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
Old Bohairic Coptic...is it authentic?
Hey guys
A quick intro for those who may not have heard about Old Bohairic before:
At the end of the 19th Century, the Coptic Church began discussions on uniting with Greek Orthodox Church in Egypt, the unification (obviously) never took place but during the discussion, many reforms and changes were put forth designed to make the transition more smooth. One of these was changing how we pronounce Coptic and making it sound a lot more like Greek. For some strange reason, even after the plan to unite was dropped, this Greek-Coptic managed to spread so far that it eclipsed authentic Coptic as the liturgical language, to this day. Meaning that the Coptic that we use in our masses and hymns is not authentic. REAL Coptic, the modern evolution of the language spoken by the Pharaohs has been lost.
Now I have no doubt that the Coptic we use today is not real Coptic, the text is the same but the pronunciation is definitely overtly Greek, not Egyptian. My question is about Old Bohairic, the pronunciation that Emile Maher (now Fr. Shenouda Maher) claims to be authentic. Actually I have two questions:
1. Can Fr. Shenouda's pronunciation be trusted as authentic?
2. If so, why has there been no official move (other than the Pope's support) to re-instate it as our liturgical language?
Thanks,
God bless and pray for me
A quick intro for those who may not have heard about Old Bohairic before:
At the end of the 19th Century, the Coptic Church began discussions on uniting with Greek Orthodox Church in Egypt, the unification (obviously) never took place but during the discussion, many reforms and changes were put forth designed to make the transition more smooth. One of these was changing how we pronounce Coptic and making it sound a lot more like Greek. For some strange reason, even after the plan to unite was dropped, this Greek-Coptic managed to spread so far that it eclipsed authentic Coptic as the liturgical language, to this day. Meaning that the Coptic that we use in our masses and hymns is not authentic. REAL Coptic, the modern evolution of the language spoken by the Pharaohs has been lost.
Now I have no doubt that the Coptic we use today is not real Coptic, the text is the same but the pronunciation is definitely overtly Greek, not Egyptian. My question is about Old Bohairic, the pronunciation that Emile Maher (now Fr. Shenouda Maher) claims to be authentic. Actually I have two questions:
1. Can Fr. Shenouda's pronunciation be trusted as authentic?
2. If so, why has there been no official move (other than the Pope's support) to re-instate it as our liturgical language?
Thanks,
God bless and pray for me
Comments
?????
Surely the similarities with Greek developed over the many centuries when Greek was the language spoken in the Church and by the educated?
Peter
]sep`hmot `ntotk emasw e;be pekjin`ini hi`thy `mpaimoust[/coptic]
Ebshoisnainan my dear (notice the pronunciation :)),
Thank you very much for raising this point
[coptic]oun ouon handokimy `nce]nom] nicaji `nte piouyb Senou]> `nhouo de ni`cqai `napac etaucqyout qen ]araboc nem ]metercaji `nte nicaji `n]metrem`n<ymi[/coptic]
There are some proofs supporting the words of Fr. Shenouda, especially old writings that were written in Arabic with the pronunciation of the Coptic words
[coptic]e;be pekmoust `mmah`cnau gar ]meu`i je oumws `nrwmi eumei pisoft `nkoinoc ehote pimyi etauerwbs[/coptic]
As for the second point I think that many people would rather the common wrong than the forgotten right
[coptic]Myna pamenrit>
]erho] je `k`ini `mpekmoust kata tagnwmy `mmah`cnau[/coptic]
Mina my dear,
I am afraid you present your opinion along (the lines of) my second theory
[coptic]PeterFarin;on pamenrit>
`mmon - pairy] an pe vai - qen oume;myi nifairwous `n]metrem`n<ymi auswpi `napa;yc ebolha genea sa genea ouoh ]er`,rac;e `n]metrem`n<ymi aukwrf icjen `ptap =i=z ie =i=y ebyl hanyi `nkouji qen `pikahi vyetswi `n<ymi[/coptic]
PeterFarrington my dear,
