[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133889#msg133889 date=1300939378] No I am not throwing the hymns in the Garbage. You used Mo3aallem Mikhail as an evidence that the hymns were only recorded in GB. Then you claimed that Abouna Shenouda invented the OB Alhan.
So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue.
i am not claiming that abouna invented OB alhan or saying that you are fabricating anything. in simple easy words:
you are using our hymns as a heritage to back up your argument of OB. I say the hymns must have recorded sources to be valid. I KNOW how valid m.Mikhael's hymns are through recordings i can hear. even what we hear today from modern cantors...i can never say that they strayed from his way but rather enhanced it. NOW you are telling me that there is an older source, older than m.Mikhael's hymns that recorded that Church hymns in OB (even though m mikhael himself didn't record "everything"). i say, GREAT!!! let me hear it......lead me to the source that i may be a believer. that will also be very fascinating; the oldest recording i have ever heard (as i may rmember) was of m.Takla, one of the teachers who taught M.Mikhael...and i think it was evlogimenos.
First, the Alhan is not just as recorded by sound. If you follow the way the psalis are written you would notice that every section is authored after the Coptic alphabet. If you use the GB sounds, you will lose that order.
Second, M Mikhail and his disciples learned the Alhan in the so called GB. This is a different way of saying the Alhan.
Then if you agree that Abouna Shenouda did not invent the OB, please visit www.rochcopts.org and you could listen to the Alhan and Tasbe7a in the OB pronunciation.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=10771.msg133892#msg133892 date=1300940656] First, tha Alhan is not just as recorded. If you follow the way the psalis are written you would notice that every section is authored after the Coptic alphabet. If you use the GB sounds, you will lose that order. the word alhan is too broad. psalies, doxologies, theotokias...any thing that have that much words i don't consider a hymn. they're just text chanted in a tune.
Second, M Mikhail and his disciples learned the Alhan in the so called GB. This is a different way of saying the Alhan.
exactly. so for you to have a strong arguemnt using the hymns you need to get me the source in OB.
Then if you agree that Abouna Shenouda did not invent the OB, please visit www.rochcopts.org and you could listen to the Alhan and Tasbe7a in the OB pronunciation.
i have seen these. but they are not the source that we are talking about.
I am not sure what source you are asking for. What source are we talking about. It seems we are talking about different sources.
Before Aryan's changes, were the hymns chanted the way M Mikhail recorded them? Of course not. Why? Because the way he says the hymns follow the deformed pronunciation of Coptic. So, they are not the authentic way of saying the hymns.
You agree that Abouna Shenouda did not invent the hymns, then he must have got it from someone else. Then that person inherited from those before him without the influence of Aryan's changes.
The discussion is not going anywhere because you are fixated on the idea that Alhan center or revolve around M Mikhail. I am not belittling M. Mikhail but I am saying that there is another source of hymns and that source happens to be in OB.
You are skeptic of that, so no matter how I keep throwing facts at you, you still want all hymns to go back to M. Mikhail. So, to address your skepticism, I offered that you contact Abouna Shenouda. I am very serious.
I do not know where you live, but he is in Rochester, NY with 6 hours behind Cairo time. Believe me he answers his phone right away just call him either in the morning or late evening Rochester time.
Since you're all interested in O Kirios, I will be presenting a talk about O Kirios and Coptic bilingualism. at St Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Los Angeles in July. Come and attend.
Jeremy I'll get back to you on the specific topics I proposed yesterday. George
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10771.msg133931#msg133931 date=1300981367] Since you're all interested in O Kirios, I will be presenting a talk about O Kirios and Coptic bilingualism. at St Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Los Angeles in July. Come and attend.
1) Where in the world does the claim that there are recordings of hymns in OB that are older than the Mlm. Mikhail recordings come from? That sounds extremely unlikely since recording equipment was very difficult to come by in Egypt and I imagine if there were recordings that they would have seen the light of day and others would have heard them. I do not believe that Fr. Shenouda has ever claimed that he learned the OB hymns from an old recording that pre-dates Mlm. Mikhail.
2) Minatasgeel, where did you here a recording for Mlm. Takla? Is that available anywhere? Has anyone else heard it?
[quote author=Coptic123 link=topic=10771.msg150942#msg150942 date=1327284352] 1) Where in the world does the claim that there are recordings of hymns in OB that are older than the Mlm. Mikhail recordings come from? That sounds extremely unlikely since recording equipment was very difficult to come by in Egypt and I imagine if there were recordings that they would have seen the light of day and others would have heard them. I do not believe that Fr. Shenouda has ever claimed that he learned the OB hymns from an old recording that pre-dates Mlm. Mikhail. I second imikhail....abouna never made that claim but he himself took the hymns (not sure who he followed as a source) and recorded them (on his own) in OB.
