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
new year
happy new coptic year!
she en rompi
(feel free to correct my transliteration)
;)
may God guide us all and may we honour Him in all we do this year.
she en rompi
(feel free to correct my transliteration)
;)
may God guide us all and may we honour Him in all we do this year.
Comments
Nofri rombi emwari.
Oujai qen `P[C
I did some research on noufri sai and noufri rompi `mberi. According to Dr Kama Isaac, former dean of Dept of Coptic language at the Institute of Coptic Studies, he doesn't accept noufri sai. He claims, and I completely agree, that the phrase noufri sai in this form is neither an annexion, an apposition or an adjectival phrase. An annexion (his terminology) is a combination of two nouns words where one noun gives more definition to the second noun. In essence, annexion=genitive. In Coptic, the most common way to annex or connect 2 nouns is with the copula `nte. For exanple, Piouro `nte pikocmoc "The King of the world" or ]baki `nte piouro "The city of the King". Notice both words have the definite article An apposition is a way to modify a noun by apposing it with another noun. For example, nekebiaik niprovytyc "Your servants, the prophets". Again notice that the second noun has the definite article, while the first noun can be in any noun form. An adjectival phrase requires the first noun to have a definite or indefinite article, a preposition and no article on the second word. For example, ourwmi `nramao "a rich man" or pinis] `nouro "The great king".
Dr Kamal refers to Mallon's grammar which states some adjectives can be placed before nouns (still using the same construct). These adjectives include nis]i, noji, kouji, qaei and mys. So Coptic allows for pinis] `nouro and piouro `nnis] but never nis] ouro. noufri is not included in that list of adjectives that can go before the noun. So you can't say ]noufri `nrompi `mberi. It must be ]rompi `mberi `nnoufri or ourompi `mberi `nnoufri.
noufri sai and noufri rompi `mberi has no article in either noun/substantive. So we can't use it as an adjectival phrase like "new year" or "happy new year". If anything, Dr Kamal states noufri sai would mean "good of feast" not "good feast"/"happy feast". I don't exactly know how he came to that conclusion but it at least confirms that noufri rompi `mberi can't mean "Happy New Year". It would mean "happiness/beneficence of new year". (Although it doesn't really matter what the translation is since the phrase is incorrect in Coptic).
In addition Dr Kamal correctly points out that noufri sai does not follow the patterns and exceptions in Crum's dictionary p. 240. Crum's dictionary is the authoritative source for Coptic. I have more assurance on Crum's entries of the word than any other dictionary. I know Claudius Labib's dictionary had noufri sai and noufri ehoou and noufri ejwrh. It is known that Claudius Labib was trying to revive Coptic by creating new words. His noufri sai is a Coptic translation of نهاركم and نهار طيب. Arabic allows for adjectival phrases without articles. But Labib incorrectly applied Arabic linguistics on Coptic. (Does that make Claudius Labib as evil as Erian Moftah? That was rhetorical sarcasm. Don't answer.)
I know Moawad's dictionary also lists noufri sai and noufri ehoou and noufri ejwrh. Ironically, Moawad first mentioned ouno[ `nnofre (which is the Sahidic phrase meaning "a great benefit") before these "atypical" or "non-authentic" phrases using noufri. Notice the correct Coptic use of adjectives in ouno[ `nnofre.
I know this is very detailed and I apologize if I confused anyone. The summary of all of this: noufri sai is not a real Coptic phrase. ousai `nnoufri literally means "beneficial feast" which can be loosely translated as "have a beneficial feast" or "have a happy feast". The same is true with "happy new year". The correct way to say it is ourompi `mberi `nnoufri. (for those who want it in English transliteration, it is "ourompi em beri en nofri" for GB and "worompi ? emwari en nowfra" for OB)
I hope this helps.
The word Nofri Rompi (nofri rombi) is an ancient expression, from the hieroglyphic nfr rnpt (neferrenepet if you try to read it as the standard reading of heiroglyphic by adding 'e' between consonants). Such an expression was not mentioned clearly at Crum p.239 & 240. However, the chief scribe of the treasury of the temple of Amun-Re, who had the name Kenero had his other name as neferrenpet which is the hieroglyphic equivalent of 'Nofri rombi' meaning 'good year'. The link below has details about this man and his tomb
http://www.osirisne t.net/tombes/ nobles/neferrenp et178/e_nfrrnpt_ 01.htm
Also the term nfr (nofri) was used prior to describing things like good men or good wine etc.