No - that is not the case - in fact the interested in the Coptic language became apathetic from generation to generation and the usage of Coptic language faded away since the 17th or 18th century except for few families in upper Egypt
[coptic]mallon de qen ouon `ncyou nior;odoxoc aukyn emosi eniek`klycia `nor;odoxyc e;be aumeu`i je aV] jwnt hijwou naumosi eniek`klycia `nte ]ka;oliky e;be vai ten`scaji je nihymnoc nem nisemsi auer`pwbsou ouoh menencwc etauouotebou `nje niparadococ ni,wouni auswpi e;myi qen oujwk ebol[/coptic]
Moreover at one (point of) time the Orthodox people stopped going to Orthodox churches because they thought God was displeased with them and they used to go to Catholic churches and so we can say that hymns and services were forgotten and later when they were handed down, namely the rites things were not completely correct
[coptic]ari`hmot comc enaimour (eswp tetensanws `n]araboc)@[/coptic]
Please have a look at these links (if you can read Arabic):
http://kame.danacbe.com/index.php?topic=2.0
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/586/dsc014420uf.jpg
[coptic]oujai qen `P=[=c[/coptic]
Thanks for the information. I don't have Arabic so can't read the links. But I can imagine it happening as you describe.
Is this time when the Catholics were influential the cause of the use of many Western style images of Christ and His Saints. Some (many) of them, are very sentimental from my Western point of view, and I find it odd that they appear in so many places. Even when I was at H.H. Pope Shenouda's Wednesday Bible Study there was a Powerpoint slide show of such images, and yet no Coptic Orthodox icons. I was surprised, and asked a Coptic Orthodox friend how he could appreciate such pictures (which seemed very poor to my taste), and yet our Church has an ancient iconographic tradition and produces some beautiful, beautiful icons?
???
Peter
`mmontai oumetemi `nnis] ejen vai alla ]]ma] nemak je pai aryou afswpi piry][/coptic]
I don't have a great knowledge on that but I agree with you that that perhaps was the case
[coptic]nika;olyky aujem oumwit e;be oufwrs `nte nouparadococ qen tenek`klycia[/coptic]
The catholic found a way to spread their rites in our church
[coptic]]erhelpyc je an[icbw ebolqen naiws[/coptic]
I hope that we learnt from these lessons
[coptic]oujai qen `P=[=c[/coptic]
that's interesting.. lucky us ;)
i wish every one knows that....but ppl don't.....they just don't care...
Well done Mina
[coptic]oujai qen `P=[=c[/coptic]
i wish every one knows that....but ppl don't.....they just don't care...
So true! Maybe that's part of the problem...maybe if people knew more about it, we might be able leave behind 'the common wrong' and take up the 'forgotten right' as ophadece put it. One of the reforms our church really needs is a revival of cultural pride, especially in the churches outside of Egypt. I mean, every Copt can speak Arabic, but hardly any can understand Coptic. Its a real shame, and the end result will be Coptic eventually dying out completely.
Btw, since the impression I'm getting is that Fr Shenouda's pronunciation is correct, does anybody know of any resources that outline the changes in detail?
In Christ,
George
This is a notice that today I have published Emile Maher Ishak's D.Phil Thesis ‘The phonetics and phonology of the Bohairic dialect of Coptic and the survival of Coptic words in the colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic grammatical constructions in colloquial Egyptian Arabic’ (Volumes 1 - 4; University of Oxford, 1975) on my blog.
I hope that it will lead to further debates and research on the Coptic language. Perhaps now with Dr Ishak's thesis made accessible, people will be able to make a more informed decision with regards the debate between Old Bohairic and Graeco-Bohairic pronunciation.
You can download the thesis from my blog Copticsounds at: http://copticsounds.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/online-emile-maher-ishaks-the-phonetics-and-phonology-of-the-bohairic-dialect-of-coptic/.
