[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164530#msg164530 date=1368284501] [quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164508#msg164508 date=1368117607] No, t isn't always pronounced as /d/; sometimes /t/ too. Pretty much like 'c' in English. Note words like batoc, and ,rictoc.
According to Worrell, in his article Popular Traditions of the Coptic Language p. 9, paragraph 26. "The letter t (called dau) and pronounced d/ḍ as it should be, and never t, except when final, e.g. šəmd somt." In another article he says, Greek words can take the /t/ sound. Since ,rictoc and batoc are Greek, it makes sense.
The only other word Worrell describes with both Coptic letters is pauyt. In this example, Worrell believes the OB way to pronounce is wrong (p. 7, Chapter 15). He notices that the Sahidic is pronounced Bāwāṭ which sounds like "baywait". He notices that the two Copts he is documenting OB (Bistauros and Girgis who come from different parts of Egypt), both say b-awīd. Worrell hypothesizes that it should be b-awād (or baWADE). So now we have conflicting sources on how the Coptic letter y is pronounced in qualitative verbs and also how t is pronounced. What I believe Worrell is saying is Bāwāṭ seems to be the most logical pronunciation since the t is in the final position however because it is a qualitative verb, b-awād is the "correct" pronunciation even though he hears everyone say b-awīd.
Also, according to Worrell on p. 10 chapter 31, the b is sometimes w, sometimes v, sometimes β and sometimes b. If b is in the final position of the word or the syllable, it is always b as in nyb which is pronounced nāb (not neeb). Worrell disagrees with other linguists that b is always w. He thinks the w pronunciation is an Arabic influence while β (bilabial fricative) is the original pronunciation of the letter b.
By Worrell's description - Worrell is the foremost authority on OB - batoc should be pronounced βa-təs (I think). I think Worrell would accept Wa-tos because it is socially acceptable but in theory it would be βa-təs which would be closer to Vatos than Watos.
There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164537#msg164537 date=1368302927] There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
Every language has specific rules. If not, there would be no need for linguists. What you are talking about is internalization of grammar vs. formal linguistic development. OB has specific phonological rules. Copts have simply internalized them without formal education just like in English (to a certain extent). If there were methodological analyses of these rules - as Worrell and others have begun - one will observe how Copts do or don't follow specific phonological rules.
The mere fact that there is a rule in OB that says a letter is pronounced one way in Greek loan words and another way in Coptic words means someone at some point "created" a rule. It was naturally internalized but it was created. If it were not created, or if it was simply natural to pronounce a letter based on language of origin, then all languages with loan words would have the same rule. But most languages do not. Therefore, one cannot ignore the empirical evidence that phonological rules were "invented" in OB. A rule, I must point out, is nearly identical in GB (just a different letter).
And I still must reiterate that I do not believe in the concept of inventions, creations or artificial languages. I am simply conceding to your definitions to show that there is fault in your conclusion that OB is not "invented" in any shape or form.
Somewhere in the history of Egypt (probably 6th-8th century, Arabic was Classical Arabic. Why is Modern Standard Arabic the only Arabic taught in schools? Why is it acceptable to learn and adopt Modern Standard Arabic, which is for all purposes is as "artificial"
Can you point to the differences between the Classical Arabic and the Standard Arabic and compare that to the differences between the OB and GB? It will be hard to find comparable rules between Classical Arabic/MSA and OB/GB because the difference in GB/OB is phonological only. But the principle can be extended to vocabulary, grammar, and linguistic usage.
Are you saying that the Standard Arabic somehow changed the alphabetic sounds that the Classical Arabic used to have?
I like you to point those differences out because I do not know of any.
Yes there are differences. I will have to find references. I will say that the same phenomena is found in Ancient Greek also. Technically we have no idea what Ancient Greek sounded like. Current practice is based on theories from the 19th century. Ramez may have more insight to this. What was actually practiced linguistically is often different than theoretical morphosyntax structure of a language. Modern Standard Arabic has many rules on which diactric is used and when. The rules are numerous. From what I understand, Classical Arabic had different rules that may or may not be found in MSA, just like Ancient Greek.
The point I was making is that at some point someone "standardized" Arabic. This standard form may or may not be different from Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic or pre-Islamic Arabic. The whole point of standardizing something is to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities. This would be classified as an "invention" by your standards. But nonetheless, MSA is adopted, at least in the education system, as the only form of Arabic taught formally. Why is it ok to learn the "invented" MSA, while it is not ok to learn GB?
Dear remenkimi, so what do linguists say about: appreciation, bow, desert, sexual, negotiation, colonel, lieutenant, Worcester? What are the rules for such words? oujai
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164552#msg164552 date=1368410818] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164537#msg164537 date=1368302927] There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
Every language has specific rules. If not, there would be no need for linguists. What you are talking about is internalization of grammar vs. formal linguistic development. OB has specific phonological rules. Copts have simply internalized them without formal education just like in English (to a certain extent). If there were methodological analyses of these rules - as Worrell and others have begun - one will observe how Copts do or don't follow specific phonological rules.
The mere fact that there is a rule in OB that says a letter is pronounced one way in Greek loan words and another way in Coptic words means someone at some point "created" a rule. It was naturally internalized but it was created. If it were not created, or if it was simply natural to pronounce a letter based on language of origin, then all languages with loan words would have the same rule. But most languages do not. Therefore, one cannot ignore the empirical evidence that phonological rules were "invented" in OB. A rule, I must point out, is nearly identical in GB (just a different letter).
And I still must reiterate that I do not believe in the concept of inventions, creations or artificial languages. I am simply conceding to your definitions to show that there is fault in your conclusion that OB is not "invented" in any shape or form.
You know exactly what I meant but you keep twisting the argument
Here are examples from the English language:
the letter "s" can be pronounced either s as in "sad" or z as in "as" and "is"
The letter "h" can be pronounced as h as in "here" or a as in "heir"
The list goes on.
When you compare this with GB, this frame of having different values for the same letter does not exist. Why? Because it is an invention not a language.
This whole argument about rules started by you discrediting OB because it has different sound values for the same letters.
Again, Aryan's invention put specific sound values for each letter with no room of wavering. Thus destroying the Bohairic dialect and misguiding people in believing that GB is "modernizing" the Coptic language.
It will be hard to find comparable rules between Classical Arabic/MSA and OB/GB because the difference in GB/OB is phonological only. But the principle can be extended to vocabulary, grammar, and linguistic usage.
So if it is hard to find comparable rules, why did you use Classical/Standard Arabic as an example to prove your point?
Are you saying that the Standard Arabic somehow changed the alphabetic sounds that the Classical Arabic used to have?
I like you to point those differences out because I do not know of any.
Yes there are differences. I will have to find references.
Before you make an argument and use an example to prove a point, I recommend that you are prepared to show how that example fits in your argument.
I am still waiting for those differences in the sound values between classical and standard Arabic.
Till you show those differences, I will make the assertion that there is no such a thing as having a language change its sound values as part of its natural progression.
Just to be clear .. this argument about having different sounds between Classical and Standard Arabic is to prove that the invention of Aryan's GB is ok as he changed the authentic sounds of OB.
The burden is on you to show these differences ...
The point I was making is that at some point someone "standardized" Arabic. This standard form may or may not be different from Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic or pre-Islamic Arabic. The whole point of standardizing something is to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities. This would be classified as an "invention" by your standards. But nonetheless, MSA is adopted, at least in the education system, as the only form of Arabic taught formally. Why is it ok to learn the "invented" MSA, while it is not ok to learn GB?
You need to educate yourself on the history of the Arabic language before making empty claims.
Just to remind you, we are talking about inventing new sounds for an existing language. You keep using Standard/Classical Arabic to to prove that Aryan's mutilation of the Coptic language, through his inventing new sounds and destroying others for the alphabet, was ok.
Any ways, I am waiting for you to prove your point using the Classical/Standard Arabic example you raised.
LOL! some of the readers gave up following the arguments on page 2! 8)
here, i'll simplify it for folks like me:
1. there are lots of types of coptic. 2. they are all difficult to understand. 3. most of the 'coptic' you sing in church is greek anyway, so don't stress about it too much. 4. if you are very clever / intend to be a teacher of coptic hymns; you should make more effort to understand this thread! (i am not included here...) ;)
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=7582.msg164567#msg164567 date=1368474030] LOL! some of the readers gave up following the arguments on page 2! 8)
here, i'll simplify it for folks like me:
1. there are lots of types of coptic. 2. they are all difficult to understand. 3. most of the 'coptic' you sing in church is greek anyway, so don't stress about it too much. 4. if you are very clever / intend to be a teacher of coptic hymns; you should make more effort to understand this thread! (i am not included here...) ;)
Thanks mabsoota for lightening up the discussion. I agree with the above except number 3.
I will respond to your comments. But if you continue to attack me saying I am twisting words or any sort of ad hominem attacks, I will simply ignore your posts and the discussion will be over. Additionally, don't argue with the administrator about how to run the forum. He has already warned you twice to knock it off.
Your comments are in italics
1. When you compare this with GB, this frame of having different values for the same letter does not exist. Why? Because it is an invention not a language....This whole argument about rules started by you discrediting OB because it has different sound values for the same letters...Again, Aryan's invention put specific sound values for each letter with no room of wavering. Thus destroying the Bohairic dialect and misguiding people in believing that GB is "modernizing" the Coptic language.
My response. GB does have different values for the same letter. The Coptic letter , is pronounced /sh/ for Greek words, /kh/ for Coptic words with hard vowels and /k/ for Coptic words with soft vowels. Whether or not modern Copts follow the rule is a different issue. But one cannot say GB does not have multiple phonemic values for specific orthographies/letters. Whether you believe Aryan's intentions were evil or not, doesn't change the fact that OB also has specific phonemic values that change depending on language of origin (Greek vs Coptic). You can attack Aryan. You can attack GB. But you still have not proven that OB is free from "inventions".
2. Just to remind you, we are talking about inventing new sounds for an existing language. You keep using Standard/Classical Arabic to to prove that Aryan's mutilation of the Coptic language, through his inventing new sounds and destroying others for the alphabet, was ok...Any ways, I am waiting for you to prove your point using the Classical/Standard Arabic example you raised.
My response For specific phonological changes between Classical Arabic and modern dialects, I'll refer you to this comment found at Wikipedia. It's very technical and confusing. But it illustrates the specific changes in phonology between Classical Arabic and modern dialects: "There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects. These include: The palatals /ɕ/, /ɟ/ (⟨ش⟩, ⟨ج⟩) shifted. /ɕ/ became postalveolar [ʃ], and /ɟ/ became postalveolar [dʒ], [ʒ], or as it was [ɡʲ] or [ɟ], or velar [ɡ]. The uvular fricatives /χˠ/, /ʁˠ/ (⟨خ⟩, ⟨غ⟩) became velar or post-velar (x), [ɣ] or left as they are but without velarization [χ], [ʁ]. /ɮˤ/ ⟨ض⟩ became /dˤ/ (Certain Tajweed traditions actually preserve the original value of this sound synchronically.)"