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Egyptian_ hieroglyphs
This page has the section of determinatives with nfr preceeding words (nfr) looks like a cross in with a wide rounded base
Compare also to nfr-titi, nfr tari, etc.
(Source: Discussion on Remenkimi group on yahoo)
Nofri shai, nofri rombi are valid and are taught by Fr. Shenouda Maher.
Dear Remenkimi,
My Coptic tutor (Dr. Emad Sidhom), a member on remenkimi yahoogroup, is against Dr. Kamal in this particular point. I think Dr. Kamal is well-read and well-researched, no doubt about that, but he sometimes points things out from his personal viewpoint. This being a major example of such. Nofri in that format is treated as nane as in nane rouhi - nane toou`i - nane ejwrh... etc. It wasn't made up in modernised Coptic, but as imikhail pointed out is an expression used for thousands of years. Also Crum lists noufi ehoou. Noufi being a variant of nofri.
PS: your statement: "His noufri sai is a Coptic translation of نهاركم and نهار طيب" is wrong as it means in Arabic letters "عيد سعيد".
PPS: I don't know why, but I feel the need to comment on Mr. Claudius Labib. No one can question his efforts in reviving the Coptic language, and as you rightly pointed out that in the process he developed so many Greek words (NOT loan words originally), and some flawed expressions, but he isn't as precise as other Egyptologists or Coptologists.
Oujai qen `P[C
Your first link didn't work. I would like to comment on comparing Coptic to Ancient Egyptian. Although they are genetically related, they are not identical. And while nfr might be used like nofri shai, it doesn't substantiate the use of nofri in Coptic. If we look to the Wikipedia article and look at another word, we'll see Ancient Egyptian is different than Coptic. mdw or medaw is the Ancient Egyptian word for tongue while the Coptic word is "las". This may not be a great example. But we have to keep in mind that Coptic is a new language derived from a multi-lingual culture.
It may be possible that Nofri shai is reminicent of an Ancient Egyptian phrase that found its way into Coptic. However, if such were the case, we would expect to see more Coptic manuscripts with the phrase.
With all due respect to Fr Shenouda, Emad Sidhom/Bashanda and all modern tutors, we can't teach phrase based on opinion. Dr Kamal has given references to Crum and Mallon. I'm sure if we would research the matter more, we would find more grammarians like Steindorff, Lambdin, Till, and others corroborate Crum and Mallon.
Ophadece, my statement of نهاركم and نهار طيب is from Claudius Labib's dictionary. I can get you the page reference. I may have misunderstood Labib.
Also nane also doesn't substantiate proof against Mallon's/Isaac's argument for adjectival phrases. nane has some references in the Bible being used as an atypical verb, not an adjective. As far as I know, noufri doesn't have any instances used as a verb or an adjective in this form outside the phrase noufri sai.
PS: Your treatment of Claudius Labib seems to be hypocritical since Moftah can easily be credited for his revival efforts. Yet, Moftah is criminalized and Labib is not. But this is not the point of this thread.
The word Nofri Rompi (nofri rombi) is an ancient expression, from the hieroglyphic nfr rnpt (neferrenepet)
The chief scribe of the treasury of the temple of Amun-Re, who had the name Kenero had his other name as neferrenpet which is the hieroglyphic equivalent of 'Nofri rombi' meaning 'good year'. The link below has details about this man and his tomb
http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/neferrenpet178/e_nfrrnpt_01.htm
Also the term nfr (nofri) was used prior to describing things like good men or good wine etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Egyptian_hieroglyphs
This was mentioned by Mary Moore in the American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 86, no. 4Oct... 1982
http://www.jstor.org/pss/504528
The wikipedia page has the section of determinative with nfr preceding words.
Compare also to nefertiti, nefertari, nefernefertasherit.. .
Finally, from the presence of this expression in Ancient Egyptian language, and its presence in the Coptic language. I tend to accept these terms nofri-rombi & nofri shai as valid Coptic terms.
Gb
What do you mean by Coptic being a "new language"? Coptic is not a new language. Coptic is the old Egyptian language having evolved over several generations, and with loan words added (if that is what you refer to by multi-lingual cultures).
Secondly, please provide me that page from Mr. Claudius Labib.