Regards,
Ambrose
I'm sure anyone who has seen me on the forums for a long time can say that I truly love the Coptic language. However, given this argument, in the lands of immigration, at what point does it make sense to push away from the Coptic, given the lack of knowledge and true understanding? And do things solely in English for example in the US or Britain? Especially since its a language that nobody fully understands (FEW do). Should we still keep teaching and it becomes an obstacle for those who can't teach with understanding or do we eventually embrace the language of the country we abide in? Food for thought...
I'm glad you asked this question. The truth is there are many reasons to revive languages. The process, as described in the linguistic world, is Reverse Language Shift (RLS). Languages are not only meant as a means of communication. Languages is part of social identity. Many countries discriminate social classes by languages. Just look at Mark 14:70, where Peter's speech exposed his status as a Galileean. It is also used to resist or accept social and political convergence, meaning people use language to advocate for becoming part of another culture or resisting such movements. There are many reasons. Take a look at the references below.
I would to point out that "obstacles for understanding and teaching [Coptic]" has more to do with social acceptance than language difficulty or language popularity. Ask yourself this. If Coptic were completely removed, would it promote social acceptance? Will it "embrace the country we abide in"? Does one become more American if he only knows American English and does not speak or read Coptic or Arabic or Italian or French or Swahili? I personally believe the answer is no. America is looking for cultural diversity, not cultural absorption and extinction. In other words, in the age of globalization, the world is looking for individual identity to guide globalization, not to destroy individualism.
If we get rid of Coptic, will we also get rid of Arabic in America? If it is socially acceptable to get rid of Coptic, is it socially acceptable to get rid of Arabic, especially to new immigrants? It now becomes a matter of the current social and political climate. And as we know, in 50 years the social and political climate will change. If we got rid of Coptic because nobody fully understands it, will the next generation in 50 years harrowingly strive to revive Coptic?
There are many reasons to strive to keep a language alive.
Here are a few sources:
Language maintenance and Shift in Sardinia
Joshua Fishman, Can threatened languages be saved?
Joshua Fishman, Nancy Iornberg, Martin Putz, Language Loyalty, Planning and Language Revitalization
Thanks for your response. I agree with everything you've mentioned. I think the reason I ask this question is while although i love coptic i find it harder to teach and get the kids engaged with the language. When i teach them things in English they get excited and can't wait to learn, but when i teach in coptic A. They don't put effort to study so it becomes harder to teach the hymns and B. Lack of enthusiasm to learn this language or use it for that matter. I suppose the question then is, given your argument to keep this alive, A. How do we revive it with true understanding of the language and B. How do we get people enthusiastic (specifically children) to learn it? I worry if we push without understanding that they get turned off to the hymns-church completely rather than appreciating its beauty. Thanks for those sources as well by the way
God Bless,
jydeacon
oujai
A great source of old (real) coptic is Father Shenouda Maher Ishak from Rochester, NY- from what I understand he got his PhD in coptic from Oxford England. His phone number is probably somewhere online, and I think someone posted a link.
Anyway, I guess it isn't that big of a deal that the language isn't what it originally was. It would be similar to the Jewish reviving Hebrew (they were successful).
The revival comes under persecution not only by non-copts but by some leaders of the coptic church in many situations.
A great source of old (real) coptic is Father Shenouda Maher Ishak from Rochester, NY- from what I understand he got his PhD in coptic from Oxford England. His phone number is probably somewhere online, and I think someone posted a link.
Anyway, I guess it isn't that big of a deal that the language isn't what it originally was. It would be similar to the Jewish reviving Hebrew (they were successful).
the revival of OB, in my opinion, is completed but it is simply people's acceptance is what is missing....but sadly, supporters of the OB are not good at preaching the dialect for acceptance simply because they strictly believe that it the only valid one. Fr Shenouda himself doesn't say that. he is "ok" with people chanting/reading/writing coptic as it is now.
1) The hymns need to be changed when using old Bohairic. Try chanting in Greco-Bohairic with someone chanting in old Bohairic. You can't. It's a big mess. If a revival of OB were to happen who becomes the authority on hymns? Do today's trained cantor have to re-learn everything? Does everyone then have to "re-learn" all of the hymns? That is completely impractical and unnecessary. I also find it inconsiderate for somebody who supports the use of OB in services to chant in OB in a service since it is disruptive to the unity of chanting.
