Yes Google translate is wrong. THE word spells without an alef.. sorry I'm writing from the mobile so can't type in Arabic.. you also made the mistake in giving two different pronunciations for the same word, ie standard Arabic and Egyptian one.. Oujai
Thanks Fady, I can't be fully blamed for Google's mistake. I gave two different pronunciations for the same word simply to show that there are 2 different phonological inventories. It wasn't a mistake. It was the basis of my argument and it is still valid. I guess the Google thing really distracted the point. My apologies.
I didn't real all the 5 pages of responses, but what is it so hard to get that this response (epi prosevkhi statheete) is not Coptic, it is Greek so it should be pronounced as such. There is no 'e' in front of prosevkhi...and the greek word for prayer is 'evkhi' not evki and not evshi. If we insist on saying things wrong we might as well eliminate the greek and just do it all in Coptic although this would be a shame since it is part of our tradition. I'm not trying to make a fight, just saying.
DEar Timothym, In this case I encourage you to read the 5 pages and similar topics to understand the relationship between Coptic and Greek.. Greek words which are incorporated into Coptic are Copticised and treated as though not Greek, and hence not pronounced Greek.. if you read, you'll get the point, because Greek has no "sh" sound, but Coptic uses it, which in turn cannot pronounce the light "kh" sound.. Oujai
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150568#msg150568 date=1326775617] I didn't real all the 5 pages of responses, but what is it so hard to get that this response (epi prosevkhi statheete) is not Coptic, it is Greek so it should be pronounced as such. There is no 'e' in front of prosevkhi...and the greek word for prayer is 'evkhi' not evki and not evshi. If we insist on saying things wrong we might as well eliminate the greek and just do it all in Coptic although this would be a shame since it is part of our tradition. I'm not trying to make a fight, just saying.
No loan words ever pronounced natively within a foreign language as french words loaned within the English language. So why Greek words within the Coptic language?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12781.msg150585#msg150585 date=1326803786] [quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150568#msg150568 date=1326775617] I didn't real all the 5 pages of responses, but what is it so hard to get that this response (epi prosevkhi statheete) is not Coptic, it is Greek so it should be pronounced as such. There is no 'e' in front of prosevkhi...and the greek word for prayer is 'evkhi' not evki and not evshi. If we insist on saying things wrong we might as well eliminate the greek and just do it all in Coptic although this would be a shame since it is part of our tradition. I'm not trying to make a fight, just saying.
No loan words ever pronounced natively within a foreign language as french words loaned within the English language. So why Greek words within the Coptic language?
I think imikhail meant loan words are never pronounced in their donor language pronunciation but take on the recipient language's pronunciation, like French loan words in English. In other words all loan words take on the pronunciation of the recipient language.
This is what I was trying to say in the previous 5 pages. Each language has a set of words sounds, called phonemes. Gather all of those phonemes together and you have a phonological inventory. Each language has its own phonological inventory. It's important to realize that phonemes (letter sounds) do not match orthographs (spelling). That is why many words sound alike but are spelled differently and vice versa. For example, "record" as a verb is pronounced one way and "record" as a noun is pronounced another way.
I was arguing that each subdialect accent or language variety has its own phonological inventory that doesn't transfer to other similar dialects. So American English has its own phonological inventory and British English has its own phonological inventory, as does Jamaican English, Indian English, and English pidgins.
Conclusion and response to your original question: 1. Epi prosevkhi statheete is not and should not be pronounced exactly as it is in Greek. If you want to hear exactly how it is pronounced in Modern Greek, go to translate.google.com and paste επι προσευχη σταθειτε. Then press the audio icon. It is different than Coptic. 2. There are at least 4 ways to pronounce it in Coptic: (a) OB- /abee bros eu ki es da te da/, (b) GB1- /a bee bros ev ki es tathe tee/, (c) GB2- /a pi pros ev she stathe tee/, (d) GB3- /abi epros ev she esta see tee/. Most people would consider GB3 as non-standard or inappropriate Coptic but I hear a lot of deacons say it this way due to Arabic influence. Most GB proponents consider GB2 as the current standard GB pronunciation while GB1 was the old standard GB pronunciation.
Remenki, point well taken. The Syriac liturgy affirms your point as there is a point at the beginning of the anaphora (I believe) which the deacon says "stomen kalos stomen meta fovou, proskhomen" and the deacons pronounce it very differently than it is originally in Greek. As an example, they sometimes pronounce proskhomen (let us attend) as "afroskhomen" as the 'p' that is written in pronounced as an 'f' when spoken. They also pronounce Kyrie eleison as koriye layson.
