coptichymns.net
Coptic Studies - Old Bohairic or Greko-Bohairic??
Mikey - Jun 09, 2003 - 01:07 AM
Post subject: Old Bohairic or Greko-Bohairic??
ok...this has been brought up in a few previous forums. but i was just interested to know what you guys would prefer even though im sure most of us use the Greko-bohairic Coptic.
personally..i prefer the greko-bohairic even if it's the "modified" version of coptic. when i think about it...tons of hymns that we say are greek...so using the old-bohairic won't work with those hymns...and if we say we can use old bohairic with coptic hymns and greko with greek hymns...it will make it really confusing for everyone...so im voting for greko
PaulS - Jun 09, 2003 - 01:30 AM
Post subject:
Hello,
I know there is a movement to bring back the old pronunciation in our church. I don't agree, however, for the following reasons.
The proponents of resurrecting the old pronunciation tell us that it is our "true" and ancient language. This is correct, but the new pronunciation is not exactly something that was made yesterday. it has been around for a while, which makes me believe it is part of our heritage, too, especially after the modernization by M. Tekla.
Also, I believe the true fight (not really a fight, but you know what I mean) today is between Coptic versus other languages. Our goal is to bring back Coptic first and foremost; it would be more than silly to alienate people by splitting the pro-Coptic side into two camps (old v. new pronunciation).
I believe we should focus on making Coptic the standard in our churches again; once that is accomplished, we can work on the correct pronunciation.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 09, 2003 - 01:48 AM
Post subject:
paul.....
nine thumbs up..lol.
i was talking with abouna bishoy brownfild about the same issue yesterday..he said something interesting, the language belongs to the living not the dead. and as paul said, greko bohairic has been around for a while..all hymns are recorded this way, the cathederal chants this way and even the pope reads the gospel this way...so i cant swallow changing it.
i appreciate the movement to ressurect the old bohairic..and hopefully i will be able to handle it after we start the coptic classes with atthowi this summer..i mean i am very excited to learn it..but for my own knowledge..not to use it in hymns and praying.
on another note....i dont see the point either of translating greek hymns to coptic...but wat u guys think?
maherkaldas - Jun 09, 2003 - 02:30 AM
Post subject:
Hi,
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPURTUNITY AND EXPAND A LITTLE ON WHOM WERE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS.
(1) Iryan Jirjis Muftah (D.1888):
Coptic language specialist. He was appointed teacher of Coptic in the newly established Coptic College founded by the father of the Coptic reform, Pope Cyril IV (1854-1861), who aimed at modernizing the Coptic Church. ëIry‰n is known to have written manuals and grammar books for teaching the Coptic language in a formed modern style. This probably occurred under the influence of the ecumenical spirit of his superior, Pope Cyril IV, who aimed to bringing the Greek, Byzantine, and Coptic Churches together.
It is known that ëIry‰n, as he was called departed from the old Bohairic system in the Church offices and tried to introduce the rules of modern Greek pronunciation into the antiquated style of the traditional Church. This found opposition amid the clergy of Upper Egypt who clung to the old Bohairic, now wrongly described as Sahidic. Through ëIry‰nís influence and his teaching of the Coptic tongue on the modern Greek model, his system spread rapidly in Lower Egypt and the metropolitan cities of Cairo and Alexandria.
(2) HEGOMEN TAKLA ( WHOM TAUGHT MLM. MIKAHILand five more we think...).
(3) Mlm. Kozman....
(4) BARSOUM EL RAHEB AFANDI
(5) HEGOMEN FILOTHEOS IBRAHIM (learned from H.TAKLA)
(6) HEGOMEN ABD EL MISIH EL MASOUDI EL KIBIR
(7) EKLADIOUS LABIB
AND ABOVE ALL THOSE RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS WAS HIS HOLINESS
POPE Cyril IV (1854-1861) who was very knowledgeable with the language and hymns since he was a little child and that is why he commissioned both IRYAN and mlm.TAKLA (LATER ORDAINED) to take a good care of the worsening situation at that period.
_____________________________________
I think Paul stated it best when he said we are up against new challenge now, which is foregin languages usage in the offices of the Church. It is more serious than debating over an issue our fathers had done their best to hand our heritage intact to us.
THE QUESTION NOW ARE WE UP TO THE NEW CHALLENGE OR IN 20 YEARS OR LESS WE WILL BE COUNTING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD READ AND SPEAK COPTIC EITHER IN GRECO_BOHIRIC OR OLD BOHIRIC
rashi - Jun 09, 2003 - 03:11 AM
Post subject:
I'm so glad you raised this topic here..It is a real conflict beacause it inolves our spiritual life ..
