Hello all,
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/48I have never ever heard the fourth verse said at any of the churches here in Canada. It isn't even printed in any of the newer books that I've seen - the only print version is in the large, Arabic "Service of the Deacons". Why did we stop saying it?
Pray for me,
Michael Boutros
Comments
i learned from copticheritage.org that this 4th verse is said so that after the introduction to the verses of the cymbals is finished the head deacon or cantor would choose the next appropriate verse at his own discretion.
so it would go
1st verse (Amouni Marenousht) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
2nd verse (Anon kha nilaoc) - said by chorus
3rd verse (Ouon O helpis) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
4th Verse (ouon o Metcemnoc) - Said by chorus
then the next verse could be led by the cantor for example if they were in a rush the cantor would skip to the conclusion then finished by the chorus
most hymns are an even number of verses and others could be broken up into pieces like ya kol al sefoof.
i dont know why some churches dont say it, but i know the reason it was meant to be there.
i learned from copticheritage.org that this 4th verse is said so that after the introduction to the verses of the cymbals is finished the head deacon or cantor would choose the next appropriate verse at his own discretion.
so it would go
1st verse (Amouni Marenousht) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
2nd verse (Anon kha nilaoc) - said by chorus
3rd verse (Ouon O helpis) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
4th Verse (ouon o Metcemnoc) - Said by chorus
then the next verse could be led by the cantor for example if they were in a rush the cantor would skip to the conclusion then finished by the chorus
does that mean it's optional?
That is really a strange practice. I never heard about this before. Ouon ouhelpic is a "suffix" if you like added to some hymns (especially difnar (= antiphonarium) Adam intro - which happens to have the same verses) but not to the verses of cymbals so that the lead cantor chooses what verse at his discretion. That is really what I call a stretch. There is no rule in the church to say that the lead group choose verses while the following group recites the already learnt ones. I can't even understand what I am saying, but yes, let's not invent...
Oujai qen `P[C
http://www.copticheritage.org/classes/vespers_and_matins_prayers
that is the reason i got from copticheritage.org. no inventions
you're funny.....
[quote author=Michael Boutros link=topic=12037.msg142970#msg142970 date=1313035509]
Hello all,
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/48
I have never ever heard the fourth verse said at any of the churches here in Canada. It isn't even printed in any of the newer books that I've seen - the only print version is in the large, Arabic "Service of the Deacons". Why did we stop saying it?
Pray for me,
Michael Boutros
the part was "dropped" from being publish in newer books (as it is said in arabic--"saqatat"). the part is there to be said--no options....only people's lack of knowledge stops this part from being said.
I verses of cymbals and the difnar are parallel to each other--can't say they are exactly the same.....but from other hymns and rites in other hymns, it appears that they go hand in hand.....which explains why you can find this part in the difnar--which was not reprinted as much, only a couple of editions where not much people cared to take out a paragraph.
Does anyone know of a recording by a reliable cantor who chants this verse?
Cantor Ibrahim Ayad....
Hold on a minute, so you are saying it is actually not an invention chanting this fourth verse? OK, why is it not written in any of the older books then? What I mean is no single book mentions it (can it be ommissions "saqatat" in ALL the books?)
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear Mina,
Hold on a minute, so you are saying it is actually not an invention chanting this fourth verse? OK, why is it not written in any of the older books then? What I mean is no single book mentions it (can it be ommissions "saqatat" in ALL the books?)
Oujai qen `P[C
who said it wasn't written in books. I have an psalmody that have the part in it....maybe when i go home i'll post the publisher. but despite that, it is found in the difnar.
Oujai qen `P[C
http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Hymns/Annual/Verses_of_Cymbals_and_Doxologies/Ibrahim_Ayad/Part_1/01.Adam_intro_for_verses_of_cymbals.931.mp3
he pronounces it paikocmoc rather than what is written pikocmoc. Which is correct? I'm only asking because I've heard that the older recordings were known to have some mistakes.
in the first class of the annual verses of cymbals around 16:08 the teacher explains why some say pi and some say pai
In short
Pai means this world
Pi means the world
also at 13:30 he says why we say this verse
What's weird is that in
http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Hymns/Annual/Verses_of_Cymbals_and_Doxologies/Ibrahim_Ayad/Part_1/01.Adam_intro_for_verses_of_cymbals.931.mp3
he pronounces it paikocmoc rather than what is written pikocmoc. Which is correct? I'm only asking because I've heard that the older recordings were known to have some mistakes.
i am aware of that. the books say pikozmos.....i tend to stick to that. the recordings say pai kozmos......in general, either is fine.