My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150593#msg150593 date=1326816983] My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
From a linguistic point of view and my personal opinion is that there is no such thing as authentic or proper pronunciation or spelling. A standard pronunciation and spelling occurs by social and political pressure, not linguistic superiority. Governments and educationists want a standard pronunciation and spelling. But there is no evidence to validate that Koriye layson should be considered wrong for Syriac Greek other than someone somewhere believes all Greek should have a standard pronunciation, regardless of geography. There is also no consensus on whether or not a language should "rectify" non-standard grammar or pronunciation. Politicians will say yes (to a certain point and then claim Syriac Greek is more authentic than Greek Greek). Linguists will say no. Politicians will prescribe linguistic change. Linguists will only describe linguistic observations. Linguists will argue that linguistic change will not create a standard, but rather a whole new dialect giving the opposite effect, as we have seen with some Reverse Language Shift (RLS) movements.
So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages. This is not to say Coptic should not be revived. But we should not expect a revived Coptic will be exactly spoken as 1st century Egyptians, especially if people want to abandon Greek loan words. We should expect that any RLS movement in Coptic will create a hybrid or new dialect.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150598#msg150598 date=1326821536] [quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150593#msg150593 date=1326816983] My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
From a linguistic point of view and my personal opinion is that there is no such thing as authentic or proper pronunciation or spelling. A standard pronunciation and spelling occurs by social and political pressure, not linguistic superiority. Governments and educationists want a standard pronunciation and spelling. But there is no evidence to validate that Koriye layson should be considered wrong for Syriac Greek other than someone somewhere believes all Greek should have a standard pronunciation, regardless of geography. There is also no consensus on whether or not a language should "rectify" non-standard grammar or pronunciation. Politicians will say yes (to a certain point and then claim Syriac Greek is more authentic than Greek Greek). Linguists will say no. Politicians will prescribe linguistic change. Linguists will only describe linguistic observations. Linguists will argue that linguistic change will not create a standard, but rather a whole new dialect giving the opposite effect, as we have seen with some Reverse Language Shift (RLS) movements.
So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages. This is not to say Coptic should not be revived. But we should not expect a revived Coptic will be exactly spoken as 1st century Egyptians, especially if people want to abandon Greek loan words. We should expect that any RLS movement in Coptic will create a hybrid or new dialect.
I do not agree with the above statements.
In the case of Coptic, ignorance contributed and still contribute to the mutilation of the language. Let me illustrate with an extreme example:
Instead of saying the name Shenouda, a famous cantor would start saying it like Shneeta and everyone follows because they think that this cantor is correct since he is the best out there. After a while the authentic name Shenouda becomes shneeta and may be later it evolves to 'sheeta". Is this real development of the name shenouda.
This is exactly what happened with Aryan's invention of new sounds to Coptic and his applying of the Greek rules to the Coptic letters. Students from the Klereekeya started adopting his way and started teaching it. Simple people who lacked Coptic knowledge thought that since the klereekeya graduates are "all-knowing", then they must be pronouncing the correct Coptic.
However, the result was disastrous to the language got mutilated with different versions popping up every ten years or so a as Reminkimi indicated with the GB1, GB2, and GB3.
The best way is to return to the roots of the language and its proper pronunciation.
Dear Remenkimi, YOu said: "So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages." Thank you very much.. this is what Mr. Erian exactly did erroneously... Oujai
Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204] Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Prove that OB was reconstructed erroneously.
Aryan himself already proved, through his own acknowledgement, how erroneous his rationale was when he invented the so called GB.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204] Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, my humble opinion is that OB is much closer (if not the closest) to Coptic as it was spoken before 1850 with Arian Mofta etc. etc.
Don't you agree with OB when it comes to, e.g.:
p b instead of p
au eu etc aw & ew instead of av & ev, as au = a + ou
Surely it is possible to reject GB at certain instances and to accept OB, even if you state that there were many multiple ways of saying the exact same word in Coptic-speaking Egypt?
Dear Remenkimi, Old Bohairic is not reconstructed as much as Greco-bohairic.. if you're referring to the attempts of teaching and learning the language, then that's not reconstruction... if you're referring to the different ways of pronouncing a word, then as you alluded before that's dialectical differences.. nothing of those references indicate a reconstruction in my opinion.. Oujai
[quote author=Aegyptian link=topic=12781.msg150616#msg150616 date=1326833364] Either way, my humble opinion is that OB is much closer (if not the closest) to Coptic as it was spoken before 1850 with Arian Mofta etc. etc. At least you acknowledge this is an opinion and not a fact. I commend you for that. There is no perfect evidence of how Coptic was spoken before 1850. There are bits of evidence that were reconstructed into a phonological framework we now call OB. But it's all circumstantial to conclude that what we call OB now is definitively the pronunciation of Coptic before the 1850's. There is no living person to validate that claim and that is the standard of fieldwork anthropology. Before you all go running to give me the same references again, keep in mind that I have already shown from within those OB references the inconsistencies to today's OB framework. This suggest that there was more than one way Coptic was pronounced before the 1850's. If you want more details, do a search on this site and you'll see what I'm talking about or pm me and I'll give you details.
