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
Corrections to the Coptic Text
I will dedicate this thread to correcting the Coptic text that is found either here on tasbeha.org or in other resources.
Comments
The current text:
Hwc ma`nselet `nattako@ `api`P=n=a =e=;=u `i `ejw@ oujom `nte vy`et[oci@ e;na`erqyibi `ero Maria
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/359
The red text should be
ac`erqyibi
I will dedicate this thread to correcting the Coptic text that is found either here on tasbeha.org or in other resources.
But, "who will guard the guardians?" (Plato).
In other words, who's gonna put you on check?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12384.msg145042#msg145042 date=1316737165]
I will dedicate this thread to correcting the Coptic text that is found either here on tasbeha.org or in other resources.
But, "who will guard the guardians?" (Plato).
In other words, who's gonna put you on check?
All who would like to contribute including you.
[quote=Matthew 13:24-30, NIV]
The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
The point is we shouldn't be so quick to "fix" things. I am not posting this because I think you shouldn't continue but that we should continue with caution lest we destroy some of the good with the bad.
I was speaking with one of the brilliant minds of our day in the Coptic language about attempts to correct various texts. I won't say who this teacher is, but he reminded me of the Parable of the Weeds.
[quote=Matthew 13:24-30, NIV]
The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
The point is we shouldn't be so quick to "fix" things. I am not posting this because I think you shouldn't continue but that we should continue with caution lest we destroy some of the good with the bad.
This is the why we have this forum so we can discuss things. What I say or anyone else says is written in stone.
Let's take what I just posted:
ac`erqyibi is linguistically correct (within the context of the verse).
e;na`erqyibi is linguistically wrong (within the context of the verse).
If you or anyone else would like to discuss .. I welcome the discussion.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12384.msg145047#msg145047 date=1316738170]
I was speaking with one of the brilliant minds of our day in the Coptic language about attempts to correct various texts. I won't say who this teacher is, but he reminded me of the Parable of the Weeds.
[quote=Matthew 13:24-30, NIV]
The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
The point is we shouldn't be so quick to "fix" things. I am not posting this because I think you shouldn't continue but that we should continue with caution lest we destroy some of the good with the bad.
This is the why we have this forum so we can discuss things. What I say or anyone else says is written in stone. Let's take what I just posted:
ac`erqyibi is linguistically correct.
e;na`erqyibi is linguistically wrong.
If you or anyone else would like to discuss .. I welcome the discussion.
You mean, "ISN'T" right. . .?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12384.msg145044#msg145044 date=1316737322]
The second section in the Saturday Tadakeya:
The current text:
Hwc ma`nselet `nattako@ `api`P=n=a =e=;=u `i `ejw@ oujom `nte vy`et[oci@ e;na`erqyibi `ero Maria
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/359
ac`erqyibi
imikhail....i follow books. What you are saying is not in any psalmody book. therefore i will not change it.
Unworthy1, take it easy......there are many mistakes on the text library and i am willing to fix.
I'm cool, Mina. I have nothing against fixing errors in transcription. It is things that are established in the books that we should hesitate (as you did) to change.
Unworthy1, take it easy......there are many mistakes on the text library and i am willing to fix.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12384.msg145044#msg145044 date=1316737322]
The second section in the Saturday Tadakeya:
The current text:
Hwc ma`nselet `nattako@ `api`P=n=a =e=;=u `i `ejw@ oujom `nte vy`et[oci@ e;na`erqyibi `ero Maria
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/359
ac`erqyibi
imikhail....i follow books. What you are saying is not in any psalmody book. therefore i will not change it.
I am not picking on the text on tasbeha, rather on the text itself wherever it exists.
I know what you are saying but hymn may be looking for another word that is not e;naerqyibi or acerqyibi . You are basically saying that the main verb is in the past tense, so everything in the subordinate phrase has to be in the past tense. This is correct and this is usually the case. And acerqyibi would be correct.
However, the subordinate sentence may be more independent in the narrative than we expect. I will explain this through the translation to make it easier to follow.
You are advocating "As a bridal chamber without spot, the Holy Spirit came upon you and [a] power of the Highest overshadowed you, O Mary." In this context, the subordinate phrase "a power of the Highest overshadowed you, O Mary" would follow the grammatical past tense of the main clause.
However, one can logically write, "As a bridal chamber without spot, the Holy Spirit came upon you. And a power of the Highest will over shadow you." In this case, the subordinate clause is more independent than before. "Overshadow" would need to be in either the future continuous tense or the future definitive tense. I'll explain below. Logically, this sentence is plausible, although most high school English teachers will take points off for this kind of grammar since it is awkward to change verb tenses.
We also need to note that e;naerqyibi would not be grammatically correct in Coptic. e;naerqyibi makes the subordinate clause a fragment sentence. The translated sentence would be "As a bridal chamber without spot, the Holy Spirit came will come upon you and a power of the Highest which will overshadow you, O Mary." This makes it a fragment sentence. The verb case would need to be ecnaerqyibi (future continuous case) or eceerqyibi (definitive future case). From the context and the narrative, I would think the definitive future case is meant here. Did that power of the Highest overshadow her once in the future so the Incarnation of Christ could happen or did that Power continuously overshadow her throughout her life? I would think the first is correct because Archangel Gabriel seems to be telling her of one particular future event: her conception of the Logos. Therefore we would need the definitive future case. The Coptic text would become: Hwc ma`nselet `nattako@ `api`P=n=a =e=;=u `i `ejw@ oujom `nte vy`et[oci@ eceerqyibi `ero Maria
I would have to agree with you imikhail that e;naerqyibi is not correct. I think the hymn writer was trying to copy Luke 1:35 where the entire phrase is in the future tense. But our hymn writer wanted to make the first part of the verse in the past tense and neglected to grammatically correct the second half of the verse.
