separate issue, but I would say that, from a sociolinguistic standpoint, it also does not bode well for GB: Unlike languages which are reintroduced with the goal of making them everyday spoken languages again (for which some amount of phonological retooling is unavoidable, as the underlying phonologies of the first generation of learners are bound to be different since they're native speakers of other languages), the GB pronunciation was introduced to Coptic...why? The phonology of GB is certainly farther off from the Bohairic than OB, and additionally fits the phonology of the first language of the majority of Coptic speakers better, too. So if the story regarding the proposed union of the Copts and the Greeks is not true, then I have no idea why this even happened (linguistically-speaking). Indeed. I never have and never would argued otherwise. Perhaps by some other definition of "organic", but not by the definition I am using, which has to do with phonology because, again, we're dealing with a pronunciation, not a different language altogether. Let's not muddy the waters here, please. I hope I've sufficiently explained why I brought up Modern Hebrew. It certainly wasn't to discuss situations not comparable to the discussion of GB and OB pronunciations of Coptic (as fascinating as they are). Again, I used "organic" with regard to phonology, not language shift. I'm certainly willing to discuss these other issues in some other discussion, but not this one. It is not necessary, and actually gets into some pretty messy, not necessarily purely linguistic territory. We are not talking about language shift. Well, okay, it seems you are, but I'm not. I don't know what definition of language shift you are using, but the adoption of a standardized pronunciation of a language is not part of the definition I was taught and that operates in my mind (i.e., actual shift from one language to another). The example above is NOT an example of language shift. It the introduction of a standardized writing system, which has no bearing at all on the spoken language itself (which is what I thought we were talking about). For a point of comparison, when Ataturk's Turkey established the modern Latin writing system for Turkish, it wasn't because Turkish had evolved in some way by 1927 (or whenever it was; around then) that necessitated a Latin alphabet. It was for pragmatic reasons involving what could most accurately represent the sounds of Turkish. Because the previous Arabic-derived writing system was deficient for representing many features of Turkish (not the least of which is the process of vowel harmony which is common to the Turkic languages), a Latin-based system was devised that could handle Turkish in a less cumbersome manner. It was not because the language itself had changed. There was no language shift. What have you read regarding Bohairic? ("Old Bohairic" is the name of the reconstruction; I've never seen it used to refer to Bohairic as it existed during its days as a spoken dialect. If you know something I don't, feel free to share.) You are free to believe as you wish. I very much disagree. I don't intend to devalue anything. I'm only interested in what the linguistic evidence shows.
Even Arabic manuscripts point to the authenticity of OB. The Coptic names used today point to OB. I would go as far as to say everyday words we use in the Egyptian dialect of Arabic point to the authenticity of OB.
Thanks.
How do we know that Coptic names used today (I'm assuming you're speaking of names of Egyptian cities) are not originally found in Sahidic, Akhmimi, Fayummic Coptic? Or Demotic or Egyptian (ie, pre-Roman occupation language)? How do we know that everyday words used in Egyptian Arabic originated from Bohairic and not Sahidic? We don't know.
The tremendous evidence from Coptic, Greek, Roman inscriptions and literary documents are not in Bohairic. There is only a small amount of Bohairic evidence compared to Sahidic and Fayummic. We can't simply assume that this evidence authenticates OB's pronunciation.
Fr. Shendoua's thesis described pre-Erian Moftah pronunciation of Bohairic Coptic. It did not address various stages of Bohairic phonology. There is an assumption that 8th century Bohairic pronunciation is the same as 19th century Bohairic pronunciation. This is probably not true. There was a development of Bohairic Coptic phonology that eventually ended up with GB. It's true GB can be considered an inorganic development or evolution of Bohairic phonology (although I'm not totally convinced) but it doesn't mean OB is any more authentic than GB.
The problem with GB is that it introduced sounds that are not part of the Egyptian toungue and Egyptians cannot pronounce it. Arabic words like Ta3lab, Tamanya, Etnein, Talata, ...etc are pronounced with T where in fact the proper Arabic is with "th" as in think and is pronounced correctly in other countries.
I hope this clarifies my point.
Bawla is the authentic pronunciation of Pavli, and not the reverse.