Surely it is possible to reject GB at certain instances and to accept OB, even if you state that there were many multiple ways of saying the exact same word in Coptic-speaking Egypt?
No it's not. To reject GB fully or in part is to acknowledge OB superiority, which is a linguistic conundrum. If you reject parts of GB that seem irregular, then you must reject parts of Modern Standard Arabic. Any such action is prescriptive and not descriptive. What should be considered proper Coptic is a circular debate that is entirely dependent on popular theories and social and political influence which is an opinion that will change from one generation to the next. What is or isn't Coptic at a certain time period primarily deals with linguistic facts.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204] Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I personally would love to see the day OB is revived as it seems more authentic than the current usage but at the same time,Pope Shenouda and the bishops aren't thinking about Coptic right now (at least I don't think this is the most pressing issue at hand in Egypt ;) and more constricted the church is, the less it develops (for better or for worse). You can see for example as the Greek Otthodox Church was freer longer until the 15th century, their art, hymns etc also were able to be explored into and flourished...a similar observation can be said of the Roman Catholic Church but in different ways. So, most of the Coptic talent these days seems to be coming from the "lands of immigration" rather than the homeland due to the pressures being faced there currently. I think the only real way to effect a change would be to start recording hymns and liturgies in OB. Any church wanna start?
DEar Remenkimi, I guess your lack of Arabic reading capabilities leads you to talk about inconsistencies.. there are living people nowadays who would willingly show you how old Bohairic is authentic, and I don't like the word superior, as there's no such field of comparison in the first place.. I also can't blame you for your resistance to acknowledge such facts due to your long belief in Greco-bohairic, your endless amount of studies, and your lectures from the linguistic evolution point of view.. if you start learning Arabic all you have to do is read Damanhour kholagy and you'll find the answer to your question.. Dear timothym, Where are the resources and the ample number of people to be pushing for such a move? PLUs the only people who seem to understand are on internet forums and are a minority.. plus there are high figures in the church, at least bishops, who resist and preclude such moves Oujai
If you read Joshua Fishman's Reversing Language Shift, you will see that there are literally thousands of factors to consider in reversing language shift. He has an 8-step model. Researching many, many failed attempts at reversed language shift movements in dozens of endangered languages, he observed many people focused on the wrong steps in the 8 step model (or all 8 at once). It's not simply a matter of recording everything in OB (which has already been done). There psychological, societal, anthropological, political factors to address in addition to linguistics.
Ophadece, The Damanhour kholagy gives you a snap shot of OB at one point of time in one locality. There are other documents that exhibit inconsistencies in the same time period and locality. And then there are other time periods and localities to evaluate in order to conclude that OB was "authentic". This can't be done since there are very few if any manuscript evidence before the 17th century.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150696#msg150696 date=1326868848] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204] Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I really hate how we refer to what we sing in church now to be "Greco-bohairic".......i really do. I believe it is just Bohairic: coptic into greek sounds with a huge difference in accent. only recently actions were taken to go as far as turning that accent into Greek sounds. I don't like it. Now that is what I call change that is hard to accept because you are even telling us that whatever we learned for the last couple of decades (which OB people are against) IS ALSO WRONG and needs to be fixed........nas fudyah......
If you read Joshua Fishman's Reversing Language Shift, you will see that there are literally thousands of factors to consider in reversing language shift. He has an 8-step model. Researching many, many failed attempts at reversed language shift movements in dozens of endangered languages, he observed many people focused on the wrong steps in the 8 step model (or all 8 at once).
In your opinion, how does Fisherman's research applies to OB?
There are other documents that exhibit inconsistencies in the same time period and locality.
Please define for us what you mean by inconsistency and show us examples in OB.
And then there are other time periods and localities to evaluate in order to conclude that OB was "authentic". This can't be done since there are very few if any manuscript evidence before the 17th century.
This is not true.
You are basing your opinion on what you know of. Have you read all the researches on OB? This is a rhetorical question.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150709#msg150709 date=1326905599] [quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150696#msg150696 date=1326868848] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204] Ophadece and imikhail, What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I really hate how we refer to what we sing in church now to be "Greco-bohairic".......i really do. I believe it is just Bohairic: coptic into greek sounds with a huge difference in accent. only recently actions were taken to go as far as turning that accent into Greek sounds. I don't like it. Now that is what I call change that is hard to accept because you are even telling us that whatever we learned for the last couple of decades (which OB people are against) IS ALSO WRONG and needs to be fixed........nas fudyah......