2) It will be very divisive. Greco-Bohairic is already ingrained and in wide use worldwide. Trying to revive an old pronunciation dilutes an effort to revive the Coptic language.
3) Why Old Bohairic? Why not Sahidic? How about Akhmimik? Better yet, why not do away with the Greek script alltogether? Supporters of OB seem to be dismayed that it is Greek influence that changed OB to GB. Well, guess what, the Egyptian language has been subject to outside influence for millenia. As a matter of fact the Egyptian language (Coptic) started using Greek letters to make what we call "Coptic" today. Maybe we should undo the Greek script that we use and use Demotic if it's the Greek influence that we are upset about.
Any attempt to revive older pronunciations of Coptic should be limited to an academic sense only. There should be no attempt to introduce this pronunciation in church services as it destroys the unity of prayer in the church.
1) Of course, it makes no sense when a hymn is chanted by two chanters using two different pronunciations. Therefore, the GB should now be viewed as the standard way, but there should be a move towards OB if we truly regard as the most valid way of pronunciation. This move towards OB should be concerted however, not individually per chanter one at a time. Complete churches should step towards OB at the same time. This is not necessarily an argument against the use of OB, it's merely a practical matter.
2) I'm not so sure about this argument. To be sure, GB is used in services worldwide. But the knowledge of Coptic by the laity is still very small. Many people still need to be educated, and because education is lacking, it is relatively easy to go from GB to OB when compared to a situation when they have received strong Coptic education in GB.
3) This is a bad argument I believe. The service is in Bohairic, it is the official church language. Therefore the matter regards the different pronunciations, not the different dialects. In addition there is nothing wrong with the outside influence on the Egyptian language. There is no reason to undo the Greek script, as those were natural changes to the language, it is perfectly valid for a language to evolve, to become easier to use and so on and so forth. The use of GB is however far from natural, it is an artificial change to the pronunciation of the Coptic language. GB makes no sense whatsoever.
And because GB makes no sense whatsoever, it should not be used. What we care about, especially as Orthodox Christians, is the truth, whatever it is about. Regarding dogma, we don't compromise because many people are used to false dogma. The same should be the case for language. GB is NOT the true pronunciation of Bohairic Coptic. OB comes closer to it, and I think it's the closest to the Bohairic pronunciation, its system makes the most sense (although OB isn't a monolith either). Because OB is the closest to the truth, if not the whole truth, it should be used, if one cares about truth.
I don't see why it should be limited to academic sense only. Academics is about the truth as well. If some rigorous conclusions are drawn from academic study, they should be implemented in other fields of the world as well. There is no reason not to. To conclude, I don't think the introduction of OB will 'destroy the unity of prayer in the church', but the condition of course is that the implementation of OB is achieved in a collective manner, not in an individual manner.
oujai
More valid? How in the world would you define that? Based on whose definition? Why not do this with every other language? Let's do it with English, Arabic, French... Let's go all the way back to every possible pronunciation to figure out which is "more valid". How do we know OB is the "most valid"? What if someone comes along 150 years from now and through academically rigorous research discovers that there was a pronunciation that came before OB that was even more "valid"? Then what do we do another 180? Sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.
it is relatively easy to go from GB to OB when compared to a situation when they have received strong Coptic education in GB.
You cannot make a blanket statement like that. I have observed first hand attempts to teach OB to some who were very well versed in GB only to see it fail.
There is no reason to undo the Greek script, as those were natural changes to the language, it is perfectly valid for a language to evolve, to become easier to use and so on and so forth. The use of GB is however far from natural, it is an artificial change to the pronunciation of the Coptic language. GB makes no sense whatsoever.
Another invalid argument that keeps getting repeated over and over again. There is no such thing as "natural" language change. Language change is language change. Period. How is using Greek script natural? Please explain that to me. Did it happen through some natural organic process? Your argument is very faulty.