Regarding standardization, the author continues, "The language of Classical Arabic is essentially that of the so-called poetic koine of the pre-Islamic poets, a standardized prestige dialect based on conservative Bedouin dialects of the eastern Arabian peninsula. A similar but slightly different koine had been adopted in Mecca, in a form adapted somewhat to the phonology of the spoken Meccan dialect of the time, and it was in this form that the Quran was given. The Quran was later rephonemicized into the standard poetic koine."
Basically, the Quran itself was standardized into a "new" pronunciation scheme. As I said before, any attempt to standardize something is in someway what you call an "invention" but I describe simply as an abrupt change.
The author continues to give examples of how Modern Standard Arabic has changed from Classical or Quranic Arabic. He says, "When rephonemicized into the standard poetic koine, the occurrences of yāʾ meant to be pronounced as /j/ or /aː/. Only recently, two dots was created to be written under the final yāʾ in order to distinguish it from the pronunciation of /aː/. This invention was not adopted by all Arabic speaking nations, as for example, Egypt and Sudan never add two dots under the final yāʾ in handwriting and print, even in printed Quran. Yāʾ for /aː/ was named alif maqṣūra "limited alif" or alif layyina "flexible alif". This is why, final /aː/ can be written either with a normal alif or alif maqṣūra." Notice how he actually used the word invention to explain why the final ya can be written two ways. This is something not found in Classical Arabic.
Now I know how much you hate my quoting of Wikipedia. I will refer you to Clive Holes' book "Modern Arabic". Under his chapter on Phonology, he describes the phonology of MSA and contemporary dialects of Arabic. He begins with a very interesting concept. "The problem with describing the phonology of MSA is that MSA is not natively spoken by any group of Arabs, so no contemporary region or social grouping can reasonably claim that its habits of performance represents a model of what is "correct". If this is what he says about MSA, how much more does this apply to OB!! He continues, "In the native grammatical tradition, fasa:ha (=purity and by extension "correctness") whether in phonology or any other aspect of the language, ultimately derives from a historical precedent: that is CLA (Classical Linguistic Arabic) as elaborated by grammarians. Although we have a clear picture of what Arabic morphology, syntax, and vocabulary were like from an early period from the copious textual material that survives, we have little or no information on many aspects of how it was pronounced." (page 56). Basically, the author is saying we have no real evidence of how Classical Arabic was pronounced. MSA relies on theoretical grammarian interpretation of how Classical Arabic was pronounced. This theoretical interpretation is also an "invention" and since MSA is derived from Classical Arabic, MSA is a modified invention. Since there is no performance of Classical Arabic or MSA but only contemporary dialects, no one can say what is "correct". We basically have theoretical pronunciation of Classical Arabic which is different from MSA which is different from contemporary dialects.
3. Till you show those differences, I will make the assertion that there is no such a thing as having a language change its sound values as part of its natural progression.
My response Phonological change is a natural progression. I have shown that Classical Arabic to MSA to contemporary Arabic dialects have changed. Let's look at English. This article describing the Phonological History of English says that each time period is relatively short (roughly 200 years or less) due to "the extensive population movements occurring during the early AD period, which resulted in rapid dialect fragmentation". There is a detailed table on the phonological difference that is quite complex. But a few examples should show the change of sound values: 1. Old English "weg" = "way". Both pronounced /wei/. Obviously, the g letter when combined with e in OE gave a diphthong value. Hypothetically, in OE "leg" would be pronounced "lay" but in modern English, it would be pronounced "leg" 2. OE yfel = "evil". Both the y and f changed phonemic values.
The article also discuss changes in British English since 1900 AD. Phonological change is natural, not artificial.
Additionally, you have ignored my examples of Esperanto, Ancient Greek, pidgin and creole languages and so on. Whether a language takes 2 years to change, 20 years, 200 years or 2000 years, it doesn't matter. All languages change phonemic values in various degrees. Sometimes we have no idea what the language sounded like, like ancient Greek and Classical Arabic and we rely on theoretical linguistics. Sometimes we can describe very small changes in languages theoretically but not practically because they are not practiced, like MSA, Latin and OB. And sometimes we can describe very small changes in practiced languages like GB, English, and European Romance languages.
You want to call it an invention or a mutilation, that's your choice. Sociolinguistically, there is no such thing as "correct", "better", "invention" or "mutilation".
Ophadecee, I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. Of course, when a loan word is imported into English, it takes on English phonology which will differ from it's original language. What I was trying to show is that any language that has a specific rule where a phonemic value is dictated by the original language is in some degree artificial. In English, there is no rule that says "every Greek loan word with the "ch" letters is pronounced as "tsh" while every Latin loan word with the "ch" letters is pronounced "k". If such a rule were a natural function of "natural" languages, then all "natural" languages would have that rule. However, in English many Greek loan words are pronounced with both phonemic values - for example, "archdeacon" /artch deacon/ and "archangel" /arkuh angel/. Both are Greek loan words but two different phonemes are used. This is not the case in OB at least in regard to the Coptic letter T and B.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164569#msg164569 date=1368484874] I will respond to your comments. But if you continue to attack me saying I am twisting words or any sort of ad hominem attacks, I will simply ignore your posts and the discussion will be over.
I will leave that to your discresion
Additionally, don't argue with the administrator about how to run the forum. He has already warned you twice to knock it off.
Thanks for your advice and I appreciate your concern. The admin will deal with me according to his/her wish.
I prefer you focus on the discussion
Your comments are in italics
1. When you compare this with GB, this frame of having different values for the same letter does not exist. Why? Because it is an invention not a language....This whole argument about rules started by you discrediting OB because it has different sound values for the same letters...Again, Aryan's invention put specific sound values for each letter with no room of wavering. Thus destroying the Bohairic dialect and misguiding people in believing that GB is "modernizing" the Coptic language.
My response. GB does have different values for the same letter. The Coptic letter , is pronounced /sh/ for Greek words, /kh/ for Coptic words with hard vowels and /k/ for Coptic words with soft vowels. Whether or not modern Copts follow the rule is a different issue. But one cannot say GB does not have multiple phonemic values for specific orthographies/letters. Whether you believe Aryan's intentions were evil or not, doesn't change the fact that OB also has specific phonemic values that change depending on language of origin (Greek vs Coptic). You can attack Aryan. You can attack GB. But you still have not proven that OB is free from "inventions".
Again these rules are inventions because it does specify how to say each word depending on the origin of the word. This is not the case in any other language and certainly these rules are not in OB.
Just to narrow the discussion and avoid confusion. To me what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention.
I understand that you try to avoid this issue and would like to expand the idea of invention. But I hope my point is clear: to have someone borrow sounds from another language to an alphabet is an invention to me.
Aryan rationale was this: Coptic alphabet utilizes Greek alphabet, therefore Coptic alphabet must be pronounced like Greek.
This is why GB is an invention.
Again you may have different reasons to call other languages have inventions. However, I want to focus only on this aspect of applying sound values of one language into another simply because both languages utilize the same alphabet.
Hope this will make the discussion more focused.
Here is a quote I read on another forum written by you a while back ..
"Old Bohairic is the more authentic Coptic. We don't need to follow Greek anymore, especially since we know the driving force was political and erroneous. Rather we should try to find the most authentic Coptic pronunciation and modernize the use of Coptic that way. You can't modernize Coptic without knowing the ciricullum first and that means we have to agree on a pronunciation system also. Since GB is not Coptic, we should agree on OB."
I am curious as to why did you change your position?
2. Just to remind you, we are talking about inventing new sounds for an existing language. You keep using Standard/Classical Arabic to to prove that Aryan's mutilation of the Coptic language, through his inventing new sounds and destroying others for the alphabet, was ok...Any ways, I am waiting for you to prove your point using the Classical/Standard Arabic example you raised.
My response For specific phonological changes between Classical Arabic and modern dialects, I'll refer you to this comment found at Wikipedia. It's very technical and confusing. But it illustrates the specific changes in phonology between Classical Arabic and modern dialects: "There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects. These include: The palatals /ɕ/, /ɟ/ (⟨ش⟩, ⟨ج⟩) shifted. /ɕ/ became postalveolar [ʃ], and /ɟ/ became postalveolar [dʒ], [ʒ], or as it was [ɡʲ] or [ɟ], or velar [ɡ]. The uvular fricatives /χˠ/, /ʁˠ/ (⟨خ⟩, ⟨غ⟩) became velar or post-velar (x), [ɣ] or left as they are but without velarization [χ], [ʁ]. /ɮˤ/ ⟨ض⟩ became /dˤ/ (Certain Tajweed traditions actually preserve the original value of this sound synchronically.)"
Have no way of deciphering what you presented. You may want to present it again as an image or a link. The characters are not clear at all.
I will consider this point not resolved and will not rebuttal.
Also, please show how the change in the Classical Arabic (CA) / Standard Arabic (SA) sounds fit in what Aryan did.
Let me elaborate, we know that Aryan borrowed the rules of pronouncing Coptic from the Greek. Did SA change in sounds, as you suggest, do the same? Whoever changed the Arabic sounds, if any, borrowed these changes from another language?
The point we are discussing here is whether Aryan's approach of applying the Greek rules of saying the Coptic alphabet fit a normal progression of a language? And whether the idea that just because an alphabet is the same as another alphabet, then it is ok to apply the rules of that language (in our case Greek) to the affected alphabet (Coptic)?
I would really appreciate if you can show whether what Aryan did with the Coptic alphabet had happened in Arabic or English, the languages, you chose to prove your point.
Please, do not show mere words but the whole alphabet as Aryan did. He basically went through the Coptic alphabet and letter by letter he changed the sounds. This is the invention I am discussing.
So, with CA and SA, English, or any other language you want to use, show us whether the alphabet changed just because they mirror the alphabet of another language.
Instead of copying and pasting a book. It would be much easier for you and me to just show a link with brief explanation as to the point you are trying to prove.
imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
I think we need to stop here simply because i don't think will get to a valid/respectful/academic argument or even response here.
Dear Mina, There was nothing academic that Aryan did. Would you please read his book (either in Arabic or English) and you would find that Remenkimi is actually defending something completely flawed in his scientific style! Seriously, the topic is much simpler than what Remenkimi is busying himself with.... please read Aryan's book in Arabic if you can. Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164574#msg164574 date=1368538530] imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I think we need to stop here simply because i don't think will get to a valid/respectful/academic argument or even response here.