PS: Mr. Moftah based his revival of the Coptic language on a false premise, and disregarded his contemporaries the Coptologists, and also the Coptic speakers remaining during that period in Egypt. Mr. Labib in the same vein, brought Greek words (for similar if not the same reason) into the Coptic language that are not authentic. No one could question either's efforts in revival... if only they were not based on false teachings or premises...
Dear imikhail,
What did you mean by Coptic is not Egyptian. Coptic means Egyptian. I hope I misunderstood you quoting somebody else, and I didn't get that, but I hope you explain what you meant to me...
Oujai qen `P[C
There are differences between old Egyptian and Coptic as Coptic is the last stage of the Egyptian language. Following, words in Coptic usually miss the ending that were used in Old Egyptian. The Coptic word rombi is an example as it used to be rombit.
Hope this clears the issue.
:)
hi, everyone else, can't comment on the lingo - way over my head!
myi evolving from /ma3t/ (3 refers to Arabic ain).
rompi from /ranempet/ (and yes it appears that in old Egyptian there was a slight "p" letter, which for one reason or another, maybe influenced by Arabic in Coptic Egypt, faded and was replaced by "b")
And exceptions include mit as in number 10.
Oujai qen `P[C
hi marmar, we didn't find any fresh red dates, but my lovely husband went out and bought me some dry ones from the chinese shop and he's not even coptic!
:)
hi, everyone else, can't comment on the lingo - way over my head!
hahaha :)
“Nafr” is not “nofry”.
And noufri is not noufi. They are two different words. They may both be etymologically derived from nfr, but they are not the same. I must be misunderstanding you. We can't accept noufri to be on the list of adjectives that precede nouns. I agree with you that until it is proven otherwise, it should be "ousahi `nnoufri". So why are you going back to saying "nofri shai" is acceptable? I don't see the logic in this section. Maybe "nafrshay" is an annexion in Ancient Egyptian, but in Coptic annexion requires the copula `nte. You can annex 2 nouns together without a copula but it is not annexion because it becomes a third noun. For example sennoufi. sen noufi would mean "message of goodness" and it would need to be pisen `nte pinoufi to be grammatically correct. While sennouf is not an annexion. It is a new word altogether. Maybe, I'm understand grammatical terminology differently than you. A substantive is a noun. Nofre and noufi are two different nouns with slightly different meanings. Nofri means beneficial and noufi means good or pleasing. Are you saying nofre is the adjective form of noufi? That would mean they are the same word, which they are not. Agreed. But the common etymology is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about how Ancient Egyptian and Coptic treat the word nofri. Up to here, I completely agree with you. No I do not have any reference to validate "nofri rompi". I was actually arguing against "nofri rompi". I wasn't talking about "nfr" at all. I don't know where you getting this. Nofri in Crum's dictionary doesn't have any examples of using it as an adjective without an article or preposition. I am not following your argument. I completely agree to this. And I refuse the usage of nofri shai, nofri rompi, nofri ehoo, nofri egorh. I don't agree with this. Neferrenepet may have been an ancient expression but nofri rompi is not it's Coptic equivalent. If it were, we would see the expression in various Coptic (not Ancient Egyptian) manuscripts. We would also see more scholars study this atypical usage of nofri but we don't have any scholar from previous generations who advocate or even discuss this usage or constructing words from Ancient Egyptian like this. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Just because neferrenpet is found in hieroglyphics and used as a name, it doesn't mean it is applied in Coptic. I don't see the causal relationship. The problem is you are operating under the causal relationship that if it's in hieroglyphics, the Coptic equivalents are valid. First of all, we don't have real Coptic equivalents. We have modern phrases that cannot be attested to prior to the 20th century. We also have scholars and teachers advocating nofri shai based on the same assumption. But this doesn't validate the assumption. Additionally, you have at least 3 scholars and teachers (one of them is Crum) who don't list or mention nofri shai or nofri rompi. So there is equal opposition to the assumption. Therefore, I think if we want to revive Coptic, we should make it absolutely clear that phrases like nofri shai have questionable etymologies and usage. Otherwise, we are not reviving traditional Coptic; we are reviving 21st century Coptic. Which is still OK. But at least call it like it is, not like how we want Coptic to be.