Oujai
You are missing quite a lot, inadvertently of course, because you don't read Arabic. The claim of that Bassili family is unfounded. Mr. Erian Moftah himself mentions in his book, the origin of all controversy, that Pope Cyril IV "ordered" him to adopt the new pronunciation system, and publish it, so he can publicise it to all Christians. It of course as expected doesn't mention the purpose of that, which I cannot claim that I agree with myself.
Secondly, as dzheremi pointed out, you seem to be treating GB as a language. It is not, it is a dialect. Please, would you define for me what is the English pronuncation of Arabic-speaking countries? Is that a dialect? A topolect? A sociolect? Or would you do the same with the Indian pronunciation of English?
oujai qen `P[C
I am referring to Coptic names like Esedoros, Bawla, Tawadoros, Bastawros, Tawfilos, Tawdosius, ...etc where it is clear we have a different pronunciation in GB like Esozoros,Pavli, The-odoros,The-odosius, Pistavros, The-ofilos, .....etc
The problem with GB is that it introduced sounds that are not part of the Egyptian toungue and Egyptians cannot pronounce it.
Since you spoke of names, let's look at a few things. Let me clarify that I 100% agree that GB introduced sounds not found in Egypt. GB has flaws. But so does OB. Let's look at a few.
In OB, the "ou" vowel is a glide vowel giving the "w" sound. the "b" letter is a frictive somewhere between /b/ and /v/ but in OB it became the glide vowel "w". The "o" letter is a hard vowel and it is not supposed to take the "a" sound. So a name, spelled and written as Pambo is pronounced as Bemwa. Herein lies the inconsistencies of OB, "b" becomes a glide and "o" becomes an "a".
Let's look at another name. Vilo;eoc and :eodoroc. Both have ;eo. Yet in OB, there are 2 different pronunciation. Faltaous and Tawadros, respectively. You'll notice that both drop a syllable: Faltaos instead of Falotaos and Tawadros instead of Tawadoros. You'll also notice the "w" glide is present in Tawadros but not in Faltaos. Strictly speaking, Tawadros is wrong because there is no ou vowel. It should be Taodoros, which derived into Tadros. Apparently, the diphthong eo inconsistently took on the same phonetic sound as ou. If one applies this phonetic rule to filo;eoc you get Falothawaos. Where is the consistency in OB? At least in GB, both names have /theos/ pronounced the same way.
This should not imply that GB is better than OB or that GB is always consistent. It's not.
Gb is not perfect. And yes GB introduced foreign sounds. But OB has problems too.
C can have the sound of either K or C as in Cat and Ceremony
Ph has the F sound as in philosophy
s has z or sh sound as in is or sure
h has two sounds as hello or hour
g has two sounds as in game or Germany
I can go on but you get the point. Your argument actually proves that OB is the authentic pronunciation.
Inconsistencies are expected in any language.
Thanks.
GB essentially ignores this reality and simply assigns Greek values to everything. I'm sorry, but Coptic is not Greek and GB has no verifiable antecedent.
Dear Remenkimi, what about row vs row in English? Bow and bow? Tear and tear? Cent and scent?
Oujai
Ps: did you choose to ignore answering my questions above?
OUjai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133625#msg133625 date=1300819475]
C can have the sound of either K or C as in Cat and Ceremony
Ph has the F sound as in philosophy
But in English ph is always pronounced /f/. Philosophy is always pronounced /fil os ofe/. If a person pronounced philosophy as /eb hil os ob he/ and also pronounced sophia as /so fe a/, while speaking to another person who pronounced philosophy as /fil os ofe/ and sophia as /sob he a/ then we have multiple phenomes for the letters ph based on random linguistic decision making. This is different than just saying there are multiple phenomes or irregularities for the letters ph.
The same is true for the other examples you gave. If half the country pronounces Germany as /jer many/ and in the same sentence the same people prounce Germany the second time as /gar mani/, we can conclude the English has inconsistencies. Don't misunderstand me. GB has inconsistencies too, just like OB. Inconsistency is not a function of authenticity. If it were then inconsistency would prove GB is the authentic pronunciation as much as OB. It's the amount of inconsistencies and the randomness and degree of inconsistency that makes one question how to view a language. In my opinion, OB is just as inconistant as Gb if not more. This doesn't make GB better or more authentic than OB.
