[quote author=ophadece link=topic=7582.msg164613#msg164613 date=1368677990] 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
Clearly I have stated I am not fluent in Arabic. But I have a very good understanding of the history of Egypt. Incidentally, my arguments on Classical Arabic and MSA were based on evidence described in English from various writers. I do not need to be fluent in Arabic to use these references. Rejecting the references because I am not fluent in Arabic is an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem by definition states one is attacking the speaker or debater rather than the content of the argument.
Ekhrestos anesty dear remenkimi, I'm not attacking you at all I'm commenting.. I think sometimes in the heat of the debate we forget what its purpose is all about in the first place.. I still hope you consider me a brother.. I am aware of your stating that you don't know Arabic but my last post wasn't related to the evidence you brought concerning Msa, that was imikhail.. I sometimes feel you confuse me with hymn.. I was rather talking about your lack of knowledge of Arabic and consequently the manuscripts supporting OB rather than GB. No one could ever understand unless they read such evidence.. it isn't the same transcribed in English even.. please give me time and I'll elaborate.. hopefully tomorrow.. oujai
Clearly I have stated I am not fluent in Arabic. But I have a very good understanding of the history of Egypt. Incidentally, my arguments on Classical Arabic and MSA were based on evidence described in English from various writers. I do not need to be fluent in Arabic to use these references. Rejecting the references because I am not fluent in Arabic is an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem by definition states one is attacking the speaker or debater rather than the content of the argument.
Neither ophadece nor myself rejected the evidence. I simply stated that I could not read them and requested that you either post a link or an image of your post. The Arabic letters and the "tashkeel" if any are not showing in your post (at least to me).
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
I am not commenting on which pronunciation scheme I prefer but I would like to point out the one of the foundations of your argument Remenkimi is flawed, atleast in my eyes.
You said: 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.
We all know that the first part of your statement is true. Nobody denies this.
The 2nd part of your statement however is leaving out alot of evidence. Whereas Fr. Shenouda did base his thesis on manuscript evidence, which is widely available, this alone does not explain the OB dialect being used in Egypt in rural churches that had not yet been influenced by the GB wave that swept the church. Furthermore, ask some of the original members of St. Mark Church in LA about how they used to pronounce Coptic into the 1970's. Hany Takla would be a great starting point. I hate to single him out but he is a first hand eye (ear) witness to coptic pronunciation before the analog and digital era erased the past. Furthermore, he will explain to you the importance of oral tradition.
So to say OB is based on manuscript evidence only is false. It is based on continued oral tradition which has been increasingly wiped out over the last few decades. OB is therefore not theoretical, but factual.
Forgive me for the intrusion into your discussion.
Neither ophadece nor myself rejected the evidence. I simply stated that I could not read them and requested that you either post a link or an image of your post. The Arabic letters and the "tashkeel" if any are not showing in your post (at least to me).
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
The link was posted all along in Reply #73. Regardless of whether or not you can read it, I already stated that it's not the content that matters but that differences exist. Since there is evidence that MSA borrowed from CA and then CA was modified phonologically, then it stands to reason that languages borrow phonology from other languages or dialects. Yes it's not a perfect example but it still supports my argument.
[quote author=baempi link=topic=7582.msg164634#msg164634 date=1368816515] The 2nd part of your statement however is leaving out alot of evidence. Whereas Fr. Shenouda did base his thesis on manuscript evidence, which is widely available, this alone does not explain the OB dialect being used in Egypt in rural churches that had not yet been influenced by the GB wave that swept the church. I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say. The fact that some rural churches used OB in various degrees doesn't mean OB was widely practiced. If you assume a population of Copts today of around 10-15 million, how many Copts would you claim use OB on a regular basis? By regular basis, I mean all church services are sung entirely in OB. Singing one hymn like Thok the ti gom in OB wouldn't qualify. Maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand. Probably less than 0.001% of all Copts use OB routinely. This is probably also true for Copts in the 1970's, the 1930's, and the turn of the 20th century, as described by George Sobhy and European travelers.
So to say OB is based on manuscript evidence only is false. It is based on continued oral tradition which has been increasingly wiped out over the last few decades. OB is therefore not theoretical, but factual.
If OB was factual and based on oral tradition, wouldn't that imply OB would remain unchanged? Rather, Worrell's observations show us that the OB practiced in the 1930's amounted to a handful of Copts who didn't agree on the pronunciation of certain words. Now listen to how today's proponents speak OB and you will find more discrepancies to manuscript evidence and linguistic observations found in articles.