Any attempt to switch over to OB at this point would be spiritually destructive. Coptic congregations are used to chanting in GB. All of our hymns are in GB. The spiritual casualties of any attempt to do this are far to great. Like I said, suppose we successfully implement OB and a few years later someone discovers a more "valid" pronunciation. Then what?
I cannot quote text, so I will put your comments between inverted comments and express my views underneath:
You said: "More valid? How in the world would you define that? Based on whose definition? Why not do this with every other language? Let's do it with English, Arabic, French... Let's go all the way back to every possible pronunciation to figure out which is "more valid". How do we know OB is the "most valid"?"
Based on definitions coming out of the authentic and rigorous researches of people like Fr. Shenouda Maher, Fr. Abdelmessih Elmassoudi, Mr. Walter Crum, Mr. Antonio Loprieno, Mr. Emile Chassinat, etc; and from the manuscripts that were found defining how Copts used to transliterate Arabic language in Coptic letters (a fact ruining the Coptic language nowadays for Copts). There are also early recordings (as I believe) of how Coptic was pronounced in the early 20th century, which does prove the authenticity of OB vs GB.
No we cannot do that with English, French, or any other language because as Aegyptoc pointed out they underwent NATURAL change, i.e. gradual and subtle, rather than acute (will explain below in more detail).
So bottom line is OB is not "most valid", but it is valid in comparison to the invalid GB. There are other valid pronunciations too, as you yourself pointed out, which technically are identified as dialects.
You said: "What if someone comes along 150 years from now and through academically rigorous research discovers that there was a pronunciation that came before OB that was even more "valid"? Then what do we do another 180? Sounds absolutely ridiculous to me."
Yes we will then have to do another 180. There is no mechanism on earth to justify standing stubbornly against scientific evidence for the sake of something we like, used to, or common wrong!
You said: "I have observed first hand attempts to teach OB to some who were very well versed in GB only to see it fail."
You probably (correct me if I am wrong) saw such attempts in countries in the diaspora. I certainly am aware of a few examples of people who easily mastered OB after having learnt GB initially. Don't forget one of the big hindrances for people's acceptance of OB in the diaspora, is how GB appeals to the foreign-speaking tongues. OB, and indeed Coptic in general doesn't really belong to that group of European languages. It's Semi-Hamitic in origin, pretty much close to Hebrew and Arabic.
You said: "There is no such thing as "natural" language change. Language change is language change. Period. How is using Greek script natural? Please explain that to me. Did it happen through some natural organic process? Your argument is very faulty. "
Yes there is. As I alluded to above, all languages on earth (I cannot think of one) undergo subtle gradual changes along the years. The English language did so where articles like "thine", "though" etc, were replaced by "yours", "your" and so on. The unnatural thing happening to Coptic as you rightly say is the implementation of Greek letters in writing Coptic language. However, there were historically some differences from the implementation of the flawed GB. First, at that time the move was out of a consensus. That is not a person who decided such, and took it upon themselves, or delegating them to another person to make sure it is done. It was a consensus from church authorities to only use such a text in churchly matters (to emphasis the disapproval of the pagan system of writing). However, because there weren't many people in that time who could be called literate enough, and besides the Christians being stamped out in great numbers through the ages of persecution, no other system flourished but what the church fathers already posed at the time. Having said all of that, I am aware that there are some manuscripts dating to the tenth century or a little before written in Demotic text.
In comparison to that, the application of GB on already present text was artificial in the sense that: first, there were already speakers of proper Bohairic as a day to day language, before that was imposed on them (I am not even sure if it was - haven't heard of a big opposition movement in those days, probably because it only spread on a small scale, and got bigger and bigger inside the church with people who never knew Coptic in the first place. Secondly, I ask you to read Mr. Erian Moftah's book where he explains the implementation of such a new system. He makes a mockery of the present Copts at that time to prove his point! Talk about scientific methodology?!
You said: "Any attempt to switch over to OB at this point would be spiritually destructive. Coptic congregations are used to chanting in GB. All of our hymns are in GB. The spiritual casualties of any attempt to do this are far to great. Like I said, suppose we successfully implement OB and a few years later someone discovers a more "valid" pronunciation. Then what?"