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet is utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
Dear Remenkimi, I am not sure where I came up with the idea of Greek loan words in this discussion! I cannot see anything I wrote relating to that. Also, please note that archangel is something pronounced /a:keinjel/ and sometimes /a:tsheinjel/ by people of the same language. That is exactly the case with OB, but unfortunately not the case with GB (with rigid rules that were invented to suit the flawed invention). Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164574#msg164574 date=1368538530] imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I wouldn't call it an invention. but we are not discussing what i or you may call it. we are not creating our own php thesis here just for you to be able to call it "an invention"
I think we need to stop here simply because i don't think will get to a valid/respectful/academic argument or even response here.
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet are utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
hmmm. i won't lock the post. let people argue showing their beliefs and opinions...they can only help or hurt their stands.
Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164578#msg164578 date=1368540862] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164574#msg164574 date=1368538530] imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I wouldn't call it an invention. but we are not discussing what i or you may call it. we are not creating our own php thesis here just for you to be able to call it "an invention"
Then you need to read others who wrote about this .. Read the following:
Al-Adillah al-Rabtiyah fi Sihhat Alfaz al-Lughah al-Qibtiyah Al Asas Al Matine fi dabt notk loghat al masriyin Torath Al Adab Al Qebti - by Fr Shenouda Maher and Dr Youhanna Nessim (Pages 19-39) Pronounciation, by Bashandy
After reading these resources please report back what would you call Aryan's methodology of changing the Coptic alphabet.
I think we need to stop here simply because i don't think will get to a valid/respectful/academic argument or even response here.
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet are utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
hmmm. i won't lock the post. let people argue showing their beliefs and opinions...they can only help or hurt their stands.
Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters.
Very good. Then follow up on the resources above and then share your thoughts.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164570#msg164570 date=1368491704] Again these rules are inventions because it does specify how to say each word depending on the origin of the word. This is not the case in any other language and certainly these rules are not in OB. Refer back to Reply #57. I have showed how Worrell, who wholeheartedly endorses OB, has shown that in Greek loan words the Coptic letter t is pronounced t, not d. In non-loan Coptic words it is always pronounced d unless it is in the final position and it is pronounced t, not d. So OB certainly does have rules that dictate pronunciation based on the origin of the word and its location in the word.
Just to narrow the discussion and avoid confusion. To me what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention.
This is an over-simplified conclusion. Let me ask you this. If it were reverse, if someone applied Coptic sounds to the Greek alphabet, would it be called an invention? Did not the late Egyptians apply Demotic phonology to Greek letters when they borrowed the Greek alphabet and added 7 sounds that were "not found in Greek"? How about Swahili, which originally used Arabic letters and now uses Roman script? They applied Sawhili sounds to Roman/Latin/English alphabet. You call it an invention. I call it typical sociolinguistics.
I understand that you try to avoid this issue and would like to expand the idea of invention. But I hope my point is clear:[b] to have someone borrow sounds from another language to an alphabet is an invention to me.
I understand what you are saying. I am developing a theory to show what Aryan did is found in linguistics, even though Aryan did not know it. I still need to go through a lot of research. I will reiterate that in sociolinguistics, there is no such thing as an invention. But I will address this particular point later. Let's just agree to disagree for now.
Here is a quote I read on another forum written by you a while back ..
"Old Bohairic is the more authentic Coptic. We don't need to follow Greek anymore, especially since we know the driving force was political and erroneous. Rather we should try to find the most authentic Coptic pronunciation and modernize the use of Coptic that way. You can't modernize Coptic without knowing the ciricullum first and that means we have to agree on a pronunciation system also. Since GB is not Coptic, we should agree on OB."
I am curious as to why did you change your position?
I already answered this. I don't believe there is anything called authentic. I have found nearly all languages are motivated by politics. My definition of erroneous is no longer prescriptive, emphasizing what I believe is correct. Rather is more descriptive showing where certain features diverge from basic principles. I hope we can move on from what I wrote 10 years ago, since I have given substantial evidence on my current position.
My response For specific phonological changes between Classical Arabic and modern dialects, I'll refer you to this comment found at Wikipedia. It's very technical and confusing. But it illustrates the specific changes in phonology between Classical Arabic and modern dialects: "There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects. These include: The palatals /ɕ/, /ɟ/ (⟨ش⟩, ⟨ج⟩) shifted. /ɕ/ became postalveolar [ʃ], and /ɟ/ became postalveolar [dʒ], [ʒ], or as it was [ɡʲ] or [ɟ], or velar [ɡ]. The uvular fricatives /χˠ/, /ʁˠ/ (⟨خ⟩, ⟨غ⟩) became velar or post-velar (x), [ɣ] or left as they are but without velarization [χ], [ʁ]. /ɮˤ/ ⟨ض⟩ became /dˤ/ (Certain Tajweed traditions actually preserve the original value of this sound synchronically.)"
Have no way of deciphering what you presented. You may want to present it again as an image or a link. The characters are not clear at all.
The characters are clear. It's not English or Arabic, it is IPA. I don't even know what most of these characters mean. All I wanted to show was that there are specific phonetic changes between Classical Arabic, MSA and Modern Arabic. You asked for specific examples, I gave it. It's not really important what these differences are, rather that such differences actually exist.
Also, please show how the change in the Classical Arabic (CA) / Standard Arabic (SA) sounds fit in what Aryan did.
I did in Replies #57,58,62,63 and 73. I don't think I have to keep repeating the same thing. If Aryan's GB is an invention to make sounds fit to a different language, then so is MSA which borrows sounds from CA which is completely theoretical to begin with and CA itself was rephenomized. The net result: all are common linguistic phenomena.
Let me elaborate, we know that Aryan borrowed the rules of pronouncing Coptic from the Greek. Did SA change in sounds, as you suggest, do the same? Whoever changed the Arabic sounds, if any, borrowed these changes from another language?
Since no one can legitimately claim they own the "correct" SA pronunciation, what is practiced in Arabic television and journalism, is a phonological system that is generally believed to be how SA should be pronounced. This hypothetical system is based on what most Arabs believe proper or correct Arabic is, which in the mind of Middle Easterner is fas:a (foushah) which is based on what they learned hearing the Quran because they associated Quranic Arabic as the only correct Arabic. Therefore, linguistically MSA has a sound inventory modified from Classical Arabic. This is further exemplified when one compares MSA to modern Arabic dialects. This was in the book I referenced before.
Instead of copying and pasting a book. It would be much easier for you and me to just show a link with brief explanation as to the point you are trying to prove.
So actual references from linguists are not good enough? You want me to make something up to show that GB was not made up? Does that not seem a little too ironic? I'll let the references speak for themselves. I've tried to present them in a meaningful matter. How you value the references and the presentation I attempted is a personal matter. I'm not going to go backwards and give random claims that amount to "I said so" just because it is easier.
OK Remenkimi, so as a brother I ask you to please review how you address other people. Numerous times in the past to show me your point, you kept saying that I compare apples to oranges. Seriously, if anything you should pay attention to what you are writing. Taking the Demotic language and applying Greek letters to it is not the same as what Aryan did; he changed the pronunciation system in order to match Bohairic with Greek. This hasn't been the case with Sawahili from what you are saying; or Turkish, or any other language that borrowed the alphabetical system from another language. Oujai qen `P[C
Don't take my comments out of context. imikhail specifically said "what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention". Well what the Demotic Egyptians was apply Coptic sounds to the Greek alphabet. And I don't consider this an invention.
I never meant to say what Aryan did is the same as what Demotic Egyptians did. I am not saying the Demotic Egyptians changed the Egyptian pronunciation system to match Greek. Rather I am saying that Demotic Egyptians changed the Greek system - specifically the orthographic inventory or alphabet - to match the Egyptian phonological inventory. No one considers this move an invention. Abrupt linguistic changes in general, whether it is borrowing an alphabet or changing the phonology, are not inventions. If one consider changing the phonology as invention, then one must consider the Copts borrowing the Greek alphabet as an invention. That is all I was saying.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164583#msg164583 date=1368553353] Don't take my comments out of context. imikhail specifically said "what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention". Well what the Demotic Egyptians was apply Coptic sounds to the Greek alphabet. And I don't consider this an invention.
I never meant to say what Aryan did is the same as what Demotic Egyptians did. I am not saying the Demotic Egyptians changed the Egyptian pronunciation system to match Greek. Rather I am saying that Demotic Egyptians changed the Greek system - specifically the orthographic inventory or alphabet - to match the Egyptian phonological inventory. No one considers this move an invention. Abrupt linguistic changes in general, whether it is borrowing an alphabet or changing the phonology, are not inventions. If one consider changing the phonology as invention, then one must consider the Copts borrowing the Greek alphabet as an invention. That is all I was saying.
No No No. You got it backward my friend.
The Egyptians, when they borrowed the Greek alphabet did not change how the Greek pronounce their letters. They simply took the letters and gave them the Egyptian values.
Aryan, in the 19th century, tried to delete the Egyptian sounds and to purely apply the Greek values ... this is the invention.
Again, Egyptian borrowed the alphabet with no affect on the Greek language.
Aryan borrowed the Greek sounds and affected the Coptic language.
When the Turkish borrowed the Latin letters, they did not affect any language except theirs through writing their language by utilizing the Latin letters.
Hope you see the damaging process Aryan did to our beautiful language.
As for your Arabic example, I am sorry I cannot see it. You say the letters are clear, but all I see are just squares. So, I will not respond to your Arabic argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------- [ Added by minatasgeel ] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164581#msg164581 date=1368551498]
Instead of copying and pasting a book. It would be much easier for you and me to just show a link with brief explanation as to the point you are trying to prove.
So actual references from linguists are not good enough? You want me to make something up to show that GB was not made up? Does that not seem a little too ironic? I'll let the references speak for themselves. I've tried to present them in a meaningful matter. How you value the references and the presentation I attempted is a personal matter. I'm not going to go backwards and give random claims that amount to "I said so" just because it is easier.
You took my suggestion too way out of context. Earlier in my reply I said I could not see the letters you presented so you lost your argument and I cannot reply to you.
Therefore, I suggested that you present the link or present an image of what you want to post so you won't be wasting your time in posting something I cannot read.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164577#msg164577 date=1368539751] Dear Remenkimi, I am not sure where I came up with the idea of Greek loan words in this discussion! I cannot see anything I wrote relating to that. Also, please note that archangel is something pronounced /a:keinjel/ and sometimes /a:tsheinjel/ by people of the same language. That is exactly the case with OB, but unfortunately not the case with GB (with rigid rules that were invented to suit the flawed invention). Oujai qen `P[C
According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/. Forum after forum, (for example this site) it is agreed that only /a:keinjel/. Only immigrants pronounce it as /a:tsheinjel/ (as far as I can tell). What you have actually showed is that English does have specific grammar but they are (dare I say it) "artificially" changed in practice due to foreign influences.