Maybe you're right. maybe OB is not based on manuscript evidence only. I guess a more accurate description would be OB, as practiced today in such small numbers, seems to be based on a handful of conflicting interpretations of manuscript evidence. This, however, does not make OB a fake language or an invention. Rather, it shows a lack of standardization similar to pidgin and creole languages.
Forgive me for the intrusion into your discussion.
You were not intruding at all. The conversation will be more fruitful when there are more participants.
Neither ophadece nor myself rejected the evidence. I simply stated that I could not read them and requested that you either post a link or an image of your post. The Arabic letters and the "tashkeel" if any are not showing in your post (at least to me).
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
The link was posted all along in Reply #73. Regardless of whether or not you can read it, I already stated that it's not the content that matters but that differences exist. Since there is evidence that MSA borrowed from CA and then CA was modified phonologically, then it stands to reason that languages borrow phonology from other languages or dialects. Yes it's not a perfect example but it still supports my argument.
Thanks for the clarification Reminkimi.
On page 57 iunder section 2.1 The author does admit that scholars do not know how Arabic was pronounced during the time of Mohammad "because little is known about how ancient forms of spoken Arabic .... were pronounced". He continues to say that the perception in the Arab world is that MSA is the continuation of the Arabic spoken by the Qurashian tribe.
I am not sure how does the SA/CLA fits with OB/GB. We know how Bohairic is pronounced and there were people who spoke it during the time GB was being produced.
The SA did not borrow from another alphabet as Aryan did with GB and did not abruptly changed the Arabic sounds. Furthermore, OB is one dialect that was messed up by one person. The SA is the commingling of tens of different Arabic dialects.
Yes, there simple differences between local Arabic dialects especially with the letter "geem". In Egypt it is pronounced "g" and in others it is pronounced "j". SA says it is "j", but at least it did not borrow a complete foriegn sound to any Arabic dialect.
Contrast this with what Aryan did by borrowing a complete set of Greek sounds and applying them to the Coptic alphabet. For example, no Coptic manuscript, prior to Arian, says that the letter B is pronounced V. The sound V never existed in any Coptic manuscript.
I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say. The fact that some rural churches used OB in various degrees doesn't mean OB was widely practiced.
Reminkimi, you really need to read the sources I cited you before making such a claim.
Simple question, what were they practicing prior to Aryan's invention? The manuscripts would answer that question along with the sources I provided.
I am delighted to announce the release of an important update to Coptic Notes v2.0.0 as of today you can communicate in Coptic digitally via SMS, Email, Facebook, Twitter, Viber, etc... A workaround (New option in the Settings View) was developed to enable/disable converting the text to an image so that when you click the share button within Coptic Notes you can send the text as an image to overcome the lack of not having Unicode support by Apple.
If you don't know about this, it has been almost 7 months as of this date since the release of Coptic Notes and is now almost 2000 downloads.
Please kindly like and share the Facebook page with your Coptic church and community. Thank you.
@Wael_Saad I am the one who commented on Facebook saying the grammar of this sentence needs refining. I hope you would do it as soon as you can Oujai khan ebshois
Pronunciation does not follow rules. It is the other way round. Rules come later to explain the present pronunciation. This was the missing premise from the works of A. Moftah in 1860's. Thus, he adopted Greek phonetic values. The reasons are not completely clear whether it was due to distrust in the diversity of the OB spectrum of pronunciation, or to approximate to Greek to facilitate union, or a mere belief in the process for pedagogic purposes. It is a scientific error that resulted in mutilation of the genuine oral tradition. The Church adopted this pronunciation, and by the time studies of G. Sobhy, Worrell, Vicychl & Ishak came out, it was an established well recorded and documented pronunciation. This may have happened because the church relies on the reverence of a central character as the reference point be it a pope or a cantor. Reverting to OB is a duty since we know now what's authentic and what's less authentic. Abandoning OB is basically leaving out an authentic well documented and studied heritage, for the sake of accepting a status quo of contemporary GB. GB cannot be considered a dialect because it occured in a dead language and it was not generally used as a native language except for the family of Pisenti Rizkalla. It simply cannot be considered a dialect, just because it is used in Church. It is true that GB has evolved since the days of A. Moftah, but apparently what was based on a false premise led to further mutilation. The Greek letter ⲫ phi was switched to V at a point in time where many cantors pronounced it this way, then, contemporary scholars e.g. K.Isaac stated that it should be a bilabial ph which, I do not think Copts pronounced it this way. ⲃ Beta: went all way from B->V->F occasionally ⲇ Delta & ⲑ Theta: developed a bizarre & rather hilarious rules of pronunciation where in names they are D&T and in other nouns, verbs, etc they are Th, Dh ⲡ Pi: is prounced by many as 'b' esp. in Egypt I doubt that this is the influence of Arabic, it's rather the original phonetic value of the voice ϭ Chi: is in trouble between Ch/K in certain words like awka EYKH Ypsilon: the V is drifting to F in songs like Eflogimenos ϫ Djandja: developed the assimilation rule as in Djadji & djidj then it was dropped Chima: became echima leading to ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ epechois, ⲛⲏⲉⲧϭⲟⲥⲓ neyetechosi and other added needless stops instead of epshois & or nyetshosi Futher to the comparison of GB with Klingon; I guess it's not far from what's going on as the language eversince the change in phonetic values has been dealt with as a conlang where people consciously modulate the pronunciation rules, phonetic values, and even how it should be written where there are proposals to write in Latin letters & earlier attempts to write it in joint cursive script.