1st of all we all have to admit that the"old" Boharic pronounciation is the real one and the Greco -Boharic is a "synthetic" pronounciation introduced by Iryan Muftah during the middle of the 19th century..I'll quote here a topic by Sidhom who is intrested in this topic
" Bohairic dialect in Bohairic pronounciation (B) was the one used by the Coptic Church all over Egypt, due to the availablity of its manuscript that were produced by monks of the desert of Shihat (Natire Valley), & the condition was so for many many centuries, & it's so until now, in a very few minority of churches in upper Egypt.
In the 1858-1860, there was a trial to merge the Coptic Church with the Greek Church so that one Patriarch be the head of both Churches in Egypt, but the trial did not succeed till now. The union of pronounciation of Coptic & Greek was one of the demanded requests as was wtinessed.
The teacher of Coptic in the Patriarchal Church at that time was Arian effendi G. Moftah, he was very enthusiastic to the change of Coptic sounds, he made a project & applied it to do so.
rashi - Jun 09, 2003 - 03:15 AM
Post subject:
This the rest of the topic in the previous post:
1. Aryan thought that as long as Coptic & Greek have almost the same alphabet so they share the same pronounciation, thus any change of Coptic pronounciation towards Greek is a reform. This was his hypothesis.
2. Also, the expected union between the 2 churches was a co-factor, to proceed.
3. The Egyptians were at that time suffering stresses, & inferiority complex, due to the appearance of the French expedition (1798-1801) & the scientists of the expedition who stayed many years after the expedition left Egypt. Many people turned out thinking that whatever European is correct, due to the vast difference that was between Egyptians & French people.
The fact is that many languages share same alphabet, e.g. Latin alphabet is used in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German etc. but the phonetic value of sounds vary much from one language to anotherimagine pronouncing parlez vous francais in Egnlish pronounciation. That is the difference in addition, Coptic borrowed Greek letters in approximate values to what they had at that time, Greek language itself was changed much overtime. Bohairic pronounciation (B) is a natural one, while the GB came as a synthetic man made one.
The pronounciation Arian effendi G. Moftah, was spread by the central power of the Klirikia, Patriarchal School, & it took about 50 years to be generalized all over Egypt & used till now by almost all Churches, except for a very few minority in upper Egypt, that refuses any priest from outside their village.
Along course of spread, the Old Bohairic (B) pronounciation was mistakenly named by Arian's scholars as Sahidic, or that the change would help an expected merge. It was generalized after that.
maherkaldas - Jun 09, 2003 - 03:34 AM
Post subject:
HI,
RASHI,
ALL WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS CORRECT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ALL THESE FACTORS PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.
BUT, WE NEED TO UTILIZE ALL OUR EFFORTS TOWARDS A NEW THREAT AROSE FROM US MIGRATING TO DIFFERENT CONTENENTS. NOW WE HAVE NEW GENERATIONS REFUSE EVEN THE GRECO-BOHIRIC.
SO, THE ISSUE NOW IS A LOT MORE SERIOUS THAN TRYING TO TURN THE WHEELS BACKWARDS TOWARDS RESTORING THE ORIGIN OF COPTIC LANGUAGE AS IT USED TO BE BEFORE 1841.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 09, 2003 - 03:36 AM
Post subject:
we all know that it is synthetic..but it depends on how u look at it.
if we look at tradition, then we can have dilemmas like that on everything. if u r willing to go back in time enough u will find believers praying in caves in upper egypt running away from Romans and of course not using cymbals at all which could have been dangerous...does that mean that cymbals are wrong? no, conditions changed.
if u go back enough in time u can see that church was really different from wat we have now...and it doesnt mean that all change is anathema or unacceptable.
bottom line: this change although synthetic, not spontaneous and unscientific was made official by church leaders and by clerical college which leads us in many issues...then i dont think we should come now after 150 years and start a counter-movment to "correct" wat our scientists did. especially since it can very much threaten our hymnology and create great confusion in a congreagation not anymore very familiar with coptic anyway
rashi - Jun 09, 2003 - 03:51 AM
Post subject:
Daer Ramez and Maher,
I really know what you are saying ...I don't even know how to pronounce O-B ...I had a long talk with someone who is in favour of O-B and I told him what you said..
BUT he convincsd me that at least we should know what happened nd that this is NOT the real pronounciation of our old language ..It's a step but not to the back...