The best way to revive Coptic is to learn Coptic roots.
Egyptian Arabic is a start to go back to OB. There are over 7000 words used in Egyptian language that are Coptic. If one just listens and thinks, the conclusion is the current Coptic used in the Church is an invented one.
Of course this is just a start, but there are hundreds of researches done on this topic.
Let me be clear, I was once a fierce defender of the Church current Coptic and hated OB and attached their proponents; jut like many on this forum. But once I researched and learned I was convinced that Aryan's way is an invention along with what Reminkimi titles as GB!, GB@, GB3, ...
My advice to anyone wanting to preserve our heritage is to learn and think.
I make myself available on this forum for anyone wanting to learn authentic Coptic.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12781.msg150618#msg150618 date=1326833504] if you're referring to the different ways of pronouncing a word, then as you alluded before that's dialectical differences.. nothing of those references indicate a reconstruction in my opinion.. Oujai
Ophadece, I wasn't talking about dialectal differences between different dialects. I was talking about pronunciation differences within OB. There have been many threads here about what OB is. One main inconsistency I find is the interchange between the letters "a" and "e" and "t" and "ti". According to what many here call OB, and I will call it theoretical OB for the moment, "e" is always pronounced "a". But in Rochester, NY, Fr Shenouda and his congregation do not pronunce OB this way. I'll call Rochester's OB practical OB.
Let's look at this example. Kcmarwout `e`P[oic Vnou] `nte nenio]@ `kerhouo `cmarwout `kerhouo [ici sa ni`eneh.
Theoretical OB pronunciation Kazmar wod a Bachois eb nouda anda nan yoda kar ho wo ezmar wod kar ho wo chi si sha ni anah.
Practical OB pronunciation Kes mar oo od eb chois eb noudi ende nen yodi ker ho wo esmar oo od ker ho wo chi si sha ni eneh.
I sang this verse in theoretical OB pronunciation once and people from Rochester told me that it sounds Sahidic, not Bohairic.
This is what field work anthropology does. There are other manuscript evidence to corroborate the differences between theoretical OB and practical OB. And I've already discussed some of these manuscript/anthropological field work differences before on this site. Since there is a difference with theoretical OB and practical OB, one can conclude that theoretical OB (or what many OB proponents like to call "the only authentic pronunciation of Coptic") is simply one reconstruction of Coptic pronunciation.
imikhail, Are you not listening to what Mina said? You're saying that all the thousands of people who learned Coptic in the last 150 years since Ariyan Moftah, including all the bishops, priests, deacons, Coptic scholars, Coptic laity; all of them - were singing wrong Coptic, did not learn correct Coptic, did not think for themselves, and need to be corrected. This is what Mina alluded to. It really is fudyah to suggest this.
imikhail, Are you not listening to what Mina said? You're saying that all the thousands of people who learned Coptic in the last 150 years since Ariyan Moftah, including all the bishops, priests, deacons, Coptic scholars, Coptic laity; all of them - were singing wrong Coptic, did not learn correct Coptic, did not think for themselves, and need to be corrected. This is what Mina alluded to. It really is fudyah to suggest this.
I do not know what you mean by "fudyah "
In any case, clergy were not born clergy. They were laymen first then became clergy.
As I have explained the klereekeya at the time of Pope Cyril IV adopt Aryan's invented Coptic sounds. Then the graduates spread this invented way, then the rest is history.
Let's be practical. Would a layman who has no knowledge of Coptic question an eklereekeya graduate whether the Coptic that was being taught is correct? Does this really happen?
Answer honestly and you will know what I am talking about.
imikhail, Are you not listening to what Mina said? You're saying that all the thousands of people who learned Coptic in the last 150 years since Ariyan Moftah, including all the bishops, priests, deacons, Coptic scholars, Coptic laity; all of them - were singing wrong Coptic, did not learn correct Coptic, did not think for themselves, and need to be corrected. This is what Mina alluded to. It really is fudyah to suggest this.
I think Remenkimi lost my point.....you to imikhail. I am attacking what is being changed NOW in church--stressing the pronunciation of the letters in greek. what i am saying that, even whatever Arian taught, it was taught with a accent in pronouncing the letters....that is called bohairic. now recently, ppl change that accent to be 'greco-bohairic'...in the meantime you guys are that both are wrong......