Oujai qen `P[C
Grammatically speaking it has to be paikocmoc vai, and that is just another example of people not knowing Coptic but just singing it - ya 3ammy howa 7ad fahem 7aga?
Oujai qen `P[C
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct.
pai is the "near masculine demonstrative article " (not pronoun). vai is the "near masculine demonstrative pronoun."
It's like if you say: "I saw this bridge" compared to "I saw this."
In the first phrase, "this" comes before bridge so is the article (pai, tai or nai depending on whether the object is masculine, feminine or plural).
In the second phrase the word "this" is replacing the noun, so is a pronoun. In English there is no difference between the near demonstrative article and pronoun (both of which are "this"), but in Coptic there is (the near demonstrative pronouns are vai, ;ai or nai for masculine, feminine and plural objects.)
So paikocmoc is absolutely fine and simply means "this world."
paiavot vai is a special construct: if you translated it literally it would be "this chalice this" which makes no sense. Instead, this has the sense of adding emphasis to the word "this" so it actually means "this very chalice." In my textbook it does not make it clear whether this construction can only work with avot or can be used with any word as you used it with kocmoc. I'd appreciate it if someone could clear that up for me.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12037.msg143068#msg143068 date=1313143646]
Grammatically speaking it has to be paikocmoc vai, and that is just another example of people not knowing Coptic but just singing it - ya 3ammy howa 7ad fahem 7aga?
Oujai qen `P[C
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct.
pai is the "near masculine demonstrative article " (not pronoun). vai is the "near masculine demonstrative pronoun."
It's like if you say: "I saw this bridge" compared to "I saw this."
In the first phrase, "this" comes before bridge so is the article (pai, tai or nai depending on whether the object is masculine, feminine or plural).
In the second phrase the word "this" is replacing the noun, so is a pronoun. In English there is no difference between the near demonstrative article and pronoun (both of which are "this"), but in Coptic there is (the near demonstrative pronouns are vai, ;ai or nai for masculine, feminine and plural objects.)
So paikocmoc is absolutely fine and simply means "this world."
paiavot vai is a special construct: if you translated it literally it would be "this chalice this" which makes no sense. Instead, this has the sense of adding emphasis to the word "this" so it actually means "this very chalice." In my textbook it does not make it clear whether this construction can only work with avot or can be used with any word as you used it with kocmoc. I'd appreciate it if someone could clear that up for me.
We use the same construct in the Thanksgiving prayer "this day = bai ahoo bai"
paikocmoc = "this world"
paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)
Thanks for clearing that up imikhail. So in summary:
paikocmoc = "this world"
paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)
That is not entirely right.
This is part of the language. Throughout the liturgical prayers this construct is used.
[quote author=JG link=topic=12037.msg143102#msg143102 date=1313174696]
Thanks for clearing that up imikhail. So in summary:
paikocmoc = "this world"
paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)
That is not entirely right.
This is part of the language. Throughout the liturgical prayers this construct is used.
I never said that the construct isn't used...
What did I say that was not correct?
Oujai qen `P[C
If there is an adjective after bai then there there is no need for the other bai.
So in the example of this thread "bai kosmos" the other bai has to be used.
contrast these afenten sa ehryi etaiounou ;ai and maren]ho hopwc `ntefareh eron qen paiehoou e;ouab vai
With vai pe piehoou eta P[C ;amiof and ;ai te Ieroucalym tpolic `mpennou]
Oujai qen `P[C
JG, you are wrong. In Coptic the construct is always paikocmoc vai - tai`trapeza ;ai - paiavot vai - paiehoou vai - naiselet nai (as far as I remember meaning these two wed). It doesn't have anything to do with how it is translated, and indeed your translation is not correct either...
Oujai qen `P[C
All of my information is from So you want to learn Coptic by Sameh Younan. Feel free to go and check.
Someone told me about this book before, and I guess I once scrolled it down in a .pdf format. There are many mistakes, let alone stretching the Greco-Bohairic as he sees fit. My advice, get a better book to read.
Oujai qen `P[C