In my opinion, I don't find a more spiritually destructive ideology than to stick to the common wrong in the Orthodox church. Whoever is used to chanting in any dialect could easily change it to sing in another. Even Ibrahim Ayad gets some instructions to keep changing his recordings and the way he pronounces letters to make it even more similar to the Greek language - what sort of Coptic language is that? Primarily, for the purpose of our church, we deacons and congregations should be humble and accept the right truthful way humbly even if that would require ages and ages to learn and change. It could be viewed as part of our strife defending our churches from petty heresies. Petty heresies? I think I am going too far now.
Oujai qen `P[C
1. Most of the people in the list of "linguists" you gave Ophadecee have died almost a hundred years ago. Modern linguistics has completely changed since then and it's unwise to use any definitions coming out of these "linguists". I would not even call them linguists. Most of the researchers you mentioned (with the exception of Loprieno) were not linguists. They were Coptologists examining Coptic manuscripts, not linguists who deal with any of the many branches of linguistics (sociolinguistics, morphosyntax, bilingualism, phonology, linguistic anthropology, linguistic education, comparative linguistics, linguistic history, language shift, etc). Even Crum developed his dictionary solely on manuscript evidence, not linguistics. Fr Shenouda does not explore anything more than phonology from manuscript evidence in his thesis on OB. As such, we cannot allow a definition of natural language that comes from Coptologists who do not explore definitions from any field outside of Coptology. We must look for definitions among the body of linguistic works. Modern Coptologists and linguists do not even bother with the phonology of Bohairic because what we are arguing over now is nothing more than political and social preferences, not lingualism or Coptology.
2. I have to disagree with Minatasgeel that the revival of OB is complete. Language Reversal linguists like Joshua Fishman (whom I mentioned in previous threads) gives 8 steps for language shift reversal. Not one has been done by OB. In fact, we don't have a good definition of OB. In countless threads I have tried to show that there are multiple variants of OB. The idea that there is only one OB is a fallacy. If anyone is interested in exploring this more, I'll try to find some of those old threads.
3. The idea that only natural languages shifting is acceptable is also erroneous. In the field of sociolinguistics, artificial languages are completely acceptable. Esperanto is the most popular artificial language created in 1887 by a single individual now with 100,000-2,000,000 fluent speakers. It is gaining global acceptance and native speakers are being found (ie, Esperanto is their first language). The fact that a language was created artificially does not necessitate any inferiority. Insisting that OB be used instead of GB would make OB just as "artificial" as GB and Esperanto.
Conversely, languages that many considered "natural" such as English and Arabic are highly volatile. Let's look at English.
In this book English in Language Shift: The History, structure and sociolinguistics of South African Indian English, sociolinguistics define English as a language family (much like the Semitic language family). In this family, there are sub-groups like colonial standard English, American English, English pidgins, English creoles, New English and some include Newer English. In total, there are hundreds of "dialects" or languages within the English family. Some linguists categorize English as institutionalize English and performance English. New English languages, like South African Indian English, is institutionalized English because it has 4 characteristics. (1) Developed through an education system, (2) Developed in an area where native English was not used by a majority, (3) Used for a range functions (trade, journalism, government communication), and (4) it has become nativised by developing a subset of rules which mark it as different from American English or British English.
In this contexts, Greco-Bohairic includes all of these institutionalized language characteristics, while Old Bohairic is a pseudo-performance language. I say pseudo-performance because the problem with OB is that OB has not been performed for at least 100 years in adequate numbers. As such, OB is more accurately defined as an archaic sub dialect or pronunciation scheme, like Latin or Attic Greek because it is not nativised, nor performed, nor developed through any education system.
Notice, I am not stating any inferiority in either pronunciation scheme (sub dialect if one prefers). I am simply applying some sociolinguistic definitions and concepts to Coptic.
I think it is best to learn and naturalize both dialects, instead of polarizing ourselves to pick sides.