According to W.E.Crum Coptic Dictionary Clarendon Press, 1939, p.239 Nofri (nfr) is a feminine noun. On the same reference p..543 Shai is also a noun and rombi (rnpt) is also a noun. p.296. On the same reference on p.240, nafrshai, nafrho, naberho, nafraha were also mentioned. According to J.Cerny, Professor of Egyptology in the university of Oxford, in his Book, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 1976, nfr is the etymological root of nofri and rnpt is the etymological root of rombi. The expression nfr.rnpt existed in ancient Egyptian.
http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/neferrenpet178/e_nfrrnpt_01.htm
According to Georgy Sobhy, Qawa'ed Allogha Al-Masriya Al-Qebteyya, (reprinted by Sh.Bassilios 1987) p.81, that states that two nouns may come consecutively, without necessairly an 'n
I tend to accept nofri shai and nofri rombi as valid terms.
(Source Yahoogroups 'Remenkimi')
nofri ehoou in Claudius Labib's dictionary means "أسعد الله نهاركم - نهارك سعيد". You just missed out the first two Arabic words, so it didn't make sense... I will read Alexis Mallon later, and try to figure out how Dr. Kamal based his ideas on it.
Oujai qen `P[C
Thanks for the correction. But it reinforces my argument. أسعد الله نهاركم is an entire sentence with a verb, a subject, and an object. noufri `ehoou has no verb and no subject. It is simply an adjectival phrase with a meaning closer to نهارك سعيد. This literally means, "your day is happy". However, typically adjectival phrase like this in Coptic takes a subject, a verb and an object. The closest example I can think of is from the Psalms: ounis] pe P[oic "Great is the Lord" or "the Lord is Great". You'll notice the Coptic has the adjective with the indirect article, a verb and a subject/object. Now this is the typical grammatical form but not the only way to use an adjectival phrase. The verb can be implied (i.e., it becomes a "zero" verb). For example, wouniatf `nnetenbal je cenau "blessed are your eyes for they see." In English you typically can't have a zero verb. A verb has to be used (with some archaic exceptions). But the Coptic doesn't have the verb. Additionally, you must have an article attached to the noun with the preposition `n to make it an adjectival phrase. And I have never seen noufri used in Coptic (not Ancient Egyptian) where it preceded the subject noun. It has to be pek`ehoou `nnoufri (pe) to be equal to نهارك سعيد. This is standard Coptic.
imikhail,
I don't disagree that nfr.rnpt (neferrenepet) didn't exist in Ancient Egyptian. And I don't deny nfr can be used before the noun without an article and without the preposition `n. This is perfectly fine for standard Ancient Egyptian. It is not OK for standard Coptic.
Can you please give us the reference to George Sobhy? I don't have access to his book. If there is an online version, please let me know. I need to know if he was talking specifically about adjectival phrases or apposition or some other grammatical form.
I am not sure if I am able to grasp what you say clearly. I think you are making such basic mistakes that it is not you who is posting. Anyway, I will try to answer what I understood, and if I misunderstood, please correct me.
First of all, نهارك سعيد is not a sentence. It is a phrase, yes, or you can say even an incomplete phrase in terms of grammatical structure. However, it makes perfect sense as a "daily expression". In Coptic the examples are nane rouhi - nane tooui - nofri sai. In English the examples are "good morning - good evening - happy birthday - happy new year". These expressions don't have to be adjectival phrases, or any other type. They are just expressions understood by putting two words next to each other. I am not against the use of ousai `nnofri, but that on its own isn't actually an expression. It is as you rightly pointed out a nominal phrase that is incomplete. My idea of its completeness should be ousai `nnofri nak.
Oujai qen `P[C
I've been doing some more research. The expressions you described are actually elliptical phrases. An ellipsis in linguistics is an ommission of one or more words that would be otherwise required by the remaining elements. So "Good morning" is short for "I hope you have a good morning" or "It is a good morning today". "Happy new year" is short for "I hope you have a happy new year." The first half of the sentence is ommitted. What is important here is that an ellipsis does not violate the syntactic requirements of the sentence. One can't claim "Year happy new" is an ellipsis for "I hope you have a happy new year." An ellipsis is a simply an ommission and it must be syntactically correct with the rest of the sentence. So one can't say Noufri sai is an ellipsis for tiouws ouontak `nousai `nnoufri nak "I wish there is a happy feast for you". If you want a valid, syntactally-acceptable ellipsis than you can't have Noufri sai; you must have ousai `nnoufri.