By the way, GB's rules are not so rigid. If one listens to Coptic spoken in Egypt vs. Coptic spoken in America, you will hear different vowel sounds and different phonology in certain words like carx, doxaci, words that end with three consonants likecwtpf, and two different phonological consonants next to each other like `scaji and of course /a/ for words with e, like Kyrie eleyson often pronounced /kyria lae son/. Notice all of these are pronounced in GB different than Aryan's or modern pronunciation rules dictate.
----------------------------------- [ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164575#msg164575 date=1368539483] There was nothing academic that Aryan did. Would you please read his book (either in Arabic or English)
Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated.
----------------------------------- [ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599] I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet. The whole discussion was based on OB being "more authentic", or "better" or "right". By extension, the argument turned into defining what is "invented".
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
Again you are ignoring my examples of Esperanto and pidgin languages. I have provided the evidence you say I am not able to show.
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet is utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
That's quite an anti-intellectual statement to make. Whether or not you agree with my argument, I have shown academic research from Worrell and others to support my argument. Now you want to say proving a point with academia is pointless. This after Mina already stated that "Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters." Well if you don't want to start with the fundamentally and universally accepted importance of academia, then we are definitely wasting our time here. If you have something to say with actual fact and proof, I'll continue. But obviously, you are ignoring my examples and ignoring the direction the administrator strongly suggests.
Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated.
I take it that you do not know enough Arabic to understand the manuscript? Yet you went on to prove that Standard Arabic sound values have changed from its predecessor Classical Arabic.
----------------------------------- [ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599] I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet. The whole discussion was based on OB being "more authentic", or "better" or "right". By extension, the argument turned into defining what is "invented".
Exactly. Invention is introduction of a new system to an existing one and preferring the new one over the old one.
This is what Aryan did. He introduced the Greek sounds to the existing Coptic Alphabet and preferring those sounds over the existing ones.
You need to read the resources I cited above, the academical sources you like, to come to that conclusion.
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
Again you are ignoring my examples of Esperanto and pidgin languages. I have provided the evidence you say I am not able to show.
What does Esperanto have to do with what Aryan did? Was it an existing language where its alphabet was modernized by someone like Aryan? Did it have different dialects with only one that survived? Did its surviving dialect borrowed other sounds from Greek?
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet is utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
That's quite an anti-intellectual statement to make.
So are you saying that the French pronounce their alphabet like English and the Americans do the same? Either you have not heard French or English before or you are philosophizing the argument.
Ok just to be specific just for you.
Let's take the French word "parlez". Under the French rule of pronunciation, they do not pronounce the "z" and they pronounce the "r" as "gh". The English speaker will pronounce the "r" and the "z". What say you within this context? While you are at it, explain what is anti-intellectual about that?
Within this context, Aryan ignored this framework that each language has its rules of pronunciation. In the process, he borrowed the Greek sound values to the Coptic and ignored the Coptic ones.
The result is the GB cookbook of pronouncing Coptic like Greek.
Dear Remenkimi, Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you. As I struggle to quote; your comments are in bold, and my replies follow after:
You said: "According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/" I stand corrected. You are right, but in fact I will take this as to serve my argument; you see, what do you or the linguists say about "archenemy"? The 'ch' sound is pronounced as /tsh/ as is also the case in "archery". Does that mean that when an 'e' follows 'arch' the 'ch' is pronounced as /tsh/? No; what about "archetypal"? "archegonium"? So as I and imikhail have stated numerous times, you learn pronunciation of words per se, not set fixed (not rigid for you) rules.
You said: "If one listens to Coptic spoken in Egypt vs. Coptic spoken in America, you will hear different vowel sounds and different phonology in certain words like carx, doxaci, words that end with three consonants likecwtpf, and two different phonological consonants next to each other like `scaji and of course /a/ for words with e, like Kyrie eleyson often pronounced /kyria lae son/. Notice all of these are pronounced in GB different than Aryan's or modern pronunciation rules dictate. " So please correct me if I am wrong, because I may have deciphered your argument way out of context (although I am not sure I did personally speaking). Are you telling me SERIOUSLY that this constitutes an evolution of GB? In less than 150 years it has evolved to such an extent? First of all, I haven't heard about such a speedy evolution of a language on that big a scale. Secondly, I am at a loss when you say that people of one region pronounce it so, and people of another region pronounce it as so. That is not evolution to me. When English is pronounced differently in different regions it isn't called an evolution; there are different types of English; i.e. American, Australian, British, South African, etc. Interestingly, this also serves my point: so you can see how the influence of English, and foreign languages in general affected the so-called rules of GB that it is now pronounced differently in the diaspora to Egypt (the origin)! That however is not the case with colloquial Arabic (Egyptian Arabic). If anything the American-born Egyptian offspring pronounce what you may describe as a "broken Egyptian Arabic accent", but not the American Egyptian Arabic, because there is no such a thing!
You said: "Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated. " Another mistake on my part. I may have read a translation of some sections of his book to have wrongly believed it was translated, but I couldn't find it on my hard disk or online. I will translate relevant parts afterwards for the sake of people who don't read Arabic.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164604#msg164604 date=1368608319] Dear Remenkimi, Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you. Ophadecee, I have went out of my way to find references for nearly every aspect of my defense for GB. If there is something in particular that I have said without evidence, let me know and I will reevaluate it. But I am not clutching at straws. My defense of GB is simple and it boils down to this. GB is no more or less authentic, better or accurate than OB. Both GB and OB exhibit sociolinguistic phenomena and therefore neither should be considered an invention. GB is a constructed phonology based on Koine Greek and Coptic with the only reasonable claim to practiced Coptic while OB is a theoretical phonology based on manuscript evidence only and not practice.
That's it.
In reality is seems that the OB arguments have gone back and forth trying to show that only GB is an invention and not OB. First it was OB is natural and I have tried to show it has linguistic characteristics not found in other natural languages. But that didn't suffice and a slew of exceptions for OB came in response while for some reason GB cannot have exceptions. I have tried to show that if exceptions in GB are not allowed, there would be no differences in GB pronunciations in different parts of the globe. But that didn't suffice either. Then the OB argument went on challenging me to show any example where pronunciation was borrowed. I showed the adoption of Classical Arabic to MSA. But that didn't suffice because apparently only persons completely fluent in Arabic can make that argument (another ad hominem response). Then the OB argument moved to show any example that copied exactly what Aryan did to Coptic. I have stated I will look for one. In response, I was told that I must find an exact 100% identical copy of what happened with GB, even though similar reconstructions that do not primarily deal with phonological reconstructions have occurred. Who really is clutching at straws?
You said: "According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/" I stand corrected. You are right, but in fact I will take this as to serve my argument; you see, what do you or the linguists say about "archenemy"? The 'ch' sound is pronounced as /tsh/ as is also the case in "archery". Does that mean that when an 'e' follows 'arch' the 'ch' is pronounced as /tsh/? No; what about "archetypal"? "archegonium"? So as I and imikhail have stated numerous times, you learn pronunciation of words per se, not set fixed (not rigid for you) rules. There is a difference between language education and linguistic theory, linguistic science and phonology. I didn't say words with "arch" are never pronounced /a:tch/. I simply stated archangel is not pronounced /a:tch/. The fact that English has a fixed (or semi-fixed) rule in phonological theory that is not practiced doesn't mean English is not a fair example to compare with GB. The fact that words in English are learned by practice and not theory doesn't change the fact that linguistic theory is internalized (through psycholinguistics) even if we don't know it is internalized and simply learn words by practice. This is a basic summary of Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar. Underneath in the subconscious, linguistic rules exist, whether we are born with them or they are learned. Chomsky believed we are born with them. You know when something is linguistically "wrong" because it just feels wrong. There are actually modern linguistic models used to explain how language contact phenomena does and doesn't behave and things that behave adversely are modified or corrected.
If GB was such an artificial invention, all illegal phonemes would have been rejected. Yet at a subconscious linguistic level, GB was not found foreign or foreign aspects were reconciled at that subconscious level by theoretical grammarian methods. Sure there were political and social reasons that endorsed GB too. But linguistically, if GB is so bad, it would not have survived.
Your examples of an American born Egyptian speaking with a "broken Egyptian Arabic accent" only illustrates that subconsciously something is wrong that classifies it as "broken". We may be accustomed to the illegal phonemes but they will never become part of Arabic. On the other hand, if the illegal phonemes can be reconciled to Egyptian colloquial Arabic at that subconscious level, then in theory it would become a dialect of Arabic and an American Egyptian Arabic dialect theoretically can be conceptualized, as it has occurred with the numerous dialects of English.
This article shows 41 constructed languages from the 1827-2012. Many are still used today. Some have already rephonemized or phonologically revised their sound inventory. As far as I can tell, some were created to simplify English or Latin. Some were created to use theoretical linguistics or pure logic solely devoid of cultural influences. Most deal with all aspects of language and grammar. None seem to be identical to GB's situation but some have similarities.
Thank you for offering to translate some of Aryan's writings.
In the end, we are all passionate about Coptic. We disagree on many points but I want to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to articulate their passion in a respectable form as the administrators allow. Whether we all agree or not, we all learn and we all need to grow. And in all things, including language, God is glorified forever.
Ekhrestos anesty dear remenkimi, some of the things you say now do really contradict what you said before, and sometimes you mention two contradictory statements in the same post. I will offer my personal effort in translating Erian later but I need time. I'll elaborate later too, but please don't consider everything ad hominem when you clearly lack knowledge of Arabic and the history of Egypt. Oujai
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164612#msg164612 date=1368659713] [quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164604#msg164604 date=1368608319] Dear Remenkimi, Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you. Ophadecee, I have went out of my way to find references for nearly every aspect of my defense for GB. If there is something in particular that I have said without evidence, let me know and I will reevaluate it. But I am not clutching at straws. My defense of GB is simple and it boils down to this. GB is no more or less authentic, better or accurate than OB.
We need to agree on what constitutes authenticity.
To you authenticity includes any person who comes along and model a certain set of alphabet to match another alphabet provided this person has some form of authority. So, to you it is ok if someone comes along and said let's pronounce Coptic like English, French, Russian so long this person has authority.
This is exactly what Aryan did. He modeled the Coptic alphabet after the Greek. You are ok with it and you say it is authentic because that person had authority.
This definition of authenticity exists only with you but does not exists anywhere else.
If you have read the many sources I cited you on this thread and others, you would have a broader definition of what authenticity is with regards to Coptic phonology.
Both GB and OB exhibit sociolinguistic phenomena and therefore neither should be considered an invention.