I will only pick on what I think is the most dangerous and misguided element of the discussion here. Aegyptoc said Later, Ophadece echoed the same sentiment.
Guys...Going down this road does nothing but trivialize your Orthodoxy itself, turning our faith identity to a mere buzzword, invoked whenever one wants to militate for a position he deems more accurate, authentic, or traditional. We are Orthodox because we live a life guided by the teachings and faith of the Orthodox church, embodied first of all in the Orthodox spiritual tradition, and verbalized in the teachings of the Fathers, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the sacramental/liturgical life, and the traditional orthodox interpretation of Scripture (in no particular order). One can speak of Orthodox liturgy, Orthodox sacraments, Orthodox Biblical interpretation, and Orthodox spirituality. Once you start using the word Orthodox so cheaply for matters of cultural and historical concern only, then you might want to reconsider what Orthodoxy means to you. Language is important of course, and so is art and any other cultural aspect of the Church, but someone fighting for this or that pronunciation of Coptic is not more Orthodox...he is simply someone with knowledge of a certain field of secondary relevance to Orthodoxy at its core.
This is a very serious issue, and I am using an appropriately serious tone, though I understand that most of you do not know me and are likely not going to receive my comments well. At the very least, I don't want people here who may be inquirers of the Coptic church, or perhaps young and impressionable, or for tragic reasons are coming here for answers and knowledge to think Copts generally think pronunciation of a liturgical language is a matter of Orthodoxy. How petty and shameful.
I will try to be nice and humble.
First. I do not like this accusation. How you portrayed my argumentation is ridiciulous. I do not consider language to be a matter of Orthodoxy. Nowhere have I said this!
I will explain again what I mean (you should have asked for an explanation instead of just interpreting my comments in a false manner).
We are Orthodox. We are not nihilists. We are not post modernists. That is to say: We know there is a truth out there to be found, and we know what the truth is. When we look at OB and GB, we do not simply say that it does not matter which is the right one. It does matter which is the right one. If someone claims that Coptic should be pronounced with an Indian accent, we do not say that his rules for pronouncing Coptic are equally valid as OB and GB. It is not a matter of Orthodoxy, the stakes are NATURALLY a lot lower. Also, in addition to saying that it does matter which is the right one, we (ESPECIALLY as Orthodox Christians) know that we can find out what the right one is. And the matter is not settled by looking at how many people use GB, and how many people use OB, and therefore concluding that GB is the right one and should be used. No, we should decide this matter in another way. But let's leave the discussion of OB vs GB what it is for the moment.
Now, we can say, pronunciation is not important at all, then it logically follows that there is no reason to change it. If, however, pronunciation is important (which I think is the case, not of dogmatic/Orthodox important but to a lower extent; if you believe pronunciation is not important than I would respect that), then it logically follows that an effort should be made to go to the right pronunciation. If GB is already the right pronunciation, there is no reason to change. If OB is the right pronunciation, there is a reason to change.
Then, above we see some arguments from Mgabby1234. His claim is the following. "Yes it's true, OB might be better in terms of pronunciation (I don't know whether he believes this or not, it does not matter). Even in that case, we should not make a move towards OB for these 3 reasons: 1,2,3...". I show that his reasons are merely practical problems, which are not necessarily large problems, and not necessarily problems at all.
My argument is not that people who pray in GB are heretics and should be banned from the church and will burn in eternal fire. My argument is that the move towards OB is a good move, as it is the right pronunciation. Like Remenkimi however says - which I agree to - non-linguists should not claim to know a lot about languages and all the debates within the linguist science. My knowledge on this subject is limited. My opinion is, however, that at the very least OB makes more sense than GB.
I show that there are two discussions:
A discussion of OB vs GB.
A discussion of should the 'better'/'right'/'valid' pronunciation be used.
I think Ramez was trying to respond to Ophadecee's last comments which took your comments and extended it to a claim of language and Orthodoxy. Regardless of who said what, it is important we important we clarify our comments.
I would like to make a few comments on your post.