I agree withyou Ramez that there are a lot of issues simillar to this in our tradition but still some of the wrong thing can be corrected afterwards
I'm not saying we should go to ouir churches tomorrow and start praying with O-B but just to know ....And this maybe a beginning
God be with you all
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 09, 2003 - 04:01 AM
Post subject:
i am happy we r on the same page....although that might kill the debate...lol
i am VERY willing to lean OB this summer.....not as much willing to change it in church though
Bashandy - Jun 09, 2003 - 02:25 PM
Post subject:
Dear all,
let's emphasize what we agree upon first
1. Old Bohairic is the correct real pronounciation
2. Greco-Bohairic is a synthetic 150 years old one
Now to the issue of to use or not to use, before commenting we need a deep look to various aspects including Coptic history in the last 2 Centuries to know the benefits/hazards prior to making a decision
Let's study the Outcomes of the introduction of Greco-Bohairic pronounciation
After about 150 years of the introduction of Greco-Bohairic
pronounciaiton & 75 years of the generalized usage of it. The following
outcomes are present at present time.
1. Coptic Liturgy: was totally chanted in Coptic, & after Pope Gabriel
ben Turaik Lectionary readings became in Arabic. Coptic was not used a
spoken language in delta & Cairo since 14th Century, so the factor of
language death is to be excluded generally. As apparent from writings &
Euhcologions Coptic was used almost during the whole liturgy, with
exceptions of readings & very small parts that are occasionally sung in
Arabic. After the 1860 GB, Arabic & English are replacing Coptic heavily
at the mass, in the last 50 years Coptic became restricted except for
very few parts in the mass, & are variable according to the priests
interest in Coptic. A real story is that on a Church at the Apokalympses
2003, the priest was incapable of reading Coptic on singing the 1st hos.
(the Priase of crossing the Red sea), the priest started in coptic but
could not continue & he shifted to Arabic, wile the Chorus was replying
in Coptic bec. they did not learn how to for a Choir sining hoases in
Arabic
2. Coptic Praise: inspite of the introduction of new psalis & doxologies,
The coptic midnight praise is being sung in Arabic or English & even
blessed by Bishops on tapes etc. (on talking about hymns the talk is
restricted to the language & case recording & not the spiritual view
beyond it) & the practice is nowadays present in almost all Churches of
Egypt the use of Coptic is more & more restricted by Copts themselves.
3. Coptic language Education: there are many books for education, but
the fact is that number of students has been sharply decreasing in the
last 30 years. A random sample in the years 1999-2002 the Institute of
Coptic Studies (main responsible of teaching Coptic in Greco-Bohairic
pronounciation) has graduated only 1 student from te Coptic Language
department. On comparing this number to the graduates of Institute of
Coptic Language (for Old Bohairic pronounciation) it graduated in the
year 2002 about 50 students with the Certificate of Kami.
4. New Church Books: nowadays new Church books including Euchologion,
Ministry of the Deacon, Pascha book & other books are almost exclusively
printed only in Arabic, & Coptic is oftenly overlooked or if written
it's written only in Arabicized Coptic.(Coptic in Arabic letters)
5.Churches many of the new Churches that were built in the 20th Century
does not contain a single word in Coptic language neither at the title
of the Churhc nor inside the church itself.
6. Papers: pamphlets, brochures, flyers & visual aids that are commonly
distributed at special occasions e.g. Christmas, or udring the Sunday
schools' service are almost completely devoid of anything related to
coptic language.
7. Informal Coptic teaching: e.g. Coptic teaching at Sunday schools,
Coptic at summer camps etc. that does not end at having a certificate
for Coptic, these teaching are now at a minimum level, teaching is
occasional usually about 1 week/year at a camp or so. Regular Coptic
teaching is not found except when there's an available interested
servant who usually teaches at summer & only for 1 or 2 seasons atmost.
On comparing the Bohairic with Greco-Bohairic outcomes as regards
the Coptic Church while it used both, the number of graduates to both
schools. It is quite apparent that Greco-Bohairic thoug has very good
intentions & makes many steps towards simplifying the language. Yet,
people tend to expell it sharply, those who know about it expell it for
scientific reasons, & other simple persons expell it but not with words
but by deeds. Coptic was the language of Liturgy & Midnihgt priases &
Pascha for about 20 Century including at least 4 Centuries in Delta &
Cairo where Coptic was a dead language & only the 20th Century witnesses
this sharp drawback of Coptic, with only one fzctor changing in Coptic
that's pronounciation.
Simply, most people learn Coptic because it is the language of their
fathers, & when they just meditate in the sound of this language they
discover that it is not it. They just quit learning, because they feel
that ther's something fake about it. Others who get deeper & discover
usually get shocked & their reactions are far from expectations. So,
Greco-Bohairic leads to either a feeling of unease or mistrust or to a
shock bec. it offers artificial recent work to people who are longing to
a natural authentic old work.