I do not know what you mean by "fudyah "
literally means 'empty' but i am using to mean 'bored'....bored ppl
There have been many threads here about what OB is. One main inconsistency I find is the interchange between the letters "a" and "e" and "t" and "ti". According to what many here call OB, and I will call it theoretical OB for the moment, "e" is always pronounced "a". But in Rochester, NY, Fr Shenouda and his congregation do not pronunce OB this way. I'll call Rochester's OB practical OB.
Is Coptic that cheap to learn from forums? Are forums your references of study?
I think you are scholarly and should be more careful in supporting your arguments from what is merely said on forums.
The messages on this forum that describe OB rules predominately were written by you, especially in the "Shenouti or Shenouda" thread. In post #78, you tell me "No inconsistencies within OB. If there are list them." And when I do, you question the source of the forums, discrediting your own messages and this entire website. Then you tell me to "Answer honestly" in post #86. What hypocrisy.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150771#msg150771 date=1326937941] This is ridiculous.
The messages on this forum that describe OB rules predominately were written by you, especially in the "Shenouti or Shenouda" thread. In post #78, you tell me "No inconsistencies within OB. If there are list them." And when I do, you question the source of the forums, discrediting your own messages and this entire website. Then you tell me to "Answer honestly" in post #86. What hypocrisy.
Thank you for your comments.
So, did you learn OB from my comments on this forum? If yes, then I am afraid you have not learned enough to the extent you can carry an intelligent discussion.
Putting this aside, what inconsistencies have you observed in what I wrote?
Comments
Oujai
I can't be fully blamed for Google's mistake. I gave two different pronunciations for the same word simply to show that there are 2 different phonological inventories. It wasn't a mistake. It was the basis of my argument and it is still valid. I guess the Google thing really distracted the point. My apologies.
This shows how convoluted things can get when two extremes collide.
In this case I encourage you to read the 5 pages and similar topics to understand the relationship between Coptic and Greek.. Greek words which are incorporated into Coptic are Copticised and treated as though not Greek, and hence not pronounced Greek.. if you read, you'll get the point, because Greek has no "sh" sound, but Coptic uses it, which in turn cannot pronounce the light "kh" sound..
Oujai
I didn't real all the 5 pages of responses, but what is it so hard to get that this response (epi prosevkhi statheete) is not Coptic, it is Greek so it should be pronounced as such. There is no 'e' in front of prosevkhi...and the greek word for prayer is 'evkhi' not evki and not evshi. If we insist on saying things wrong we might as well eliminate the greek and just do it all in Coptic although this would be a shame since it is part of our tradition. I'm not trying to make a fight, just saying.
No loan words ever pronounced natively within a foreign language as french words loaned within the English language. So why Greek words within the Coptic language?
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150568#msg150568 date=1326775617]
I didn't real all the 5 pages of responses, but what is it so hard to get that this response (epi prosevkhi statheete) is not Coptic, it is Greek so it should be pronounced as such. There is no 'e' in front of prosevkhi...and the greek word for prayer is 'evkhi' not evki and not evshi. If we insist on saying things wrong we might as well eliminate the greek and just do it all in Coptic although this would be a shame since it is part of our tradition. I'm not trying to make a fight, just saying.
No loan words ever pronounced natively within a foreign language as french words loaned within the English language. So why Greek words within the Coptic language?
that was exactly my point.
I think imikhail meant loan words are never pronounced in their donor language pronunciation but take on the recipient language's pronunciation, like French loan words in English. In other words all loan words take on the pronunciation of the recipient language.
This is what I was trying to say in the previous 5 pages. Each language has a set of words sounds, called phonemes. Gather all of those phonemes together and you have a phonological inventory. Each language has its own phonological inventory. It's important to realize that phonemes (letter sounds) do not match orthographs (spelling). That is why many words sound alike but are spelled differently and vice versa. For example, "record" as a verb is pronounced one way and "record" as a noun is pronounced another way.
I was arguing that each subdialect accent or language variety has its own phonological inventory that doesn't transfer to other similar dialects. So American English has its own phonological inventory and British English has its own phonological inventory, as does Jamaican English, Indian English, and English pidgins.
Conclusion and response to your original question:
1. Epi prosevkhi statheete is not and should not be pronounced exactly as it is in Greek. If you want to hear exactly how it is pronounced in Modern Greek, go to translate.google.com and paste επι προσευχη σταθειτε. Then press the audio icon. It is different than Coptic.
2. There are at least 4 ways to pronounce it in Coptic: (a) OB- /abee bros eu ki es da te da/, (b) GB1- /a bee bros ev ki es tathe tee/, (c) GB2- /a pi pros ev she stathe tee/, (d) GB3- /abi epros ev she esta see tee/. Most people would consider GB3 as non-standard or inappropriate Coptic but I hear a lot of deacons say it this way due to Arabic influence. Most GB proponents consider GB2 as the current standard GB pronunciation while GB1 was the old standard GB pronunciation.