Again we need to agree on the definition of sociolingustic
One of your references that you used "Wikipedia" defines Sociolinguistics as such "the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society."
How does GB fit into this definition. GB was not in existent prior to 1857, so there were no affect of society to its formation. Its formation came about because Aryan mistakenly thought that the Coptic alphabet was Greek, so Coptic should be pronounced as Greek.
The result of GB was it affected society not that society affected the language.
This is why I call GB an invention as it is the effort of one person, rather than a language natural evolution.
GB is a constructed phonology based on Koine Greek and Coptic with the only reasonable claim to practiced Coptic
How is GB constructed on Coptic? If Coptic was in practice, why was there a need to construct it? And why after Greek?
The answer is the misconception, of Aryan Moftah, that so long the Coptic alphabet utilizes the Greek alphabet, then Coptic must be pronounced like Greek.
This misconception can lead us to pronouncing Coptic like English, Russian, Persian if Copts utilize any of these languages' alphabets. This is absurd!
while OB is a theoretical phonology based on manuscript evidence only and not practice.
It is evident you have not read any of the sources I cited on this thread and the ones I gave you on similar threads. There is evidence that people, during the invention of GB, were speaking Coptic utilizing the OB dialect.
In reality is seems that the OB arguments have gone back and forth trying to show that only GB is an invention and not OB. First it was OB is natural and I have tried to show it has linguistic characteristics not found in other natural languages.
I am sorry I have not seen that evidence. You presented some stuff and claimed it to be OB. You lack knowledge of OB and thus presented excerpts from books without sufficient knowledge of what you are presenting.
In the effort to prove your point, you were glad to have found something that defends your position and cited it out of context.
I showed the adoption of Classical Arabic to MSA. But that didn't suffice because apparently only persons completely fluent in Arabic can make that argument (another ad hominem response).
Repeatedly, I have asked you to cite a link or post an image of your posting with the Arabic letters so that I can follow your argument. Yet, you ignored my request. In essence, you think you have shown evidence but in reality you have not.
Then the OB argument moved to show any example that copied exactly what Aryan did to Coptic. I have stated I will look for one. In response, I was told that I must find an exact 100% identical copy of what happened with GB, even though similar reconstructions that do not primarily deal with phonological reconstructions have occurred. Who really is clutching at straws?
Either you misunderstood or I have not communicated correctly. Let me try another attempt
The request is to show any language that is in use today that underwent similar inventions like GB where their alphabet sound values was changed just because it utilizes the same alphabet of another language.
The rationale goes like this: Aryan produced a cookbook of pronouncing Coptic which nowadays is called GB. His cookbook uses the argument that since Coptic letters are Greek then Coptic alphabet should utilize the Greek sounds.
If you still find the request absurd and clutching to straws, then there is no point of debate.
I already know that Aryan's methodology is absurd and if you cannot find any similar cookbook of an existing language, then at least we do agree on something.
Comments
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164508#msg164508 date=1368117607]
No, t isn't always pronounced as /d/; sometimes /t/ too. Pretty much like 'c' in English. Note words like batoc, and ,rictoc.
According to Worrell, in his article Popular Traditions of the Coptic Language p. 9, paragraph 26. "The letter t (called dau) and pronounced d/ḍ as it should be, and never t, except when final, e.g. šəmd somt." In another article he says, Greek words can take the /t/ sound. Since ,rictoc and batoc are Greek, it makes sense.
The only other word Worrell describes with both Coptic letters is pauyt. In this example, Worrell believes the OB way to pronounce is wrong (p. 7, Chapter 15). He notices that the Sahidic is pronounced Bāwāṭ which sounds like "baywait". He notices that the two Copts he is documenting OB (Bistauros and Girgis who come from different parts of Egypt), both say b-awīd. Worrell hypothesizes that it should be b-awād (or baWADE). So now we have conflicting sources on how the Coptic letter y is pronounced in qualitative verbs and also how t is pronounced. What I believe Worrell is saying is Bāwāṭ seems to be the most logical pronunciation since the t is in the final position however because it is a qualitative verb, b-awād is the "correct" pronunciation even though he hears everyone say b-awīd.
Also, according to Worrell on p. 10 chapter 31, the b is sometimes w, sometimes v, sometimes β and sometimes b. If b is in the final position of the word or the syllable, it is always b as in nyb which is pronounced nāb (not neeb). Worrell disagrees with other linguists that b is always w. He thinks the w pronunciation is an Arabic influence while β (bilabial fricative) is the original pronunciation of the letter b.
By Worrell's description - Worrell is the foremost authority on OB - batoc should be pronounced βa-təs (I think). I think Worrell would accept Wa-tos because it is socially acceptable but in theory it would be βa-təs which would be closer to Vatos than Watos.
There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
Every language has specific rules. If not, there would be no need for linguists. What you are talking about is internalization of grammar vs. formal linguistic development. OB has specific phonological rules. Copts have simply internalized them without formal education just like in English (to a certain extent). If there were methodological analyses of these rules - as Worrell and others have begun - one will observe how Copts do or don't follow specific phonological rules.
The mere fact that there is a rule in OB that says a letter is pronounced one way in Greek loan words and another way in Coptic words means someone at some point "created" a rule. It was naturally internalized but it was created. If it were not created, or if it was simply natural to pronounce a letter based on language of origin, then all languages with loan words would have the same rule. But most languages do not. Therefore, one cannot ignore the empirical evidence that phonological rules were "invented" in OB. A rule, I must point out, is nearly identical in GB (just a different letter).
And I still must reiterate that I do not believe in the concept of inventions, creations or artificial languages. I am simply conceding to your definitions to show that there is fault in your conclusion that OB is not "invented" in any shape or form.
It will be hard to find comparable rules between Classical Arabic/MSA and OB/GB because the difference in GB/OB is phonological only. But the principle can be extended to vocabulary, grammar, and linguistic usage. Yes there are differences. I will have to find references. I will say that the same phenomena is found in Ancient Greek also. Technically we have no idea what Ancient Greek sounded like. Current practice is based on theories from the 19th century. Ramez may have more insight to this. What was actually practiced linguistically is often different than theoretical morphosyntax structure of a language. Modern Standard Arabic has many rules on which diactric is used and when. The rules are numerous. From what I understand, Classical Arabic had different rules that may or may not be found in MSA, just like Ancient Greek.
The point I was making is that at some point someone "standardized" Arabic. This standard form may or may not be different from Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic or pre-Islamic Arabic. The whole point of standardizing something is to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities. This would be classified as an "invention" by your standards. But nonetheless, MSA is adopted, at least in the education system, as the only form of Arabic taught formally. Why is it ok to learn the "invented" MSA, while it is not ok to learn GB?
so what do linguists say about: appreciation, bow, desert, sexual, negotiation, colonel, lieutenant, Worcester? What are the rules for such words?
oujai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164537#msg164537 date=1368302927]
There are no specific rules as Aryan invented. There are general ones and exception just like any other language. However, GB is not a language it is an invention and you are thinking that OB follow the same inventive rules as GB. It does not.
Every language has specific rules. If not, there would be no need for linguists. What you are talking about is internalization of grammar vs. formal linguistic development. OB has specific phonological rules. Copts have simply internalized them without formal education just like in English (to a certain extent). If there were methodological analyses of these rules - as Worrell and others have begun - one will observe how Copts do or don't follow specific phonological rules.
The mere fact that there is a rule in OB that says a letter is pronounced one way in Greek loan words and another way in Coptic words means someone at some point "created" a rule. It was naturally internalized but it was created. If it were not created, or if it was simply natural to pronounce a letter based on language of origin, then all languages with loan words would have the same rule. But most languages do not. Therefore, one cannot ignore the empirical evidence that phonological rules were "invented" in OB. A rule, I must point out, is nearly identical in GB (just a different letter).
And I still must reiterate that I do not believe in the concept of inventions, creations or artificial languages. I am simply conceding to your definitions to show that there is fault in your conclusion that OB is not "invented" in any shape or form.
You know exactly what I meant but you keep twisting the argument
Here are examples from the English language:
the letter "s" can be pronounced either s as in "sad" or z as in "as" and "is"
The letter "h" can be pronounced as h as in "here" or a as in "heir"
The list goes on.
When you compare this with GB, this frame of having different values for the same letter does not exist. Why? Because it is an invention not a language.
This whole argument about rules started by you discrediting OB because it has different sound values for the same letters.
Again, Aryan's invention put specific sound values for each letter with no room of wavering. Thus destroying the Bohairic dialect and misguiding people in believing that GB is "modernizing" the Coptic language.
I am still waiting for those differences in the sound values between classical and standard Arabic.
Till you show those differences, I will make the assertion that there is no such a thing as having a language change its sound values as part of its natural progression.
Just to be clear .. this argument about having different sounds between Classical and Standard Arabic is to prove that the invention of Aryan's GB is ok as he changed the authentic sounds of OB.
The burden is on you to show these differences ...
Just to remind you, we are talking about inventing new sounds for an existing language. You keep using Standard/Classical Arabic to to prove that Aryan's mutilation of the Coptic language, through his inventing new sounds and destroying others for the alphabet, was ok.
Any ways, I am waiting for you to prove your point using the Classical/Standard Arabic example you raised.
imikhail, please put all of your responses in ONE POST....
When discussing different points, it is easier for me and the readers to follow the arguments.
some of the readers gave up following the arguments on page 2!
8)
here, i'll simplify it for folks like me:
1. there are lots of types of coptic.
2. they are all difficult to understand.
3. most of the 'coptic' you sing in church is greek anyway, so don't stress about it too much.
4. if you are very clever / intend to be a teacher of coptic hymns; you should make more effort to understand this thread! (i am not included here...)
;)
LOL!
some of the readers gave up following the arguments on page 2!
8)
here, i'll simplify it for folks like me:
1. there are lots of types of coptic.
2. they are all difficult to understand.
3. most of the 'coptic' you sing in church is greek anyway, so don't stress about it too much.
4. if you are very clever / intend to be a teacher of coptic hymns; you should make more effort to understand this thread! (i am not included here...)
;)
Thanks mabsoota for lightening up the discussion. I agree with the above except number 3.
Your comments are in italics
1. When you compare this with GB, this frame of having different values for the same letter does not exist. Why? Because it is an invention not a language....This whole argument about rules started by you discrediting OB because it has different sound values for the same letters...Again, Aryan's invention put specific sound values for each letter with no room of wavering. Thus destroying the Bohairic dialect and misguiding people in believing that GB is "modernizing" the Coptic language.
My response.