Ending with this phrase from C.C.Walters 1972 Oxford on talking
about Coptic language "it is still used today in church services, but in
association with Arabic, and it seems only a matter of time before it
disappears altogether, thus severing our last link, however tenuous,
with Ancient Egypt"
Bashandy - Jun 09, 2003 - 02:35 PM
Post subject:
Here are some of the incompetences of Greco-Bohairic pronounciation that is requested to be continued
In a period of about 150 years of introduction of Arian G. Moftah's Greco-Bohairic pronounciation, it has been doomed to be continiously an unstable pronounciation that varies from teacher to teacher & from the teacher to himself accrding to the season. A very realistic example was that what happened with the recordings of Cantor Ibrahim Ayyad where he changed evki to evshi, he himself does not have an explanation towards it, he just changed it accordin to something he heared or his own intentions, another example is the Shenouti vs. Shenouda topic discussed here
Examples:
1. Phones:
- The alpha (a) was said to be always an 'a' as in far by Arian Moftah, but with time it was discovered that this doesn't match with Coptic so now, in a random unstudied way it is shiftin into 'a' as in 'hat', the problem is that it varies much from a teacher to another & has no
regulation producing problems at singing etc.
- The beta (b) was always 'v' then a rule was added by students of Arian to be pronounced as 'b' at end of words, then another law specifying the that if followed by a vowel it's a'v' other wise a 'b'. Then a newer rule said that if followed by 2 vowels it is again a 'b', & that it should be 'b' in names of people
- The dhelta (d) letter was introduced in GB as to be pronounced by Arian Moftah as 'dh' always as in the, other, abudhabi etc. The result on names was drastic bec. all Egyptians now that the names of their ancestors are in 'd' rather than 'dh' e.g. Adam, Daniel, Tawadros, Dan etc. An artificial rule of pronounciation was added to make the 'd' pronounced as 'd' in names of people.
- The epsilon (e) letter was pronounced by Arian Moftah as air, then it was changed to be as 'e' as in 'hen' then to a mix between both pronounciation that's aimless, purposless & bizarre
- The eeta (H), was pronounced by Arain Moftah as 'ee', occasionally now
it is pronounced as a lighter 'e' with no regulations
- The theta (th) was pronounced by Arian Moftah always as a 'th' by Arian, then due to phonetic impossibility with letters as s/sh it became 't' of preceeded by such letters e.g. stoi (incense). Then later it became followed by a rule to make it also a 't' if followed by 't' e.g. Matthew. attolab (attoleb)
- The dau/tav (T), was at Arian Moftah's pronounciation T but in Greek words if preceeded by 'n' it is a 'd' e.g. pandokrator, endloy this rule is vanishing now for no logical reason
- the phy (ph) letter was originally pronounced by Arian Moftah as a 'v' all the time, this rule was modified to be 'f' all the time then modified to be 'v' in Coptic words & 'f' in greek words. This rule does not belong either to Old Bohairic or Greek or any known language. It could be said with caution that this was a primitive hypothetical deduction
- Chey (X), was pronounced by Arian Moftah as k, sh, kh then the rule was shifted to k, ch, kh then there's a continious intermingling bet. sh & k as in the recent problem of evki & evshi
- The djandja (j) was pronounced by Arian Moftah as j if followed by a vowel that is towards the e, i side & else where as 'g', then was modified to be j if found doubled in a word e.g. jij & jaji, the countrer of this rule is present e.g. gagi & gig. Other people obeys these modifications as well It is said the rule of pronounciation of djandja accrding to vowel is an imitation to the rule of pronouncing the English letter "G" as in words like garage, garbage, gauge,
- The djinkim (') was of low use before Arian, Arian increased it to be on many consonants rendering the language slower than normal too much, bec. of the many glottal stops, Shakir Basilios was exceeded him in adding jinkims even to vowel letters, later teachers pronounced many of these jinkims as glottal stops (hamza as in go 'at) & others pronounce it as a stress (shadda), later teachers are on an antijinkim regimen reducing jinkims whenever possible.
2. Stresses:
- Bohairic has its own stresses of sound, & accent that gives it its music & special taste. This was lsot by Arians' changes, thus the stresses became always an unstable work changing always from a teacher to a teacher & from a teacher to the same teacher at different periods of time. Thus, the GB has no accents, some used djinkim to be used as accents but they were used as glottal stops by others.