Comments
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
Clearly I have stated I am not fluent in Arabic. But I have a very good understanding of the history of Egypt. Incidentally, my arguments on Classical Arabic and MSA were based on evidence described in English from various writers. I do not need to be fluent in Arabic to use these references. Rejecting the references because I am not fluent in Arabic is an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem by definition states one is attacking the speaker or debater rather than the content of the argument.
dear remenkimi,
I'm not attacking you at all I'm commenting.. I think sometimes in the heat of the debate we forget what its purpose is all about in the first place.. I still hope you consider me a brother.. I am aware of your stating that you don't know Arabic but my last post wasn't related to the evidence you brought concerning Msa, that was imikhail.. I sometimes feel you confuse me with hymn.. I was rather talking about your lack of knowledge of Arabic and consequently the manuscripts supporting OB rather than GB. No one could ever understand unless they read such evidence.. it isn't the same transcribed in English even.. please give me time and I'll elaborate.. hopefully tomorrow..
oujai
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
You said: 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.
We all know that the first part of your statement is true. Nobody denies this.
The 2nd part of your statement however is leaving out alot of evidence. Whereas Fr. Shenouda did base his thesis on manuscript evidence, which is widely available, this alone does not explain the OB dialect being used in Egypt in rural churches that had not yet been influenced by the GB wave that swept the church. Furthermore, ask some of the original members of St. Mark Church in LA about how they used to pronounce Coptic into the 1970's. Hany Takla would be a great starting point. I hate to single him out but he is a first hand eye (ear) witness to coptic pronunciation before the analog and digital era erased the past. Furthermore, he will explain to you the importance of oral tradition.
So to say OB is based on manuscript evidence only is false. It is based on continued oral tradition which has been increasingly wiped out over the last few decades. OB is therefore not theoretical, but factual.
Forgive me for the intrusion into your discussion.
You are more than welcome to join the discussion anytime.
This forum is for all and this thread is for those who want to learn about our fathers' original tongue.
Neither ophadece nor myself rejected the evidence. I simply stated that I could not read them and requested that you either post a link or an image of your post. The Arabic letters and the "tashkeel" if any are not showing in your post (at least to me).
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
The link was posted all along in Reply #73. Regardless of whether or not you can read it, I already stated that it's not the content that matters but that differences exist. Since there is evidence that MSA borrowed from CA and then CA was modified phonologically, then it stands to reason that languages borrow phonology from other languages or dialects. Yes it's not a perfect example but it still supports my argument.
The 2nd part of your statement however is leaving out alot of evidence. Whereas Fr. Shenouda did base his thesis on manuscript evidence, which is widely available, this alone does not explain the OB dialect being used in Egypt in rural churches that had not yet been influenced by the GB wave that swept the church.
I'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say. The fact that some rural churches used OB in various degrees doesn't mean OB was widely practiced. If you assume a population of Copts today of around 10-15 million, how many Copts would you claim use OB on a regular basis? By regular basis, I mean all church services are sung entirely in OB. Singing one hymn like Thok the ti gom in OB wouldn't qualify. Maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand. Probably less than 0.001% of all Copts use OB routinely. This is probably also true for Copts in the 1970's, the 1930's, and the turn of the 20th century, as described by George Sobhy and European travelers. If OB was factual and based on oral tradition, wouldn't that imply OB would remain unchanged? Rather, Worrell's observations show us that the OB practiced in the 1930's amounted to a handful of Copts who didn't agree on the pronunciation of certain words. Now listen to how today's proponents speak OB and you will find more discrepancies to manuscript evidence and linguistic observations found in articles.