GB does have different values for the same letter. The Coptic letter , is pronounced /sh/ for Greek words, /kh/ for Coptic words with hard vowels and /k/ for Coptic words with soft vowels. Whether or not modern Copts follow the rule is a different issue. But one cannot say GB does not have multiple phonemic values for specific orthographies/letters. Whether you believe Aryan's intentions were evil or not, doesn't change the fact that OB also has specific phonemic values that change depending on language of origin (Greek vs Coptic). You can attack Aryan. You can attack GB. But you still have not proven that OB is free from "inventions".
2. Just to remind you, we are talking about inventing new sounds for an existing language. You keep using Standard/Classical Arabic to to prove that Aryan's mutilation of the Coptic language, through his inventing new sounds and destroying others for the alphabet, was ok...Any ways, I am waiting for you to prove your point using the Classical/Standard Arabic example you raised.
My response
For specific phonological changes between Classical Arabic and modern dialects, I'll refer you to this comment found at Wikipedia. It's very technical and confusing. But it illustrates the specific changes in phonology between Classical Arabic and modern dialects:
"There are a number of phonetic changes between Classical Arabic and modern Arabic dialects. These include:
The palatals /ɕ/, /ɟ/ (⟨ش⟩, ⟨ج⟩) shifted. /ɕ/ became postalveolar [ʃ], and /ɟ/ became postalveolar [dʒ], [ʒ], or as it was [ɡʲ] or [ɟ], or velar [ɡ]. The uvular fricatives /χˠ/, /ʁˠ/ (⟨خ⟩, ⟨غ⟩) became velar or post-velar (x), [ɣ] or left as they are but without velarization [χ], [ʁ]. /ɮˤ/ ⟨ض⟩ became /dˤ/ (Certain Tajweed traditions actually preserve the original value of this sound synchronically.)"
Regarding standardization, the author continues, "The language of Classical Arabic is essentially that of the so-called poetic koine of the pre-Islamic poets, a standardized prestige dialect based on conservative Bedouin dialects of the eastern Arabian peninsula. A similar but slightly different koine had been adopted in Mecca, in a form adapted somewhat to the phonology of the spoken Meccan dialect of the time, and it was in this form that the Quran was given. The Quran was later rephonemicized into the standard poetic koine."
Basically, the Quran itself was standardized into a "new" pronunciation scheme. As I said before, any attempt to standardize something is in someway what you call an "invention" but I describe simply as an abrupt change.
The author continues to give examples of how Modern Standard Arabic has changed from Classical or Quranic Arabic. He says, "When rephonemicized into the standard poetic koine, the occurrences of yāʾ meant to be pronounced as /j/ or /aː/. Only recently, two dots was created to be written under the final yāʾ in order to distinguish it from the pronunciation of /aː/. This invention was not adopted by all Arabic speaking nations, as for example, Egypt and Sudan never add two dots under the final yāʾ in handwriting and print, even in printed Quran. Yāʾ for /aː/ was named alif maqṣūra "limited alif" or alif layyina "flexible alif". This is why, final /aː/ can be written either with a normal alif or alif maqṣūra."
Notice how he actually used the word invention to explain why the final ya can be written two ways. This is something not found in Classical Arabic.
Now I know how much you hate my quoting of Wikipedia. I will refer you to Clive Holes' book "Modern Arabic". Under his chapter on Phonology, he describes the phonology of MSA and contemporary dialects of Arabic. He begins with a very interesting concept.
"The problem with describing the phonology of MSA is that MSA is not natively spoken by any group of Arabs, so no contemporary region or social grouping can reasonably claim that its habits of performance represents a model of what is "correct". If this is what he says about MSA, how much more does this apply to OB!! He continues, "In the native grammatical tradition, fasa:ha (=purity and by extension "correctness") whether in phonology or any other aspect of the language, ultimately derives from a historical precedent: that is CLA (Classical Linguistic Arabic) as elaborated by grammarians. Although we have a clear picture of what Arabic morphology, syntax, and vocabulary were like from an early period from the copious textual material that survives, we have little or no information on many aspects of how it was pronounced." (page 56).
Basically, the author is saying we have no real evidence of how Classical Arabic was pronounced. MSA relies on theoretical grammarian interpretation of how Classical Arabic was pronounced. This theoretical interpretation is also an "invention" and since MSA is derived from Classical Arabic, MSA is a modified invention. Since there is no performance of Classical Arabic or MSA but only contemporary dialects, no one can say what is "correct". We basically have theoretical pronunciation of Classical Arabic which is different from MSA which is different from contemporary dialects.
3. Till you show those differences, I will make the assertion that there is no such a thing as having a language change its sound values as part of its natural progression.
My response
Phonological change is a natural progression. I have shown that Classical Arabic to MSA to contemporary Arabic dialects have changed. Let's look at English. This article describing the Phonological History of English says that each time period is relatively short (roughly 200 years or less) due to "the extensive population movements occurring during the early AD period, which resulted in rapid dialect fragmentation". There is a detailed table on the phonological difference that is quite complex. But a few examples should show the change of sound values:
1. Old English "weg" = "way". Both pronounced /wei/. Obviously, the g letter when combined with e in OE gave a diphthong value. Hypothetically, in OE "leg" would be pronounced "lay" but in modern English, it would be pronounced "leg"
2. OE yfel = "evil". Both the y and f changed phonemic values.
The article also discuss changes in British English since 1900 AD. Phonological change is natural, not artificial.
Additionally, you have ignored my examples of Esperanto, Ancient Greek, pidgin and creole languages and so on. Whether a language takes 2 years to change, 20 years, 200 years or 2000 years, it doesn't matter. All languages change phonemic values in various degrees. Sometimes we have no idea what the language sounded like, like ancient Greek and Classical Arabic and we rely on theoretical linguistics. Sometimes we can describe very small changes in languages theoretically but not practically because they are not practiced, like MSA, Latin and OB. And sometimes we can describe very small changes in practiced languages like GB, English, and European Romance languages.
You want to call it an invention or a mutilation, that's your choice. Sociolinguistically, there is no such thing as "correct", "better", "invention" or "mutilation".
Ophadecee,
I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. Of course, when a loan word is imported into English, it takes on English phonology which will differ from it's original language. What I was trying to show is that any language that has a specific rule where a phonemic value is dictated by the original language is in some degree artificial. In English, there is no rule that says "every Greek loan word with the "ch" letters is pronounced as "tsh" while every Latin loan word with the "ch" letters is pronounced "k". If such a rule were a natural function of "natural" languages, then all "natural" languages would have that rule. However, in English many Greek loan words are pronounced with both phonemic values - for example, "archdeacon" /artch deacon/ and "archangel" /arkuh angel/. Both are Greek loan words but two different phonemes are used. This is not the case in OB at least in regard to the Coptic letter T and B.
If I misunderstood your comments, let me know.
I will respond to your comments. But if you continue to attack me saying I am twisting words or any sort of ad hominem attacks, I will simply ignore your posts and the discussion will be over.
I will leave that to your discresion Thanks for your advice and I appreciate your concern. The admin will deal with me according to his/her wish.
I prefer you focus on the discussion Again these rules are inventions because it does specify how to say each word depending on the origin of the word. This is not the case in any other language and certainly these rules are not in OB.
Just to narrow the discussion and avoid confusion. To me what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention.
I understand that you try to avoid this issue and would like to expand the idea of invention. But I hope my point is clear: to have someone borrow sounds from another language to an alphabet is an invention to me.
Aryan rationale was this:
Coptic alphabet utilizes Greek alphabet, therefore Coptic alphabet must be pronounced like Greek.
This is why GB is an invention.
Again you may have different reasons to call other languages have inventions. However, I want to focus only on this aspect of applying sound values of one language into another simply because both languages utilize the same alphabet.
Hope this will make the discussion more focused.
Here is a quote I read on another forum written by you a while back ..
"Old Bohairic is the more authentic Coptic. We don't need to follow Greek anymore, especially since we know the driving force was political and erroneous. Rather we should try to find the most authentic Coptic pronunciation and modernize the use of Coptic that way. You can't modernize Coptic without knowing the ciricullum first and that means we have to agree on a pronunciation system also. Since GB is not Coptic, we should agree on OB."
I am curious as to why did you change your position?
Have no way of deciphering what you presented. You may want to present it again as an image or a link. The characters are not clear at all.
I will consider this point not resolved and will not rebuttal.
Also, please show how the change in the Classical Arabic (CA) / Standard Arabic (SA) sounds fit in what Aryan did.
Let me elaborate, we know that Aryan borrowed the rules of pronouncing Coptic from the Greek. Did SA change in sounds, as you suggest, do the same? Whoever changed the Arabic sounds, if any, borrowed these changes from another language?
The point we are discussing here is whether Aryan's approach of applying the Greek rules of saying the Coptic alphabet fit a normal progression of a language? And whether the idea that just because an alphabet is the same as another alphabet, then it is ok to apply the rules of that language (in our case Greek) to the affected alphabet (Coptic)?
I would really appreciate if you can show whether what Aryan did with the Coptic alphabet had happened in Arabic or English, the languages, you chose to prove your point.
Please, do not show mere words but the whole alphabet as Aryan did. He basically went through the Coptic alphabet and letter by letter he changed the sounds. This is the invention I am discussing.
So, with CA and SA, English, or any other language you want to use, show us whether the alphabet changed just because they mirror the alphabet of another language.
Instead of copying and pasting a book. It would be much easier for you and me to just show a link with brief explanation as to the point you are trying to prove.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
I think we need to stop here simply because i don't think will get to a valid/respectful/academic argument or even response here.
There was nothing academic that Aryan did. Would you please read his book (either in Arabic or English) and you would find that Remenkimi is actually defending something completely flawed in his scientific style! Seriously, the topic is much simpler than what Remenkimi is busying himself with.... please read Aryan's book in Arabic if you can.
Oujai qen `P[C
imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
However, Reminkimi's responses were trying to justify this by expanding natural changes in other languages. He is not able to show from history another example like Aryan's.
We cannot simply pronounce French like English or vice versa just because the same alphabet is utilized in both languages. You do not need to be in academia or a scholar or a linguist to understand this simple fact.
I am not sure where I came up with the idea of Greek loan words in this discussion! I cannot see anything I wrote relating to that. Also, please note that archangel is something pronounced /a:keinjel/ and sometimes /a:tsheinjel/ by people of the same language. That is exactly the case with OB, but unfortunately not the case with GB (with rigid rules that were invented to suit the flawed invention).
Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164574#msg164574 date=1368538530]
imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I wouldn't call it an invention. but we are not discussing what i or you may call it. we are not creating our own php thesis here just for you to be able to call it "an invention" hmmm. i won't lock the post. let people argue showing their beliefs and opinions...they can only help or hurt their stands.
Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599]
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=7582.msg164574#msg164574 date=1368538530]
imikhail, your response to remnkimi's are just absurd. you are stuck and attached to the "idea" that what Aryan did is an "invention". You have to get out of that mindset and follow up with an academic response. I am not a person in academia and I was able to understand some of his arguments.
If what Aryan did is not an invention? What would you call it?
I wouldn't call it an invention. but we are not discussing what i or you may call it. we are not creating our own php thesis here just for you to be able to call it "an invention"
Then you need to read others who wrote about this .. Read the following:
Al-Adillah al-Rabtiyah fi Sihhat Alfaz al-Lughah al-Qibtiyah
Al Asas Al Matine fi dabt notk loghat al masriyin
Torath Al Adab Al Qebti - by Fr Shenouda Maher and Dr Youhanna Nessim (Pages 19-39)
Pronounciation, by Bashandy
These you can found here
http://www.remenkimi.com/ under pronunciation tab
You can also read Fr. Shenouda Maher's thesis presented to Oxford University in 1973. This is found here
http://copticsounds.wordpress.com/tag/fr-shenouda-maher-ishak/
After reading these resources please report back what would you call Aryan's methodology of changing the Coptic alphabet.
hmmm. i won't lock the post. let people argue showing their beliefs and opinions...they can only help or hurt their stands.
Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters.
Very good. Then follow up on the resources above and then share your thoughts.
Again these rules are inventions because it does specify how to say each word depending on the origin of the word. This is not the case in any other language and certainly these rules are not in OB.
Refer back to Reply #57. I have showed how Worrell, who wholeheartedly endorses OB, has shown that in Greek loan words the Coptic letter t is pronounced t, not d. In non-loan Coptic words it is always pronounced d unless it is in the final position and it is pronounced t, not d. So OB certainly does have rules that dictate pronunciation based on the origin of the word and its location in the word. This is an over-simplified conclusion. Let me ask you this. If it were reverse, if someone applied Coptic sounds to the Greek alphabet, would it be called an invention? Did not the late Egyptians apply Demotic phonology to Greek letters when they borrowed the Greek alphabet and added 7 sounds that were "not found in Greek"? How about Swahili, which originally used Arabic letters and now uses Roman script? They applied Sawhili sounds to Roman/Latin/English alphabet. You call it an invention. I call it typical sociolinguistics. I understand what you are saying. I am developing a theory to show what Aryan did is found in linguistics, even though Aryan did not know it. I still need to go through a lot of research. I will reiterate that in sociolinguistics, there is no such thing as an invention. But I will address this particular point later. Let's just agree to disagree for now. I already answered this. I don't believe there is anything called authentic. I have found nearly all languages are motivated by politics. My definition of erroneous is no longer prescriptive, emphasizing what I believe is correct. Rather is more descriptive showing where certain features diverge from basic principles. I hope we can move on from what I wrote 10 years ago, since I have given substantial evidence on my current position. The characters are clear. It's not English or Arabic, it is IPA. I don't even know what most of these characters mean. All I wanted to show was that there are specific phonetic changes between Classical Arabic, MSA and Modern Arabic. You asked for specific examples, I gave it. It's not really important what these differences are, rather that such differences actually exist. I did in Replies #57,58,62,63 and 73. I don't think I have to keep repeating the same thing. If Aryan's GB is an invention to make sounds fit to a different language, then so is MSA which borrows sounds from CA which is completely theoretical to begin with and CA itself was rephenomized. The net result: all are common linguistic phenomena. Since no one can legitimately claim they own the "correct" SA pronunciation, what is practiced in Arabic television and journalism, is a phonological system that is generally believed to be how SA should be pronounced. This hypothetical system is based on what most Arabs believe proper or correct Arabic is, which in the mind of Middle Easterner is fas:a (foushah) which is based on what they learned hearing the Quran because they associated Quranic Arabic as the only correct Arabic. Therefore, linguistically MSA has a sound inventory modified from Classical Arabic. This is further exemplified when one compares MSA to modern Arabic dialects. This was in the book I referenced before. So actual references from linguists are not good enough? You want me to make something up to show that GB was not made up? Does that not seem a little too ironic? I'll let the references speak for themselves. I've tried to present them in a meaningful matter. How you value the references and the presentation I attempted is a personal matter. I'm not going to go backwards and give random claims that amount to "I said so" just because it is easier.
Oujai qen `P[C
I never meant to say what Aryan did is the same as what Demotic Egyptians did. I am not saying the Demotic Egyptians changed the Egyptian pronunciation system to match Greek. Rather I am saying that Demotic Egyptians changed the Greek system - specifically the orthographic inventory or alphabet - to match the Egyptian phonological inventory. No one considers this move an invention. Abrupt linguistic changes in general, whether it is borrowing an alphabet or changing the phonology, are not inventions. If one consider changing the phonology as invention, then one must consider the Copts borrowing the Greek alphabet as an invention. That is all I was saying.
Don't take my comments out of context. imikhail specifically said "what Aryan did as to apply the Greek sounds to the Coptic alphabet is what I call invention". Well what the Demotic Egyptians was apply Coptic sounds to the Greek alphabet. And I don't consider this an invention.
I never meant to say what Aryan did is the same as what Demotic Egyptians did. I am not saying the Demotic Egyptians changed the Egyptian pronunciation system to match Greek. Rather I am saying that Demotic Egyptians changed the Greek system - specifically the orthographic inventory or alphabet - to match the Egyptian phonological inventory. No one considers this move an invention. Abrupt linguistic changes in general, whether it is borrowing an alphabet or changing the phonology, are not inventions. If one consider changing the phonology as invention, then one must consider the Copts borrowing the Greek alphabet as an invention. That is all I was saying.
No No No. You got it backward my friend.
The Egyptians, when they borrowed the Greek alphabet did not change how the Greek pronounce their letters. They simply took the letters and gave them the Egyptian values.
Aryan, in the 19th century, tried to delete the Egyptian sounds and to purely apply the Greek values ... this is the invention.
Again, Egyptian borrowed the alphabet with no affect on the Greek language.
Aryan borrowed the Greek sounds and affected the Coptic language.
When the Turkish borrowed the Latin letters, they did not affect any language except theirs through writing their language by utilizing the Latin letters.
Hope you see the damaging process Aryan did to our beautiful language.
As for your Arabic example, I am sorry I cannot see it. You say the letters are clear, but all I see are just squares. So, I will not respond to your Arabic argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=7582.msg164581#msg164581 date=1368551498]
Instead of copying and pasting a book. It would be much easier for you and me to just show a link with brief explanation as to the point you are trying to prove.
So actual references from linguists are not good enough? You want me to make something up to show that GB was not made up? Does that not seem a little too ironic? I'll let the references speak for themselves. I've tried to present them in a meaningful matter. How you value the references and the presentation I attempted is a personal matter. I'm not going to go backwards and give random claims that amount to "I said so" just because it is easier.
You took my suggestion too way out of context. Earlier in my reply I said I could not see the letters you presented so you lost your argument and I cannot reply to you.
Therefore, I suggested that you present the link or present an image of what you want to post so you won't be wasting your time in posting something I cannot read.
Dear Remenkimi,
I am not sure where I came up with the idea of Greek loan words in this discussion! I cannot see anything I wrote relating to that. Also, please note that archangel is something pronounced /a:keinjel/ and sometimes /a:tsheinjel/ by people of the same language. That is exactly the case with OB, but unfortunately not the case with GB (with rigid rules that were invented to suit the flawed invention).
Oujai qen `P[C
According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/. Forum after forum, (for example this site) it is agreed that only /a:keinjel/. Only immigrants pronounce it as /a:tsheinjel/ (as far as I can tell). What you have actually showed is that English does have specific grammar but they are (dare I say it) "artificially" changed in practice due to foreign influences.
By the way, GB's rules are not so rigid. If one listens to Coptic spoken in Egypt vs. Coptic spoken in America, you will hear different vowel sounds and different phonology in certain words like carx, doxaci, words that end with three consonants likecwtpf, and two different phonological consonants next to each other like `scaji and of course /a/ for words with e, like Kyrie eleyson often pronounced /kyria lae son/. Notice all of these are pronounced in GB different than Aryan's or modern pronunciation rules dictate.
-----------------------------------
[ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164575#msg164575 date=1368539483]
There was nothing academic that Aryan did. Would you please read his book (either in Arabic or English)
Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated.
-----------------------------------
[ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599]
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
The whole discussion was based on OB being "more authentic", or "better" or "right". By extension, the argument turned into defining what is "invented". Again you are ignoring my examples of Esperanto and pidgin languages. I have provided the evidence you say I am not able to show. That's quite an anti-intellectual statement to make. Whether or not you agree with my argument, I have shown academic research from Worrell and others to support my argument. Now you want to say proving a point with academia is pointless. This after Mina already stated that "Academia sets the basis for facts to be used for other facts and theories to be proven. you can think logically all you want...it's what's in academic published books is what matters." Well if you don't want to start with the fundamentally and universally accepted importance of academia, then we are definitely wasting our time here. If you have something to say with actual fact and proof, I'll continue. But obviously, you are ignoring my examples and ignoring the direction the administrator strongly suggests.
Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated.
I take it that you do not know enough Arabic to understand the manuscript? Yet you went on to prove that Standard Arabic sound values have changed from its predecessor Classical Arabic.
-----------------------------------
[ Added by minatasgeel ]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164576#msg164576 date=1368539599]
I guess it is your choice to stop the discussion. I would have liked a counterargument because this whole discussion was centered on Aryan's task of borrowing Greek sound values to the Coptic alphabet.
The whole discussion was based on OB being "more authentic", or "better" or "right". By extension, the argument turned into defining what is "invented".
Exactly. Invention is introduction of a new system to an existing one and preferring the new one over the old one.
This is what Aryan did. He introduced the Greek sounds to the existing Coptic Alphabet and preferring those sounds over the existing ones.
You need to read the resources I cited above, the academical sources you like, to come to that conclusion. Again you are ignoring my examples of Esperanto and pidgin languages. I have provided the evidence you say I am not able to show.
What does Esperanto have to do with what Aryan did? Was it an existing language where its alphabet was modernized by someone like Aryan? Did it have different dialects with only one that survived? Did its surviving dialect borrowed other sounds from Greek?
That's quite an anti-intellectual statement to make.
So are you saying that the French pronounce their alphabet like English and the Americans do the same? Either you have not heard French or English before or you are philosophizing the argument.
Ok just to be specific just for you.
Let's take the French word "parlez". Under the French rule of pronunciation, they do not pronounce the "z" and they pronounce the "r" as "gh". The English speaker will pronounce the "r" and the "z". What say you within this context? While you are at it, explain what is anti-intellectual about that?
Within this context, Aryan ignored this framework that each language has its rules of pronunciation. In the process, he borrowed the Greek sound values to the Coptic and ignored the Coptic ones.
