› ›

Psalm 150 for Kiahk

copticuser20copticuser20
edited December 1969 in Hymns Discussion
What is the Psalm 150 response in Coptic and English?
«1

Comments

  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Read this article.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    For the love of God, please don't use the fake refrain. It's not even good English. The article Andrew cited gives a translation of "Begotten of the Father before all ages and took flesh from the Virgin." IT'S A FRAGMENT SENTENCE. It doesn't complete an actual thought. Other translations (which we use in our Church when I'm not around) "The Born of the Father before all ages came and took flesh from the Virgin." Born is not a noun. Even begotten is not a noun. The only work around is to change the phrase to "The One born of the Father before all ages..." Now there's too many words for the tune and it's one big free-for-all.

    In addition, people who insist on the refrain typically don't know that a long ending exists. The net effect is we replace traditional, well documented melismatic Coptic hymns for post-modern, quick, made-up, grammatically incorrect refrains. I can't help but think this is one more example of the Protestantization of our Church.
  • TITLTITL
    My church uses "The Begotten of the Father before all ages came and took flesh from the Virgin"... that doesn't sound like a fragment to me. Is it?
  • kyrillos123
    "The Begotten Of The Father Before All Ages Was Incarnate Of The Virgin"
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    When was this refrain introduced, George?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    ILSM,

    Help me out here. You know English better than anyone I know. Is begotten a noun that can be properly used in this sentence?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Andrew, I have no idea. Probably in the late 1990's before I moved.
  • joegjoeg
    Listen to the Coptic version. There is no refrain.

    Why should it exist in English or Arabic?
  • TITLTITL
    Begotten isn't a noun?!

    So you're saying 'the One born of the Father before all ages...' makes sense, but 'begotten of the Father before all ages' doesn't? Either I'm confused or you are.

    Plus, in case you haven't noticed, ILSM's posts are a bunch of fragments and made up words. I would ask Father Peter instead since he isn't influenced with Americanism :P
  • peter_saadpeter_saad
    Is this refrain new?lol I never thought there was one for kiahk?
  • imikhailimikhail
    You can use this refrain though not traditional:

    Pimici ebol qen `Viwt af[carx ebol qen ]par;enoc
  • TITLTITL
    Peter,

    We've been using it since the day I was born.. so yeah, it's new.

    imikhail,

    We're talking about communion.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Yes TITL, "one" is a noun. Begotten is not. While linguistic conversion is found in English, there are certain parameters for acceptable linguistic conversion. Not every adjective or verb can be converted into a noun. Begotten is the past participle of "beget". So both forms are verbs. In English, conversion of a verb into a noun is called a gerund or verbing. You have to add "-ing" to the verb, like walking. The "Begetting" is a noun. And the "begetter" is a related noun, but neither can apply in our sentence.  The problem is Arabic can convert any verb into a noun by simply inflecting the verb and adding the definite article. For example, the verb "yawled"  to give birth is converted to a noun by inflecting the verb into "mawlood" and adding the definite article into "al-mawlood".

    Also, imikhail is right. The Psalm 150 refrain is artificially taken from the concluding canon.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    In that phrase begotten is a verb.

    We say in the creed,

    ... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

    The phrase needs a subject. I've never come across 'The begotten of the Father before all ages' in English before.

    I'd expect it to be used in the form, 'Thou who wast begotten...'. Not just 'The begotten'. When the verb is used as a title it is in the form, 'Only-begotten'.
  • imikhailimikhail
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12659.msg148669#msg148669 date=1323290458]


    imikhail,

    We're talking about communion.


    Me too TITL.
  • imikhailimikhail
    We can translate Pimici ebol qen `Viwt af[carx ebol qen ]par;enoc

    Who is born of the Father took flesh from the virgin.

    Is this proper English?

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    To expand on Fr Peter's post, related forms of "begotten" include "self-begotten" and "well-begotten". Both are adjectives.  Even "only-begotten" is an adjective. From the six instances of "only-begotten" in the New King James Version, five of them are "only-begotten Son". Only John 1:14 does not have "Son" and I think it was poetic diction, not typical 16th century British English.  None of these six verses using "Only-begotten" is found in the NIV.

    TITL, since Fr. Peter corroborated my claim, does that mean my credibility number is going up? Or should we not mix and match threads?


  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12659.msg148677#msg148677 date=1323293052]
    We can translate Pimici ebol qen `Viwt af[carx ebol qen ]par;enoc

    Who is born of the Father took flesh from the virgin.

    Is this proper English?

    No. It is more of a fragment sentence.

    And Pimici is a noun in Coptic. The Arabic "al-mawlood" is a noun. There is no equivalent noun in English.  And since it is a recent fabricated response, there is no need to look for an English equivalent.
  • TITLTITL
    Thank you for replying, Father.

    imikhail,

    Does 'Isoos Pi`ekhristos Epsheery Emefnouty aficheesarex khen tee-parthenous' make any sense? Cause in Arabic we say "Yasou alMaseeh ibn-Allah wooleedah men el3azra", so how come in English we don't say "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was incarnate of the Virgin"?

    Doc Rem, since Fr. Peter (with a credibility score of 10000000.4) supported your post, you're back in place with ILSM: 3.4
  • imikhailimikhail
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12659.msg148679#msg148679 date=1323293573]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12659.msg148677#msg148677 date=1323293052]
    We can translate Pimici ebol qen `Viwt af[carx ebol qen ]par;enoc

    Who is born of the Father took flesh from the virgin.

    Is this proper English?

    No. It is more of a fragment sentence.