My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
From a linguistic point of view and my personal opinion is that there is no such thing as authentic or proper pronunciation or spelling. A standard pronunciation and spelling occurs by social and political pressure, not linguistic superiority. Governments and educationists want a standard pronunciation and spelling. But there is no evidence to validate that Koriye layson should be considered wrong for Syriac Greek other than someone somewhere believes all Greek should have a standard pronunciation, regardless of geography. There is also no consensus on whether or not a language should "rectify" non-standard grammar or pronunciation. Politicians will say yes (to a certain point and then claim Syriac Greek is more authentic than Greek Greek). Linguists will say no. Politicians will prescribe linguistic change. Linguists will only describe linguistic observations. Linguists will argue that linguistic change will not create a standard, but rather a whole new dialect giving the opposite effect, as we have seen with some Reverse Language Shift (RLS) movements.
So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages. This is not to say Coptic should not be revived. But we should not expect a revived Coptic will be exactly spoken as 1st century Egyptians, especially if people want to abandon Greek loan words. We should expect that any RLS movement in Coptic will create a hybrid or new dialect.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150593#msg150593 date=1326816983]
My only question is that now that there is more contact and information flowing between cultures and learning, is it worth trying to 'rectify' the original pronunciation or would your position be, that to 'rectify' this would actually hinder or confuse the way the language is pronounced generally. Just wondering how you are thinking about this. Cheers
From a linguistic point of view and my personal opinion is that there is no such thing as authentic or proper pronunciation or spelling. A standard pronunciation and spelling occurs by social and political pressure, not linguistic superiority. Governments and educationists want a standard pronunciation and spelling. But there is no evidence to validate that Koriye layson should be considered wrong for Syriac Greek other than someone somewhere believes all Greek should have a standard pronunciation, regardless of geography. There is also no consensus on whether or not a language should "rectify" non-standard grammar or pronunciation. Politicians will say yes (to a certain point and then claim Syriac Greek is more authentic than Greek Greek). Linguists will say no. Politicians will prescribe linguistic change. Linguists will only describe linguistic observations. Linguists will argue that linguistic change will not create a standard, but rather a whole new dialect giving the opposite effect, as we have seen with some Reverse Language Shift (RLS) movements.
So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages. This is not to say Coptic should not be revived. But we should not expect a revived Coptic will be exactly spoken as 1st century Egyptians, especially if people want to abandon Greek loan words. We should expect that any RLS movement in Coptic will create a hybrid or new dialect.
I do not agree with the above statements.
In the case of Coptic, ignorance contributed and still contribute to the mutilation of the language. Let me illustrate with an extreme example:
Instead of saying the name Shenouda, a famous cantor would start saying it like Shneeta and everyone follows because they think that this cantor is correct since he is the best out there. After a while the authentic name Shenouda becomes shneeta and may be later it evolves to 'sheeta". Is this real development of the name shenouda.
This is exactly what happened with Aryan's invention of new sounds to Coptic and his applying of the Greek rules to the Coptic letters. Students from the Klereekeya started adopting his way and started teaching it. Simple people who lacked Coptic knowledge thought that since the klereekeya graduates are "all-knowing", then they must be pronouncing the correct Coptic.
However, the result was disastrous to the language got mutilated with different versions popping up every ten years or so a as Reminkimi indicated with the GB1, GB2, and GB3.
The best way is to return to the roots of the language and its proper pronunciation.
YOu said: "So if you try to rectify Coptic to match Greek, you'll only end up with multiple new dialects because phonological inventory does not cross over to other dialects or languages."
Thank you very much.. this is what Mr. Erian exactly did erroneously...
Oujai
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Ophadece and imikhail,
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Prove that OB was reconstructed erroneously.
Aryan himself already proved, through his own acknowledgement, how erroneous his rationale was when he invented the so called GB.
No it does not.
Ophadece and imikhail,
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, my humble opinion is that OB is much closer (if not the closest) to Coptic as it was spoken before 1850 with Arian Mofta etc. etc.
Don't you agree with OB when it comes to, e.g.:
p b instead of p
au eu etc aw & ew instead of av & ev, as
au = a + ou
Surely it is possible to reject GB at certain instances and to accept OB, even if you state that there were many multiple ways of saying the exact same word in Coptic-speaking Egypt?
Old Bohairic is not reconstructed as much as Greco-bohairic.. if you're referring to the attempts of teaching and learning the language, then that's not reconstruction... if you're referring to the different ways of pronouncing a word, then as you alluded before that's dialectical differences.. nothing of those references indicate a reconstruction in my opinion..