Maybe you're right. maybe OB is not based on manuscript evidence only. I guess a more accurate description would be OB, as practiced today in such small numbers, seems to be based on a handful of conflicting interpretations of manuscript evidence. This, however, does not make OB a fake language or an invention. Rather, it shows a lack of standardization similar to pidgin and creole languages. You were not intruding at all. The conversation will be more fruitful when there are more participants.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=7582.msg164623#msg164623 date=1368750470]
Neither ophadece nor myself rejected the evidence. I simply stated that I could not read them and requested that you either post a link or an image of your post. The Arabic letters and the "tashkeel" if any are not showing in your post (at least to me).
I simply cannot evaluate something I cannot read. If you please post it again as an image or post a link.
So, till your MSA/CA post is clear, it is simply not an evidence supporting Aryan's invention of GB.
The link was posted all along in Reply #73. Regardless of whether or not you can read it, I already stated that it's not the content that matters but that differences exist. Since there is evidence that MSA borrowed from CA and then CA was modified phonologically, then it stands to reason that languages borrow phonology from other languages or dialects. Yes it's not a perfect example but it still supports my argument.
Thanks for the clarification Reminkimi.
On page 57 iunder section 2.1 The author does admit that scholars do not know how Arabic was pronounced during the time of Mohammad "because little is known about how ancient forms of spoken Arabic .... were pronounced". He continues to say that the perception in the Arab world is that MSA is the continuation of the Arabic spoken by the Qurashian tribe.
I am not sure how does the SA/CLA fits with OB/GB. We know how Bohairic is pronounced and there were people who spoke it during the time GB was being produced.
The SA did not borrow from another alphabet as Aryan did with GB and did not abruptly changed the Arabic sounds. Furthermore, OB is one dialect that was messed up by one person. The SA is the commingling of tens of different Arabic dialects.
Yes, there simple differences between local Arabic dialects especially with the letter "geem". In Egypt it is pronounced "g" and in others it is pronounced "j". SA says it is "j", but at least it did not borrow a complete foriegn sound to any Arabic dialect.
Contrast this with what Aryan did by borrowing a complete set of Greek sounds and applying them to the Coptic alphabet. For example, no Coptic manuscript, prior to Arian, says that the letter B is pronounced V. The sound V never existed in any Coptic manuscript.
Thanks for your answer and your debate.
Simple question, what were they practicing prior to Aryan's invention? The manuscripts would answer that question along with the sources I provided.
Please note that the Coptic you provided above doesn't match the English or Arabic translations..
Oujai khan ebshois
I am the one who commented on Facebook saying the grammar of this sentence needs refining. I hope you would do it as soon as you can
Oujai khan ebshois
The Church adopted this pronunciation, and by the time studies of G. Sobhy, Worrell, Vicychl & Ishak came out, it was an established well recorded and documented pronunciation.
This may have happened because the church relies on the reverence of a central character as the reference point be it a pope or a cantor.
Reverting to OB is a duty since we know now what's authentic and what's less authentic. Abandoning OB is basically leaving out an authentic well documented and studied heritage, for the sake of accepting a status quo of contemporary GB.
GB cannot be considered a dialect because it occured in a dead language and it was not generally used as a native language except for the family of Pisenti Rizkalla. It simply cannot be considered a dialect, just because it is used in Church.
It is true that GB has evolved since the days of A. Moftah, but apparently what was based on a false premise led to further mutilation.
The Greek letter ⲫ phi was switched to V at a point in time where many cantors pronounced it this way, then, contemporary scholars e.g. K.Isaac stated that it should be a bilabial ph which, I do not think Copts pronounced it this way.
ⲃ Beta: went all way from B->V->F occasionally
ⲇ Delta & ⲑ Theta: developed a bizarre & rather hilarious rules of pronunciation where in names they are D&T and in other nouns, verbs, etc they are Th, Dh
ⲡ Pi: is prounced by many as 'b' esp. in Egypt I doubt that this is the influence of Arabic, it's rather the original phonetic value of the voice
ϭ Chi: is in trouble between Ch/K in certain words like awka EYKH
Ypsilon: the V is drifting to F in songs like Eflogimenos
ϫ Djandja: developed the assimilation rule as in Djadji & djidj then it was dropped
Chima: became echima leading to ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ epechois, ⲛⲏⲉⲧϭⲟⲥⲓ neyetechosi and other added needless stops instead of epshois & or nyetshosi
Futher to the comparison of GB with Klingon; I guess it's not far from what's going on as the language eversince the change in phonetic values has been dealt with as a conlang where people consciously modulate the pronunciation rules, phonetic values, and even how it should be written where there are proposals to write in Latin letters & earlier attempts to write it in joint cursive script.