    And Pimici is a noun in Coptic. The Arabic "al-mawlood" is a noun. There is no equivalent noun in English.  And since it is a recent fabricated response, there is no need to look for an English equivalent.


    It is not entirely fabricated, the first part is authentic.
  • copticuser20copticuser20
    [quote author=JG link=topic=12659.msg148665#msg148665 date=1323289471]
    Listen to the Coptic version. There is no refrain.

    Why should it exist in English or Arabic?


    Well  on days we have a lot of people and only 2 priests, my church says the long alleluia in coptic then "esmo efnotee...) then we repeat in english and arabic. No one really knows the coptic response because you can't go from the kiahky tune into the long ending for psalm 150 so "doxa patri ke eyo ke agio emepnevmati alleluia ________". Some people say "Pimici evol khen efiot, khagou enieon teero". Others say "Pimici evol khen efiot afechicarex khen teeparthenos". The same in english. Some say "The only beggotten before all ages, came and was incarnate of the virgin. Others say "The only begotten of the Father was incarnate of the virgin. No one really knows the right one since none match the only known, universal Arabic response.
  • imikhailimikhail
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12659.msg148682#msg148682 date=1323294029]

    imikhail,

    Does 'Isoos Pi`ekhristos Epsheery Emefnouty aficheesarex khen tee-parthenous' make any sense? Cause in Arabic we say "Yasou alMaseeh ibn-Allah wooleedah men el3azra", so how come in English we don't say "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was incarnate of the Virgin"?



    This response is for the Nativity Feast.
  • TITLTITL
    Then how about "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came and took flesh from the Virgin"?
  • joegjoeg
    [quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12659.msg148685#msg148685 date=1323294606]
    [quote author=JG link=topic=12659.msg148665#msg148665 date=1323289471]
    Listen to the Coptic version. There is no refrain.

    Why should it exist in English or Arabic?


    Well  on days we have a lot of people and only 2 priests, my church says the long alleluia in coptic then "esmo efnotee...) then we repeat in english and arabic. No one really knows the coptic response because you can't go from the kiahky tune into the long ending for psalm 150 so "doxa patri ke eyo ke agio emepnevmati alleluia ________". Some people say "Pimici evol khen efiot, khagou enieon teero". Others say "Pimici evol khen efiot afechicarex khen teeparthenos". The same in english. Some say "The only beggotten before all ages, came and was incarnate of the virgin. Others say "The only begotten of the Father was incarnate of the virgin. No one really knows the right one since none match the only known, universal Arabic response.


    In our church, after we say the long proper tune for Kiahk and the conclusion (ke neen ke a ee), we just say Je efesmaroout and then efemepsha ghar. There are plenty of other hymns that could be said. No need to say it in English with this ridiculous refrain.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Is the ridiculousness of the refrain in that it is modern or not grammatically correct? Or something else?. . .
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Thank you JG. There are plenty of legitimate, properly documented hymns that can be said. No need to justify a fabrication.

    What we are neglecting to mention here is that the Psalm 150 response for the Annunciation feast is "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took flesh from the Virgin". Are we going to recycle the response for a completely different occasion? Or do we make a hybrid response taken from 2 feasts, like "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came and took flesh from the Virgin in Bethlehem"? What's the point?

    The vast majority who advocate a Kiahk response simply don't want to learn the melismatic long tune.

    TITL, did I just loose a credibility point?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12659.msg148689#msg148689 date=1323295317]
    Is the ridiculousness of the refrain in that it is modern or not grammatically correct? Or something else?. . .


    All of the above. (I think ILSM' abbreviated response style is rubbing off on me.)
  • joegjoeg
    Whether it is grammatically correct or not is a moot point IMO. It's an unnecessary addition. It never existed in Coptic - and like so many hymns, people just translate from the Arabic with all of it's fabrications.

    EDIT:

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12659.msg148690#msg148690 date=1323295644]
    The vast majority who advocate a Kiahk response simply don't want to learn the melismatic long tune.

    THIS  ;D
  • copticuser20copticuser20

    No need to say it in English with this ridiculous refrain.

    What are you even saying? How is it ridiculous? Jesus Christ is the begotten of the Father and was incarnate of the Virgin. That is what it means. Now, the church fathers need to put something together and agree on one way to say it. Just because there is no agreement or even thought about how the refrain should be said, does not mean it is ridiculous. I actually love the Arabic/English Psalm 150 because of the Kiahk tune and it is easy for the congregation to sing.  I hate leading and singing hymns by myself. What is better than having a whole church singing the same thing? It is in no way ridiculous. Grammatically incorrect, maybe. But not ridiculous.

    And yes there is a need to say it in English and Arabic. My church is huge and we always have events going on/sick priests. Especially during the retreat times, when we have one of our Sunday Liturgy with only two priests, Communion can take easily 30-45 minutes.
  • TITLTITL
    It's not that people don't want to learn the long tune (well, that's part of it), but usually it's 1-4 deacons who sing it INDIVIDUALLY in their own style, and you can't sing along. But with the refrain, it's faster and everyone can sing along!  ;D

    I prefer that over listening to deacons have voice competitions.

    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12659.msg148691#msg148691 date=1323295716]
    [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12659.msg148689#msg148689 date=1323295317]
    Is the ridiculousness of the refrain in that it is modern or not grammatically correct? Or something else?. . .


    All of the above. (I think ILSM' abbreviated response style is rubbing off on me.)


    That's what happens when you get scored the same on the TITL scale. I forgot to mention that earlier.
Sign In or Register to comment.