1. You gave a convincing argument that if GB is correct, then don't change. If OB is correct, then change. No one should have a problem with that line of thought. I have a problem. Why do you assume one has to be correct? Why do you assume one must be right and the other wrong? Why can't we just say "What people claim as OB today is only an attempt to standardize a snap shot of Coptic pronunciation used in a particular time period. There are other time periods with different, non-standard OB pronunciation. We can conclude that OB has evolved from these numerous, different, non-standard OB pronunciation into what is advocated today. This latest version of OB is no more or less valid than previous OB schemes and there is no particular reason why this OB is chosen over the others. In the same manner, GB is only a standardized snap shot of Coptic pronunciation based on attempts to mainstream Coptic pronunciation into a specific framework. It has also evolved over time. It is also the exclusive pronunciation scheme endorsed by the Coptic Church. Knowing that language is highly social in nature, both OB's and GB's importance and influence will fluctuate over time based on the social and political environment where the language is used"? In this framework, neither GB and OB are more right than the other. Let me know if I misunderstood your claim that "it does matter which [pronunciation scheme] is the right one".
2. I take a stand against anyone who says one version makes "more sense" or is "more authentic" or is "better". Such subjective terms and ideology only divide and have no rational purpose. This is because such subjective ideology is coming from an individual ego rather than a communal understanding of our Coptic purpose. In this sense, is it not more "Orthodox" to learn more languages and more pronunciation schemes for the benefit of the Coptic Church rather than trying to make the Coptic Church fit my personal preferences. The goal is to unite and grow, rather than to divide and have one version conquer. Of course, it is not entirely practical to learn multiple languages but as you said practical problems are not necessarily problems at all.
3. While a move toward OB might be "right" (Again a very subjective concept), it is premature in this social environment. I would say it would be more destructive. We live in a time where the majority of the parishioners refuse to even attend services with Coptic. The small minority that enjoys Coptic (and can actually pray in Coptic) will be confused if we start moving away from GB to OB. We will simply be adding another obstacle for their spirituality, if OB is introduced prematurely. One can say that this also is not real problem with OB. But change that occurs prematurely is destructive. Something, theoretically like OB, can be absolute right but because it is premature, it becomes wrong.
4. Finally, I think we are all ignoring the most important issue here. Whether you choose OB or GB, pronunciation is always, always secondary to understanding. I personally would like to see everyone harness all the energy spent arguing over pronunciation and use it to actually learn Coptic. Believe me, there is no greater feeling than praying in Coptic in the tradition handed down to you without the need of a translation. When this happens, there will no longer be an OB vs. GB debate. It will be a Bohairic Coptic vs. Sahidic Coptic debate. (Guess who usually wins)
Slyl `e`hryi `ejwi
It is historically proven that it was imposed on the Church by one person's rationale and this person was Aryan Moftah.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting how Bohairic was pronounced. Aryan did not have any supporting reason to his artificial change other than Copts should pronounce the Greek letters as Greek.
Aryan's argument is ridiculous, despite his good intentions. This is the same as if to say Italian or French should be pronounced like English.
I certainly have no interest in comparing linguists to scientists, or Coptologists to whatever, but all I can say is that there is evidence of authenticity of an "accent" or a "dialect", why should you change it (apart from trying to hopelessly attempt to unite two churches together)? I don't suppose that I, living in Newcastle, invent a Geordie accent, and do away with "nay bother", "dee my head in", etc (or change their pronunciations) just as well because there are other invented languages. Indeed, I wouldn't even make fun of their pronucniation system in order to prove my new style! However, I am not even sure that there invented "accents", or "dialects"!!!
Dear RamezM,
To me, and this is a personal opinion Orthodoxy is about absolutism, not relativism. No one said (and I hope I didn't imply) that it is at the same level of dogmas, faith, or tradition, but it certainly belongs to the same system. I guess that is what Aegyptoc was able to expand on.
Dear Aegyptoc,
Like Remenkimi said I guess RamezM directed his comments to me.
Oujai qen `P[C