On the other hand, an interjection does not have to be syntactically valid. "An interjection is a lexical category used to express an isolated emotion or sentiment on the part of the speaker" (Wikipedia). Interjections include "Ugh!" as in "Ugh! Why do you do this to me" or "Psst" as in "Psst! Over here". Some interjections can be phrases or nouns, like "Good God!" or "Nice job!" or "Christ help me!" Some people consider "Happy New Year" is an interjection. However, most linguists disagree. There are 3 requirements for an interjection:
1. expresses an emotional reaction, often with respect to an accompanying sentence;
2. is syntactically isolated from other accompanying expressions; and
3. may include a combination of sounds not otherwise found in the language.
If you have the first 2 requirements, then you can consider it an interjection. So "Ugh" fulfills requirements #1, 2, 3. But "Happy New Year" fulfills only requirements #1, not #2 or #3. This is why many linguists and grammarians do not consider "Happy New Year" an interjection. So the Coptic equivalent ousai `nnoufri cannot be an interjection either. And noufri sai doesn't really fit requirement #3 either.
I understand noufri sai is the popular and acceptable way for saying "Happy feast". However, it is grammatically questionable as proper, standard Coptic. When someone asks how to say "Happy New Year" in Coptic, we should strive to find the proper Coptic equivalent, not one that a few people advocate simply because that's how they learned it.
Mabsoota asked how to say "Happy New Year" in Coptic. That's where the controversy is.
The short answer to how to say "Happy New Year":
The common expressions is noufri sai which is technically "happy feast". The closest not-so-common expression is noufri rompi `mberi. I'm claiming neither expression is correct. So mabsoota's question, in my opinion, was never answered correctly. I think the correct, valid answer to mabsoota's request in standard Coptic is ousai `nnoufri.
Happy new year = noufri rompi `mberi
Your next to last post was great. Now it should be actually clearer to you now how Dr. Kamal was probably a bit off with regards to his explanation. As you rightly say examples of ellipses are: "good morning", "good evening", "happy new year", "happy birthday". In French they may "bon nuit", "bon jour", "heureuse nouvelle année". In Italian: "buonanotte", "buongiorno", and "buon anno". I can't see how Coptic is different to those languages, when we have expressions like nane rouhi - nane tooui - nofri ehoou. Why then "happy feast" has to be treated differently and become an annexion phrase like Arabic?! Well, it doesn't have to be, does it? Ousai `nnoufi literally means "a feast that is happy" (of course in slick translation it is "a happy feast"). How can an ellipsis contain the article "a" or "an"? It is not even common in Coptic. It is not like Arabic (agreed) when you say "صباح الخير - صباح النور"... etc. Bottom line is you can't just say Ousai `nnoufi without adding nak as the former is an incomplete phrase.
Oujai qen `P[C
Ophadece,
An annexion is a combination of 2 nouns that shows possession using the copula `nte. For example, pijwm `nte pirwmi is an annexion. noufri sai is not an annexion. Nor is it a valid apposition phrase, adjectival phrase, interjection or ellipsis.
An ellipsis does not have a minimum length. All it requires is that the ellipsis is syntactically similar to the full sentence and it communicates an intelligible thought. noufri sai communicates an intelligible thought. However, is is not syntactically similar to the full sentence. You can't say "Birthday happy" to mean "Have a happy birthday". Nor does matter if you say "happy birthday" or "a happy birthday" to be an ellipsis for "Have a happy birthday".
Additionally, if we allow an ellipsis to be syntactically different from the full sentence, then why isn't noufri rompi beri acceptable?
Bottom line ousai `nnofri, ousai`nnoufri nak ourompi `mberi `nnoufri are valid ellipses. noufri sai and noufri rompi `mberi aren't.
OK, I may have misunderstood the word "ellipsis". I was trying to follow your explanation, and examples, but maybe I was wrong.
Annexion is expressed in Arabic as "حالة المضاف إليه". I don't know its equivalent in English, but it can be exemplified in phrases using "of". As you rightly pointed out, similarly in Coptic the article `nte gives rise to such a grammatical structure, as do `n and `m. Now, I don't understand the fixation of the greeting to follow such a grammatical structure. Why? You haven't answered my question with regards the greetings nane roohi - nane ejwrh - nofri ehoou. You don't need any indefinite or definite articles, do they? Why then the fixation on Ousai `nnoufri? My impression is that either Dr. Kamal (or yourself, or both, or neither) is following the rule that no Coptic word should come on its own, but has to be attached to an article (please note his education was French). That is right, but there are exceptions. We say in the Lord's prayer penwik `nte rac], and in the Basilian liturgy qen kenf nte nenio] - anitou epswi kata nousi.