Oujai
Either way, my humble opinion is that OB is much closer (if not the closest) to Coptic as it was spoken before 1850 with Arian Mofta etc. etc.
At least you acknowledge this is an opinion and not a fact. I commend you for that. There is no perfect evidence of how Coptic was spoken before 1850. There are bits of evidence that were reconstructed into a phonological framework we now call OB. But it's all circumstantial to conclude that what we call OB now is definitively the pronunciation of Coptic before the 1850's. There is no living person to validate that claim and that is the standard of fieldwork anthropology. Before you all go running to give me the same references again, keep in mind that I have already shown from within those OB references the inconsistencies to today's OB framework. This suggest that there was more than one way Coptic was pronounced before the 1850's. If you want more details, do a search on this site and you'll see what I'm talking about or pm me and I'll give you details. No it's not. To reject GB fully or in part is to acknowledge OB superiority, which is a linguistic conundrum. If you reject parts of GB that seem irregular, then you must reject parts of Modern Standard Arabic. Any such action is prescriptive and not descriptive. What should be considered proper Coptic is a circular debate that is entirely dependent on popular theories and social and political influence which is an opinion that will change from one generation to the next. What is or isn't Coptic at a certain time period primarily deals with linguistic facts.
OB is the authentic pronunciation of the Bohairic dialect because it is backed with research and evidence.
Ophadece and imikhail,
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I personally would love to see the day OB is revived as it seems more authentic than the current usage but at the same time,Pope Shenouda and the bishops aren't thinking about Coptic right now (at least I don't think this is the most pressing issue at hand in Egypt ;) and more constricted the church is, the less it develops (for better or for worse). You can see for example as the Greek Otthodox Church was freer longer until the 15th century, their art, hymns etc also were able to be explored into and flourished...a similar observation can be said of the Roman Catholic Church but in different ways. So, most of the Coptic talent these days seems to be coming from the "lands of immigration" rather than the homeland due to the pressures being faced there currently. I think the only real way to effect a change would be to start recording hymns and liturgies in OB. Any church wanna start?
I guess your lack of Arabic reading capabilities leads you to talk about inconsistencies.. there are living people nowadays who would willingly show you how old Bohairic is authentic, and I don't like the word superior, as there's no such field of comparison in the first place.. I also can't blame you for your resistance to acknowledge such facts due to your long belief in Greco-bohairic, your endless amount of studies, and your lectures from the linguistic evolution point of view.. if you start learning Arabic all you have to do is read Damanhour kholagy and you'll find the answer to your question..
Dear timothym,
Where are the resources and the ample number of people to be pushing for such a move? PLUs the only people who seem to understand are on internet forums and are a minority.. plus there are high figures in the church, at least bishops, who resist and preclude such moves
Oujai
If you read Joshua Fishman's Reversing Language Shift, you will see that there are literally thousands of factors to consider in reversing language shift. He has an 8-step model. Researching many, many failed attempts at reversed language shift movements in dozens of endangered languages, he observed many people focused on the wrong steps in the 8 step model (or all 8 at once). It's not simply a matter of recording everything in OB (which has already been done). There psychological, societal, anthropological, political factors to address in addition to linguistics.
Ophadece,
The Damanhour kholagy gives you a snap shot of OB at one point of time in one locality. There are other documents that exhibit inconsistencies in the same time period and locality. And then there are other time periods and localities to evaluate in order to conclude that OB was "authentic". This can't be done since there are very few if any manuscript evidence before the 17th century.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204]
Ophadece and imikhail,
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I really hate how we refer to what we sing in church now to be "Greco-bohairic".......i really do. I believe it is just Bohairic: coptic into greek sounds with a huge difference in accent. only recently actions were taken to go as far as turning that accent into Greek sounds. I don't like it. Now that is what I call change that is hard to accept because you are even telling us that whatever we learned for the last couple of decades (which OB people are against) IS ALSO WRONG and needs to be fixed........nas fudyah......
Please define for us what you mean by inconsistency and show us examples in OB. This is not true.
You are basing your opinion on what you know of. Have you read all the researches on OB? This is a rhetorical question.
You are basing your opinion on false assumptions.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12781.msg150696#msg150696 date=1326868848]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150613#msg150613 date=1326832204]
Ophadece and imikhail,
What you fail to acknowledge is that OB is just as much a reconstructed dialect as GB. If GB was created erroneously, so was OB.
Either way, I only responded because Timothym asked a question and subsequently asked my opinion on Reverse Language Shift. I am not going to rehash everything over again.
By the way I forgot to mention that Epi prosevki has multiple pronunciations in OB too. I'll leave it at that.
Remenkimi, thanks for the response. That makes sense...fascinating discussion!