Ophadece, I thought I answered your question in another topic. I apologize if I didn't. To answer your question, I would consider the pronunciation of English in Arabic speaking countries as an accent or phonological variety. The same with the English in India. Of course, this assumes these people in these countries are competant enough to carry out a conversation and use proper English grammar. Otherwise, it's not English at all.
George
I'm so surprised by your steadfastness in debating for GB against all solid evidence. If your answer about Egyptian English and Indian English is mere accent phonological variant then I'd argue that GB is the same, nothing more.
In addition, note in English language these words: negotiation, association, dissociated, either, neither, often, cephalic, fillet, and garage as examples...
Oujai
DEar Remenkimi,
I'm so surprised by your steadfastness in debating for GB against all solid evidence. If your answer about Egyptian English and Indian English is mere accent phonological variant then I'd argue that GB is the same, nothing more.
In addition, note in English language these words: negotiation, association, dissociated, either, neither, often, cephalic, fillet, and garage as examples...
Oujai
i don't think he is debating for GB. he is debating on putting GB and OB on the same level.
Historically we know the sounds of the Coptic letters till 1857 when one person using false premise changed them. The premise was that just because Coptic uses Greek letters then Coptic sounds in current use (during his time) are wrong and thus need to be changed.
This has nothing to do with the personality of Arian Afandy and his intentions. I am just saying that the process and the method he used were wrong and consequently mutilated the Coptic language.
Thanks.
Dear Remenkimi,
The claim of that Bassili family is unfounded. Mr. Erian Moftah himself mentions in his book, the origin of all controversy, that Pope Cyril IV "ordered" him to adopt the new pronunciation system, and publish it, so he can publicise it to all Christians. It of course as expected doesn't mention the purpose of that, which I cannot claim that I agree with myself.
Ophadecee, do you have a reference of Erian Moftah's comment you mentioned? Do you have his book? Can you send me a copy?
I know Fr. Shenouda's thesis has some documentation on Erian's correspondances with Pope Cyril but I couldn't find get a hold of Fr. Shenouda's thesis. I'd like to see if anyone can corroborate Erian Moftah's claim that Pope Cyril told him to change the pronunciation. If all we have is his book with no corresponding evidence of this union between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches, then it may be possible that he had alterior motives to change Bohairic pronunciation.
George
The Rev. G. Greenwood's Account of a Visit to the Christian Churches in Cairo, 1884-1885, published by the "Association for the Furtherance of Christianity in Egypt" (pp. 27), contains the following :—
" About thirty years ago, when Abbas was Pacha of Egypt, the Coptic Patriarch Cyril and the Greek Patriarch Kallinicas were great friends, and they conceived the idea of drawing the two Churches together. With true Oriental caution they set nothing down in writing; but the particulars of the scheme were thoroughly worked out between them, and the basis of the arrangement — as Sophronius informed me — was, that the Greek Kallinicas should acknowledge the supremacy of his Coptic friend as Patriarch of all Egypt, by resigning his office into his hands, and that Cyril should then reinstate him as Patriarch of the Greek-* speaking residents. It seemed an eminently sensible solution of the difficulty, grounded on the actual facts of the position ; and it affords a
valuable precedent, in case of any future attempt being made of the same kind. And further, this very important deduction may be made from the transaction — that, in the judgment of Kallinicas, the heretical tendencies of the Coptic Church, which happily, as far as I could learn, have never found expression in its Liturgies and forms of worship, had in the lapse of ages become so shrivelled and lifeless, that it would be easy for the Coptic Patriarch to give assurances and explanations which would satisfy
the ecclesiastics of the Orthodox Church. But the reconciliation between the Churches was not destined to be carried out then; two parties supposed themselves to be interested in defeating it. The Pacha feared that if the Copts were admitted into communion with the Orthodox Church, Russia, as the protector of that Church, might make this an excuse for demanding that the exemptions of the Capitulations should be extended to them. The Pacha, therefore, was in no mood to see the proposed arrangement carried out. The English Government of the day, or, at any rate, its representatives in Egypt, heard of what was being planned between the heads of the two Churches^ and they only cared to view it in the light of the everlasting struggle gomg on between England and Russia for ascendency in the East. Possibly they had some reason ; Russia was the recognized ^protector of the Orthodox Church at that time, and her statesmen have never hesitated to make religious and ecclesiastical movements subservient to political ends. It would have been a great stroke for them if they could have turned the Coptic Church
into an instrument for promoting Russian interests in Egypt. At the time, then, of my narrative, the English authorities may have had some apparently plausible excuse for what my Coptic informant told me they did : it was believed that they put pressure upon the Egyptian Pacha to prevent the union of the Churches. This was just what he wanted ; Abbas was an unscrupulous and cruel man, and he took a simple method of satisfying the requirements of British policy. He invited Cyril to an interview, at which — as invariably on such occasions — a cup of Turkish coffee was brought in, and was sipped by the Patriarch, who then went home, was taken ill, and died. Perhaps it was not unnatural that his namesake and successor in the Patriarchate should seem to shudder at the mention of union between the Churches'' .