2) Minatasgeel, where did you here a recording for Mlm. Takla? Is that available anywhere? Has anyone else heard it?
"So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue."
Imikhail, you stated it towards the top of the page. The quote above is from your post. Am I reading it wrong?
[quote author=Coptic123 link=topic=10771.msg150949#msg150949 date=1327286972] "So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue."
Imikhail, you stated it towards the top of the page. The quote above is from your post. Am I reading it wrong?
I said the source is older not the recordings.
Yes, the source from which Abouna Shenouda received was older than Mlm Mikhail in terms of receiving the Alhan. This source recorded the Alhan in OB and Abouna Shenouda has these recordings.
Greco-Bohairic pronunciation started on erroneous assumptions: 01. Greek language preserved its phonetic values 02. Coptic language lost its phonetic values 03. Coptic language should adopt the phonetic values of modern Greek to regain its status
These are the basic premesis of what Mr Moftah based his arguments for GB in the 1860's. These assumptions are not backed up by evidence, and hence the outcome was a mutilation to an indeginous pronunciation scheme.
Fast forward 150 years, this became the de facto pronunciation of the church. with phonemes getting approximated from dh->z, th->s, p->b, v->f, uncertainty about glottal stops (djinkims), in Egypt. Other approximations, are performed differently in depending on the background of the singer. In addition, to numerous spelling mistakes based on this scheme.
I do not have anything against GB or its inventor, I believe that at heart Mr Moftah was zealous about the language and he genuinely believed that his attempt to reform will help the language.
However, if I was given the informed choice of learning a pronunciation (OB) that has been documented by evidence to be the descendant of how people spoke their language, and how it developed indigenously throughout the ages on one hand, and a planned pronunciation (GB) (with all due respect to its inventor & proponents). I would rather learn Old Bohairic pronunciation, in respect to this lineage. I also cannot equate a planned pronunciation scheme that is 150 years old (GB), with other dialects as Fayumic, Sahidic, Bashmuric, Akhmimmic, or other natural - as compared to planned - dialects.
I value GB as a planned attempt that reflects the rise of nationalism in the 19th century and how some people thought that this would be the best way forward. I have no ineterest in criticisin the whole GB scheme, or in devaluing it or saying that OB is better/more authentic/original etc.
I guess what I hope is that every learner of Coptic language would be aware of how the language developed, how the pronunciation developed, and be empowered by factual knowledge, with no binary value judgements of right/wrong, but rather as a factual historical statement. Then, each learner would be able to make an informed decision about which pronunciation scheme the learner would adopt.
The other thing I hope for is the end of the fight about it. Coptic is a dead language at the end of the day, arguments and fights would not be conducive of any productivity, however, collaboration may help preserve this rich cultural heritage in which pronunciation represents an aspect of it. Also, agreement on pronunciation is not of paramount importance, people can certainly understand each other despite these differences, collaborate, and help the language rather than demonise each other.
Finally, let's consider talking in Coptic rather than talking about it
Comments
No I am not throwing the hymns in the Garbage. You used Mo3aallem Mikhail as an evidence that the hymns were only recorded in GB. Then you claimed that Abouna Shenouda invented the OB Alhan.
So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue.
i am not claiming that abouna invented OB alhan or saying that you are fabricating anything. in simple easy words:
you are using our hymns as a heritage to back up your argument of OB. I say the hymns must have recorded sources to be valid. I KNOW how valid m.Mikhael's hymns are through recordings i can hear. even what we hear today from modern cantors...i can never say that they strayed from his way but rather enhanced it.
NOW you are telling me that there is an older source, older than m.Mikhael's hymns that recorded that Church hymns in OB (even though m mikhael himself didn't record "everything"). i say, GREAT!!! let me hear it......lead me to the source that i may be a believer. that will also be very fascinating; the oldest recording i have ever heard (as i may rmember) was of m.Takla, one of the teachers who taught M.Mikhael...and i think it was evlogimenos.
Second, M Mikhail and his disciples learned the Alhan in the so called GB. This is a different way of saying the Alhan.
Then if you agree that Abouna Shenouda did not invent the OB, please visit www.rochcopts.org and you could listen to the Alhan and Tasbe7a in the OB pronunciation.
Thanks.
First, tha Alhan is not just as recorded. If you follow the way the psalis are written you would notice that every section is authored after the Coptic alphabet. If you use the GB sounds, you will lose that order.
the word alhan is too broad. psalies, doxologies, theotokias...any thing that have that much words i don't consider a hymn. they're just text chanted in a tune. exactly. so for you to have a strong arguemnt using the hymns you need to get me the source in OB. i have seen these. but they are not the source that we are talking about.
Before Aryan's changes, were the hymns chanted the way M Mikhail recorded them? Of course not. Why? Because the way he says the hymns follow the deformed pronunciation of Coptic. So, they are not the authentic way of saying the hymns.