But guys, what is the chance (or opportunity is better to use) that OB (as we know it today) will ever be revived when 99.9% of our recordings in Coptic are all in GB and for the past century and a half plus our parishes have been teaching weekly alhan classes in GB?
I really hate how we refer to what we sing in church now to be "Greco-bohairic".......i really do. I believe it is just Bohairic: coptic into greek sounds with a huge difference in accent. only recently actions were taken to go as far as turning that accent into Greek sounds. I don't like it. Now that is what I call change that is hard to accept because you are even telling us that whatever we learned for the last couple of decades (which OB people are against) IS ALSO WRONG and needs to be fixed........nas fudyah......
The best way to revive Coptic is to learn Coptic roots.
Egyptian Arabic is a start to go back to OB. There are over 7000 words used in Egyptian language that are Coptic. If one just listens and thinks, the conclusion is the current Coptic used in the Church is an invented one.
Of course this is just a start, but there are hundreds of researches done on this topic.
Let me be clear, I was once a fierce defender of the Church current Coptic and hated OB and attached their proponents; jut like many on this forum. But once I researched and learned I was convinced that Aryan's way is an invention along with what Reminkimi titles as GB!, GB@, GB3, ...
My advice to anyone wanting to preserve our heritage is to learn and think.
I make myself available on this forum for anyone wanting to learn authentic Coptic.
if you're referring to the different ways of pronouncing a word, then as you alluded before that's dialectical differences.. nothing of those references indicate a reconstruction in my opinion..
Oujai
Ophadece,
I wasn't talking about dialectal differences between different dialects. I was talking about pronunciation differences within OB. There have been many threads here about what OB is. One main inconsistency I find is the interchange between the letters "a" and "e" and "t" and "ti". According to what many here call OB, and I will call it theoretical OB for the moment, "e" is always pronounced "a". But in Rochester, NY, Fr Shenouda and his congregation do not pronunce OB this way. I'll call Rochester's OB practical OB.
Let's look at this example.
Kcmarwout `e`P[oic Vnou] `nte nenio]@ `kerhouo `cmarwout `kerhouo [ici sa ni`eneh.
Theoretical OB pronunciation
Kazmar wod a Bachois eb nouda anda nan yoda kar ho wo ezmar wod kar ho wo chi si sha ni anah.
Practical OB pronunciation
Kes mar oo od eb chois eb noudi ende nen yodi ker ho wo esmar oo od ker ho wo chi si sha ni eneh.
I sang this verse in theoretical OB pronunciation once and people from Rochester told me that it sounds Sahidic, not Bohairic.
This is what field work anthropology does. There are other manuscript evidence to corroborate the differences between theoretical OB and practical OB. And I've already discussed some of these manuscript/anthropological field work differences before on this site. Since there is a difference with theoretical OB and practical OB, one can conclude that theoretical OB (or what many OB proponents like to call "the only authentic pronunciation of Coptic") is simply one reconstruction of Coptic pronunciation.
imikhail,
Are you not listening to what Mina said? You're saying that all the thousands of people who learned Coptic in the last 150 years since Ariyan Moftah, including all the bishops, priests, deacons, Coptic scholars, Coptic laity; all of them - were singing wrong Coptic, did not learn correct Coptic, did not think for themselves, and need to be corrected. This is what Mina alluded to. It really is fudyah to suggest this.
In any case, clergy were not born clergy. They were laymen first then became clergy.
As I have explained the klereekeya at the time of Pope Cyril IV adopt Aryan's invented Coptic sounds. Then the graduates spread this invented way, then the rest is history.
Let's be practical. Would a layman who has no knowledge of Coptic question an eklereekeya graduate whether the Coptic that was being taught is correct? Does this really happen?
Answer honestly and you will know what I am talking about.
I think you are scholarly and should be more careful in supporting your arguments from what is merely said on forums.
The messages on this forum that describe OB rules predominately were written by you, especially in the "Shenouti or Shenouda" thread. In post #78, you tell me "No inconsistencies within OB. If there are list them." And when I do, you question the source of the forums, discrediting your own messages and this entire website. Then you tell me to "Answer honestly" in post #86. What hypocrisy.
This is ridiculous.
The messages on this forum that describe OB rules predominately were written by you, especially in the "Shenouti or Shenouda" thread. In post #78, you tell me "No inconsistencies within OB. If there are list them." And when I do, you question the source of the forums, discrediting your own messages and this entire website. Then you tell me to "Answer honestly" in post #86. What hypocrisy.
Thank you for your comments.
So, did you learn OB from my comments on this forum? If yes, then I am afraid you have not learned enough to the extent you can carry an intelligent discussion.
Putting this aside, what inconsistencies have you observed in what I wrote?