Go to remenkimi.com, and click on the tab of pronunciation, and you will find the book as the first in the list...
oujai qen `P[C
The other part that plays in the mix, and it is true till today, that the Copts are fond of anything that is Western or foreign. They try to imitate what is foreign to them whether it is right or wrong and detest what is true Egyptian.
This ideology was a big factor in Arian's decision to adopt the Greek sounds as he mentions in his book. He thought that they know better than the Egyptians about the sounds of the Coptic Alphabet.
As Orthodox, we need to always adhere to the Fathers teachings and do not belittle them as ignorant and we know better. This concept is applicable to whether the issue is a nationalistic or dogmatic. To do that, though, it requires us to research and learn.
Thanks.
I would also like to point out that most of the Greek hymns we now have were borrowed from the Greek Church during that period when the attempt of unity between Melekite and the Coptic Churches.
I don't think that is true. only these parts: http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/cat/232
other Greek hymns within our Church are from other sources across time. The liturgies were written in Greek before they were translated into coptic. and that was loooong before Pope Kerrelos
Ton Cina,
To lithos
Zefte Pantes
o kirios
The kiahk expositions said in the vesper praises
and many others.
I am not saying all but most. Of course, hymns like Ajios, or the Greek responses in the liturgy are very old.
Thanks.
You for got:
Ton Cina,
To lithos
Actually, i am sorry, the list is not complete. there is Ton sina, To letho and ten-anastaseen of the Resurrection feast. i believe that these are older than Pope Kerrelos and were not used for the reason you are presenting. also, Remenkimi did a research paper about o kerios....i hope he posts the link cuz i can't remember where it was only the roumi that is greek and it was written by Fr. Sarkees (cantor previously) around 14-15 century. not even close to the papacy of Pope Kerrelos.
i don't think he is debating for GB. he is debating on putting GB and OB on the same level.
I'm actually trying to stop people who make statements like "GB is fake" and "OB is authentic" based on "scientific data". I know there is data to support the dubious historicity of GB's creation and even this data has been challenged (albeit unsuccessfully). I also know OB has inconsistencies and irregularities. Some of these inconsistencies are found in all languages, some atypical and maybe attributed to OB's shortcomings. GB has more shortcomings. This doesn't authenticate OB and automatically repuridate or vacate GB's value.
I don't think people should simply claim one pronunciation is better on "facts" they heard from someone else or "facts" based on science without referencing and discussing specific arguments. I think people should recognize that they may have misconceptions on GB (or OB) which only reflect a personal preference or biase and refuse to call it a preference. I'll give you an example, every time I use OB in Church someone always says to me, "Why are you using Sahidic Coptic?" I'm sure this has happened to others. It's usually a priest or bishop. I try to explain it's not Sahidic, it's Bohairic. And I hit a brick wall because the other person's bias has completely convinced him of a fact that is actually a preference at best or unequivocally false data at worse.
George
Frustration at other people's opinions is not a good reason in itself to stop doing what is right. Actually from now on I'll base my pronunciation of English on French letters, and albeit a false premise still a dialect in itself... is zat coghect misteagh ghemenkemee?
Oujai