The result is the GB cookbook of pronouncing Coptic like Greek.
Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you. As I struggle to quote; your comments are in bold, and my replies follow after:
You said: "According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/"
I stand corrected. You are right, but in fact I will take this as to serve my argument; you see, what do you or the linguists say about "archenemy"? The 'ch' sound is pronounced as /tsh/ as is also the case in "archery". Does that mean that when an 'e' follows 'arch' the 'ch' is pronounced as /tsh/? No; what about "archetypal"? "archegonium"? So as I and imikhail have stated numerous times, you learn pronunciation of words per se, not set fixed (not rigid for you) rules.
You said: "If one listens to Coptic spoken in Egypt vs. Coptic spoken in America, you will hear different vowel sounds and different phonology in certain words like carx, doxaci, words that end with three consonants likecwtpf, and two different phonological consonants next to each other like `scaji and of course /a/ for words with e, like Kyrie eleyson often pronounced /kyria lae son/. Notice all of these are pronounced in GB different than Aryan's or modern pronunciation rules dictate. "
So please correct me if I am wrong, because I may have deciphered your argument way out of context (although I am not sure I did personally speaking). Are you telling me SERIOUSLY that this constitutes an evolution of GB? In less than 150 years it has evolved to such an extent? First of all, I haven't heard about such a speedy evolution of a language on that big a scale. Secondly, I am at a loss when you say that people of one region pronounce it so, and people of another region pronounce it as so. That is not evolution to me. When English is pronounced differently in different regions it isn't called an evolution; there are different types of English; i.e. American, Australian, British, South African, etc. Interestingly, this also serves my point: so you can see how the influence of English, and foreign languages in general affected the so-called rules of GB that it is now pronounced differently in the diaspora to Egypt (the origin)! That however is not the case with colloquial Arabic (Egyptian Arabic). If anything the American-born Egyptian offspring pronounce what you may describe as a "broken Egyptian Arabic accent", but not the American Egyptian Arabic, because there is no such a thing!
You said: "Where is Aryan's book in English? I have not seen it translated. "
Another mistake on my part. I may have read a translation of some sections of his book to have wrongly believed it was translated, but I couldn't find it on my hard disk or online. I will translate relevant parts afterwards for the sake of people who don't read Arabic.
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear Remenkimi,
Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you.
Ophadecee, I have went out of my way to find references for nearly every aspect of my defense for GB. If there is something in particular that I have said without evidence, let me know and I will reevaluate it. But I am not clutching at straws. My defense of GB is simple and it boils down to this. GB is no more or less authentic, better or accurate than OB. Both GB and OB exhibit sociolinguistic phenomena and therefore neither should be considered an invention. GB is a constructed phonology based on Koine Greek and Coptic with the only reasonable claim to practiced Coptic while OB is a theoretical phonology based on manuscript evidence only and not practice.
That's it.
In reality is seems that the OB arguments have gone back and forth trying to show that only GB is an invention and not OB. First it was OB is natural and I have tried to show it has linguistic characteristics not found in other natural languages. But that didn't suffice and a slew of exceptions for OB came in response while for some reason GB cannot have exceptions. I have tried to show that if exceptions in GB are not allowed, there would be no differences in GB pronunciations in different parts of the globe. But that didn't suffice either. Then the OB argument went on challenging me to show any example where pronunciation was borrowed. I showed the adoption of Classical Arabic to MSA. But that didn't suffice because apparently only persons completely fluent in Arabic can make that argument (another ad hominem response). Then the OB argument moved to show any example that copied exactly what Aryan did to Coptic. I have stated I will look for one. In response, I was told that I must find an exact 100% identical copy of what happened with GB, even though similar reconstructions that do not primarily deal with phonological reconstructions have occurred. Who really is clutching at straws?
You said: "According to Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, Freedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, archangels is only pronounced /a:keinjel/"
I stand corrected. You are right, but in fact I will take this as to serve my argument; you see, what do you or the linguists say about "archenemy"? The 'ch' sound is pronounced as /tsh/ as is also the case in "archery". Does that mean that when an 'e' follows 'arch' the 'ch' is pronounced as /tsh/? No; what about "archetypal"? "archegonium"? So as I and imikhail have stated numerous times, you learn pronunciation of words per se, not set fixed (not rigid for you) rules.
There is a difference between language education and linguistic theory, linguistic science and phonology. I didn't say words with "arch" are never pronounced /a:tch/. I simply stated archangel is not pronounced /a:tch/. The fact that English has a fixed (or semi-fixed) rule in phonological theory that is not practiced doesn't mean English is not a fair example to compare with GB. The fact that words in English are learned by practice and not theory doesn't change the fact that linguistic theory is internalized (through psycholinguistics) even if we don't know it is internalized and simply learn words by practice. This is a basic summary of Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar. Underneath in the subconscious, linguistic rules exist, whether we are born with them or they are learned. Chomsky believed we are born with them. You know when something is linguistically "wrong" because it just feels wrong. There are actually modern linguistic models used to explain how language contact phenomena does and doesn't behave and things that behave adversely are modified or corrected.
If GB was such an artificial invention, all illegal phonemes would have been rejected. Yet at a subconscious linguistic level, GB was not found foreign or foreign aspects were reconciled at that subconscious level by theoretical grammarian methods. Sure there were political and social reasons that endorsed GB too. But linguistically, if GB is so bad, it would not have survived.
Your examples of an American born Egyptian speaking with a "broken Egyptian Arabic accent" only illustrates that subconsciously something is wrong that classifies it as "broken". We may be accustomed to the illegal phonemes but they will never become part of Arabic. On the other hand, if the illegal phonemes can be reconciled to Egyptian colloquial Arabic at that subconscious level, then in theory it would become a dialect of Arabic and an American Egyptian Arabic dialect theoretically can be conceptualized, as it has occurred with the numerous dialects of English.
This article shows 41 constructed languages from the 1827-2012. Many are still used today. Some have already rephonemized or phonologically revised their sound inventory. As far as I can tell, some were created to simplify English or Latin. Some were created to use theoretical linguistics or pure logic solely devoid of cultural influences. Most deal with all aspects of language and grammar. None seem to be identical to GB's situation but some have similarities.
Thank you for offering to translate some of Aryan's writings.
In the end, we are all passionate about Coptic. We disagree on many points but I want to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to articulate their passion in a respectable form as the administrators allow. Whether we all agree or not, we all learn and we all need to grow. And in all things, including language, God is glorified forever.
dear remenkimi,
some of the things you say now do really contradict what you said before, and sometimes you mention two contradictory statements in the same post. I will offer my personal effort in translating Erian later but I need time. I'll elaborate later too, but please don't consider everything ad hominem when you clearly lack knowledge of Arabic and the history of Egypt.
Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164604#msg164604 date=1368608319]
Dear Remenkimi,
Sorry to say this, but it appears to me now that you are clutching at straws. In the vigorous attempt to defend your changed position, you have started to quote things that are non-scientific, and that is really "unlike" you.
Ophadecee, I have went out of my way to find references for nearly every aspect of my defense for GB. If there is something in particular that I have said without evidence, let me know and I will reevaluate it. But I am not clutching at straws. My defense of GB is simple and it boils down to this. GB is no more or less authentic, better or accurate than OB.
We need to agree on what constitutes authenticity.
To you authenticity includes any person who comes along and model a certain set of alphabet to match another alphabet provided this person has some form of authority. So, to you it is ok if someone comes along and said let's pronounce Coptic like English, French, Russian so long this person has authority.
This is exactly what Aryan did. He modeled the Coptic alphabet after the Greek. You are ok with it and you say it is authentic because that person had authority.
This definition of authenticity exists only with you but does not exists anywhere else.
If you have read the many sources I cited you on this thread and others, you would have a broader definition of what authenticity is with regards to Coptic phonology.
Both GB and OB exhibit sociolinguistic phenomena and therefore neither should be considered an invention.
Again we need to agree on the definition of sociolingustic
One of your references that you used "Wikipedia" defines Sociolinguistics as such "the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society."
How does GB fit into this definition. GB was not in existent prior to 1857, so there were no affect of society to its formation. Its formation came about because Aryan mistakenly thought that the Coptic alphabet was Greek, so Coptic should be pronounced as Greek.
The result of GB was it affected society not that society affected the language.
This is why I call GB an invention as it is the effort of one person, rather than a language natural evolution.
GB is a constructed phonology based on Koine Greek and Coptic with the only reasonable claim to practiced Coptic
How is GB constructed on Coptic? If Coptic was in practice, why was there a need to construct it? And why after Greek?
The answer is the misconception, of Aryan Moftah, that so long the Coptic alphabet utilizes the Greek alphabet, then Coptic must be pronounced like Greek.
This misconception can lead us to pronouncing Coptic like English, Russian, Persian if Copts utilize any of these languages' alphabets. This is absurd!
while OB is a theoretical phonology based on manuscript evidence only and not practice.
It is evident you have not read any of the sources I cited on this thread and the ones I gave you on similar threads. There is evidence that people, during the invention of GB, were speaking Coptic utilizing the OB dialect.
In reality is seems that the OB arguments have gone back and forth trying to show that only GB is an invention and not OB. First it was OB is natural and I have tried to show it has linguistic characteristics not found in other natural languages.
I am sorry I have not seen that evidence. You presented some stuff and claimed it to be OB. You lack knowledge of OB and thus presented excerpts from books without sufficient knowledge of what you are presenting.
In the effort to prove your point, you were glad to have found something that defends your position and cited it out of context.
I showed the adoption of Classical Arabic to MSA. But that didn't suffice because apparently only persons completely fluent in Arabic can make that argument (another ad hominem response).
Repeatedly, I have asked you to cite a link or post an image of your posting with the Arabic letters so that I can follow your argument. Yet, you ignored my request. In essence, you think you have shown evidence but in reality you have not.
Then the OB argument moved to show any example that copied exactly what Aryan did to Coptic. I have stated I will look for one. In response, I was told that I must find an exact 100% identical copy of what happened with GB, even though similar reconstructions that do not primarily deal with phonological reconstructions have occurred. Who really is clutching at straws?
Either you misunderstood or I have not communicated correctly. Let me try another attempt
The request is to show any language that is in use today that underwent similar inventions like GB where their alphabet sound values was changed just because it utilizes the same alphabet of another language.
The rationale goes like this: Aryan produced a cookbook of pronouncing Coptic which nowadays is called GB. His cookbook uses the argument that since Coptic letters are Greek then Coptic alphabet should utilize the Greek sounds.
If you still find the request absurd and clutching to straws, then there is no point of debate.
I already know that Aryan's methodology is absurd and if you cannot find any similar cookbook of an existing language, then at least we do agree on something.