Unworthy,
I understand that you are cautious to evaluate and challenge long-held texts and phrases. We all are. This is because our Church and culture are very conservative in nature. However, if the text is questionable and the solution is not heretical, are we letting our caution blind us and our ego resist any positive change? (I'm speaking rhetorically and not directly at you). I think so. In fact, there are instances were our blind cautious nature allows us to keep texts that are "border-line" heretical and resist any alternative, "corrected" text. I won't reopen other threads. There are many examples.
Mina,
I don't think your standard for correction should be "what the consensus of books currently have". We know for a fact that most books copied Coptic text without any attempt to critically review the text since no body really knew Coptic. This is the trademark pattern of Coptic scribes, from the 5th century on. It became exponentially more true in the 19th-20th century since Coptic became a dead language in the 17th century.
In addition, there are older manuscripts that have alternate versions of a text. There have been studies about the "Unpublished Bohairic Doxologies", the "Unpublished Sahidic Doxologies", "The Turahat of the Saints", "The Holy Week of Pascha" and various hymns found in multiple manuscripts with 2 or more alternating texts. Most of these alternating texts were lost in churches, museums and private collections. We can't simply state that what is on the lyrics library is the consensus of the books. It is really the consensus of the current popular books.
I'm not saying you should start critically changing all the texts without (1) the Synod's approval and (2) educated Copts who know Coptic and are willing to critically examine our texts. The second requirement is harder to find than the first. And even if you found both requirements, it would likely take 30-50 years to critically examine and correct minor errors like the one were are discussing. In the mean time, we should at least educate ourselves to what we are really saying in our Coptic texts.
Sorry for the long post. I hope this helped.
George
I am always willing to learn. There is nothing wrong to also be corrected (considering that I know I have a lot of mistakes on the text library). But in the same time I will not force change on other people except with a very strong reason to do so.
What stands out in this discussion so far is that we need to understand what we are saying in Coptic. I am hoping that this thread will encourage people to learn Coptic and truly pray with it instead of just reciting or merely reading what is in the texts with no knowledge of it.
I will present more texts God willing ...
Oujai
Guys give me some time please till tomorrow. I'd like to join in. I'll do some research and be on a computer but I guess it should be 'cna rather than etna I.e. future tense rather than connective article...
Oujai
Thanks ophadece for weighing in.
While you are doing your research, please think about the verb tense. The whole tadakeya is in the past tense, so why this particular phrase should be in the future?
Oujai
Sorry for this is the first time I use the computer for some time. Anyway, I am getting a bit deep into this research, and I can say that as you said imikhail, this doesn't make neither grammatical sense, or Biblical sense. I reviewed nahdet el kanayes psalmody and I thought, for some reason, it will turn out to be `cnaerqyibi as I referred to earlier, with oujom being a feminine noun, but I found it as you said e;naerqyibi. I have another psalmody that I can check later (but I doubt it will even be close to this one in terms of grammar and spelling). In addition, in the very first section, there is another mistake cews ebol ecjw `mmoc should read ecws ebol ecjw `mmoc. I have, however, not reviewed the hymns lyrics library here on tasbeha.org.
PS: the mistake you are pointing out to is in the third section, not second imikhail.
PPS: I think when we are over with this argument, I will post other mistakes that need rectifying as well...
Oujai qen `P[C
In the hymn of Ti-mit Esnooti (http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/1350) for the Patriarch, where the Coptic reads timetrefo-ou en-heet (i.e. the penultimate virtue), it should say "long suffering" or "patience" instead of "suffering."
I never knew suffering was a virtue. :P
What about the word "athlophoros"? It has, until recently, been translated as "struggle-mantled", but that is not what the original Greek word meant. It comes from "athlon" (prize) and "foros" (bearing), and meant "bearing away the prize" or "victorious". Here is the evidence. Unless the Coptic gave it a new meaning when it imported it, or unless the early Arabic translators had a better knowledge of Coptic when translating it to "mogahed", shouldn't it be changed?
Forgive my presumption to make this claim, but it does not make much sense theologically to say that the martyrs are "struggle-mantled", since they are in heaven, where there is no struggle. On the other hand, "prize-bearing" or "victorious" is infinitely more appropriate for their current state.
Also, since this post thread exists...
What about the word "athlophoros"? It has, until recently, been translated as "struggle-mantled", but that is not what the original Greek word meant. It comes from "athlon" (prize) and "foros" (bearing), and meant "bearing away the prize" or "victorious". Here is the evidence. Unless the Coptic gave it a new meaning when it imported it, or unless the early Arabic translators had a better knowledge of Coptic when translating it to "mogahed", shouldn't it be changed?
Forgive my presumption to make this claim, but it does not make much sense theologically to say that the martyrs are "struggle-mantled", since they are in heaven, where there is no struggle. On the other hand, "prize-bearing" or "victorious" is infinitely more appropriate for their current state.
There may be confusion as to the purpose of this thread.
The purpose is not to correct the translation of Coptic into English, Arabic or any other language. The goal is to correct the actual Coptic text.
Thanks.
I shall move this discussion elsewhere.
Oujai
I was hoping no one would notice... :P
I shall move this discussion elsewhere.
i'll look into the ti-meet esnouti question.
the athloforos question, pm Remenkimi about this....he was the one who convinced me to keep it as struggle-mantled