Also you said: "nor does it matter if you say "happy birthday" or "a happy birthday".
Of course it matters. There is nothing like "a happy birthday", "a good day", or "a good night" per se. You have to say "have a happy birthday", "I hope you have a good day", etc. I really don't know how you came up with such an argument.
You are asking a question that you yourself need answering - why is nofri rompi `mberi not acceptable? I see it valid in every sense.
Oujai qen `P[C
PS: we say Oujai qen `P[C not Ououjai qen `P[C. I hope that also doesn't make any bit of confusion to you (I guess it is clear, isn't it?)
Thanks for your reply. Your examples have made me reevaluate my "fixation" on the definite article. I just want to add a few comments. The closest English equivalent of annexion is the genitive noun case. But genitive doesn't exclusively mean annexion.
Your examples show how the article is not always attached. However, some of your examples are not genitive or adjectival phrases. anitou epswi kata nousi where nousi is not a genitive adjective. The sentence means "Raise them (the waters or the plants or the winds) according to their measure. It's possessive but not an "annexion". Annexion would be "the measure of the waters".
Your other examples are not really annexion either. They describe abstract objects. Kenf `nte nenio] is not the physical bossom of our fathers. It describes a place of comfort. I don't know why there is no definite article. I'm just saying it's not really annexion.
I see what you're saying with "a good birthday". I said before that the ellipsis must be intelligible to the audience. Someone who hears "a good birthday" will probably not understand it is an ellipsis of "I hope you have a good birthday". However, "birthday good" is not intelligible either. In addition, "birthday good" violates the syntax. That is why I said noufri rompi `mberi can't work. But as you said "a good birthday" can't work either.
I already answered why noufri rompi `mberi is not acceptable.
1. noufri is not an adjective that can proceed the noun.
2. rompi `mberi is an annexion
3. All annexions have articles in Coptic (not in English, Arabic or Greek)
4. All ellipses and annexions cannot violate sentential syntax. They are not exceptions of grammar.
Regarding oujai qen P[oic, I would say that it is not annexion. It is the imperative verb form meaning "Be well in the Lord" not "A wellness of the Lord."
nane is a strange word. The only example I can find is from Kiahk response of the 4th hoos: Cmou P[oic Pennou] je nane ou'almoc. "Bless the Lord our God with a new psalm". The literal translation is "Bless the Lord our God for good (is) a psalm". You'll notice nane is not an annexion. It is not "a psalm of the good". What is important here is that there is at least one article. So I can accept nane ou`ehoou or nane pi`ehoou but not nane `ehoou. I could not find any other phrase using nane in this form. I found a lot of phrases with `enanef or `enanec. In addition, even if nane is a valid adjective that can be placed before the noun and change the syntax of the sentence, it doesn't necessarily mean noufri can.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope we can continue. I hope I didn't confuse anybody.
I never alluded to the Coptic examples I gave as ones of annexion. I was merely stating the exceptions to the rule of every Coptic word being attached to an article. Also you can't accept nane ejwrh or nofri ehoou even though they are defined in Coptic dictionaries tells me that it is just your personal opinion. Thanks for your correction, oujai in that expression is an imperative verb (at least that's my understanding based on your correction, I'll look it up also)
Oujai
it's over my head shuwayya!
;)
but, never mind, keep chatting in coptic, it's good practice for when we get to heaven
;)
servant 33, it seems the answer is not simple, but thanks for trying to simplify it! so i'm going to go back to my books and settle for saying the 'agios' in greek when i get up to heaven.
the rest of u can go first class to the coptic section.
;D
I honestly want to be in the Greek, Coptic, English section with you. Can I hitch a ride with you to heaven, even if its on Greyhound? :D
ya ahibeyee,
it's over my head shuwayya!
;)
but, never mind, keep chatting in coptic, it's good practice for when we get to heaven
;)
servant 33, it seems the answer is not simple, but thanks for trying to simplify it! so i'm going to go back to my books and settle for saying the 'agios' in greek when i get up to heaven.
the rest of u can go first class to the coptic section.
;D
mabsoota,
You r too funny really! :) :) :) Thanks for the New Year laugh and:
Melkem Addis Amet!!! (Happy New Year) from your Ethiopian sister!