You agree that Abouna Shenouda did not invent the hymns, then he must have got it from someone else. Then that person inherited from those before him without the influence of Aryan's changes.
Thanks.
You are skeptic of that, so no matter how I keep throwing facts at you, you still want all hymns to go back to M. Mikhail. So, to address your skepticism, I offered that you contact Abouna Shenouda. I am very serious.
I do not know where you live, but he is in Rochester, NY with 6 hours behind Cairo time. Believe me he answers his phone right away just call him either in the morning or late evening Rochester time.
Thanks.
Jeremy I'll get back to you on the specific topics I proposed yesterday.
George
Since you're all interested in O Kirios, I will be presenting a talk about O Kirios and Coptic bilingualism. at St Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society in Los Angeles in July. Come and attend.
i would love for it to be recorded.
1) Where in the world does the claim that there are recordings of hymns in OB that are older than the Mlm. Mikhail recordings come from? That sounds extremely unlikely since recording equipment was very difficult to come by in Egypt and I imagine if there were recordings that they would have seen the light of day and others would have heard them. I do not believe that Fr. Shenouda has ever claimed that he learned the OB hymns from an old recording that pre-dates Mlm. Mikhail.
2) Minatasgeel, where did you here a recording for Mlm. Takla? Is that available anywhere? Has anyone else heard it?
1) Where in the world does the claim that there are recordings of hymns in OB that are older than the Mlm. Mikhail recordings come from? That sounds extremely unlikely since recording equipment was very difficult to come by in Egypt and I imagine if there were recordings that they would have seen the light of day and others would have heard them. I do not believe that Fr. Shenouda has ever claimed that he learned the OB hymns from an old recording that pre-dates Mlm. Mikhail.
I second imikhail....abouna never made that claim but he himself took the hymns (not sure who he followed as a source) and recorded them (on his own) in OB. i don't remember.
Imikhail, you stated it towards the top of the page. The quote above is from your post. Am I reading it wrong?
"So I am disputing your facts by saying that there was a source older than Mo3allem Mikhail and recorded the hymns in OB from which Abouna Shenouda received. If you are saying I am fabricating this, then that is another issue."
Imikhail, you stated it towards the top of the page. The quote above is from your post. Am I reading it wrong?
I said the source is older not the recordings.
Yes, the source from which Abouna Shenouda received was older than Mlm Mikhail in terms of receiving the Alhan. This source recorded the Alhan in OB and Abouna Shenouda has these recordings.
01. Greek language preserved its phonetic values
02. Coptic language lost its phonetic values
03. Coptic language should adopt the phonetic values of modern Greek to regain its status
These are the basic premesis of what Mr Moftah based his arguments for GB in the 1860's. These assumptions are not backed up by evidence, and hence the outcome was a mutilation to an indeginous pronunciation scheme.
Fast forward 150 years, this became the de facto pronunciation of the church. with phonemes getting approximated from dh->z, th->s, p->b, v->f, uncertainty about glottal stops (djinkims), in Egypt. Other approximations, are performed differently in depending on the background of the singer. In addition, to numerous spelling mistakes based on this scheme.
I do not have anything against GB or its inventor, I believe that at heart Mr Moftah was zealous about the language and he genuinely believed that his attempt to reform will help the language.
However, if I was given the informed choice of learning a pronunciation (OB) that has been documented by evidence to be the descendant of how people spoke their language, and how it developed indigenously throughout the ages on one hand, and a planned pronunciation (GB) (with all due respect to its inventor & proponents). I would rather learn Old Bohairic pronunciation, in respect to this lineage. I also cannot equate a planned pronunciation scheme that is 150 years old (GB), with other dialects as Fayumic, Sahidic, Bashmuric, Akhmimmic, or other natural - as compared to planned - dialects.
I value GB as a planned attempt that reflects the rise of nationalism in the 19th century and how some people thought that this would be the best way forward. I have no ineterest in criticisin the whole GB scheme, or in devaluing it or saying that OB is better/more authentic/original etc.
I guess what I hope is that every learner of Coptic language would be aware of how the language developed, how the pronunciation developed, and be empowered by factual knowledge, with no binary value judgements of right/wrong, but rather as a factual historical statement. Then, each learner would be able to make an informed decision about which pronunciation scheme the learner would adopt.
The other thing I hope for is the end of the fight about it. Coptic is a dead language at the end of the day, arguments and fights would not be conducive of any productivity, however, collaboration may help preserve this rich cultural heritage in which pronunciation represents an aspect of it. Also, agreement on pronunciation is not of paramount importance, people can certainly understand each other despite these differences, collaborate, and help the language rather than demonise each other.
Finally, let's consider talking in Coptic rather than talking about it