- Most new scholars have studied English so when they do not find specialt accents & stresses they pronounce as if it were English language
- Teachers who have studied Greek pronounce Coptic as if it were a Greek dialect of a Greek accent
- It is said the the M.A.AbdelMalek who followed Ragheb Moftah at Music department of Institute of Coptic Studies is planning that all Greek parts of the Coptic musical heritage are to be sung according to Greek accents, that opposes the Coptic musical structure of these hymns & chants.
Bashandy - Jun 09, 2003 - 02:41 PM
Post subject:
May I use an opinion told to me by a priest. He said that the corner stone of Christianity is "Truth". The real Christians utter truth, witness truth, & say it all the time. They can't get out of it, this is why Christianty was blessed by mertyrdom & monasticism.
The fact is that as long as Old Bohairic is a true genuine thing, we have to do it. There's no logical reason that says that we should leave what's true & seek for what is fake or synthetic.
The way for doing this is all over history the hard line that knows nothing except doing this. I mean how can sing Coptic when it sounds Greek. How can we tell the children that this is the language of our ancestors while it sounds like a barbarian Greek.
That was his opinion, I just liked to add it
Mikey - Jun 09, 2003 - 04:38 PM
Post subject:
but in order to change to old bohairic...it will require us to either translate a lot of our greek hymns or to take them out...and since we will not be taking them out....we will lose the hymn in the translationg. can you imagine translating hymns like tenen or aripsalin?? we'll just lose the hymns.
Remnkemi - Jun 09, 2003 - 11:40 PM
Post subject:
From Mikey:but in order to change to old bohairic...it will require us to either translate a lot of our greek hymns or to take them out...and since we will not be taking them out....we will lose the hymn in the translationg. can you imagine translating hymns like tenen or aripsalin?? we'll just lose the hymns.
No we don't have to do either. We can leave Greek hymns as is and pronounce them with Old Bohairic. Remember, we are only talking about pronunciation not translation. The truth is, most Greek hymns have been around for a very long time and so has Old Bohairic translation. So these Greek hymns were pronounced exclusively in Old Bohairic until early 20th century.
rashi - Jun 09, 2003 - 11:44 PM
Post subject:
Hi everyone ,
I git this email from atthoowi .In these days our fathers used to write their contemplations in arabic but with coptic alphabet 
Sad but true...Think of us now writing coptic in arabic and english alphabet..Here's the e mail
Below is a few excerpts from some manuscripts from a coptic monk from the Wadi el Natrun monastery in the arabic language but in a coptic script. This is only a small peice of what actually was there. I just wanted to show you so you can see how coptic was pronounced in the 12th and 13th century when this monk was alive. I am writing it exactly as it appears on the text ( meaning that one word may be continued on 2 lines) also ...... means that part of the manuscript was missing. I just pulled 3 random peices from the manuscrtipts to show you. The 3 are related in only the fact that they were from the same manuscript but are not necessarily an any order. Youll notice thatB is always pronounced as w in the corresponding arabic word; is almost always TP is always Bu is always wh is occosaionally the arabic "ain"( but when it was meant as "ain" the arabic ain was always written on top of the coptic H) otherwise it was an HPart 1
1 pekacebe; kalp felledi ;ah; ie,oun pemec,ene;en hazimahhandoh be meiepkalou melje be qalacille cahepoh feiecih pecau; hazimiahref cahepoh feidecemah cahepoh ie;hannen halyih ce...beic;lop qalac.....beie qallecoh......feced delek......erradi fe ide.....hep hede.........Part 2 halyih bejehed hala qallacoh menelbahs erradi bemehace en ie,oun lenenahn elqeref ennetakah elle;i leka;ih elmecih idenohn ;ebekkelnealyih fele iofcah Part 3 fekal esseiq lemme pede essihyten ie,;our cemahten e;;oupeni antwnioc rakad fekomtbejyi; ile hehonefecep; fi hede..eljepel iecir enfired be kaad; hedih elmodde; elkacireh fekal.....aq ,em lek
Remnkemi - Jun 09, 2003 - 11:52 PM
Post subject:
From PaulS:Hello,
I know there is a movement to bring back the old pronunciation in our church. I don't agree, however, for the following reasons.
The proponents of resurrecting the old pronunciation tell us that it is our "true" and ancient language. This is correct, but the new pronunciation is not exactly something that was made yesterday. it has been around for a while, which makes me believe it is part of our heritage, too, especially after the modernization by M. Tekla.
Also, I believe the true fight (not really a fight, but you know what I mean) today is between Coptic versus other languages. Our goal is to bring back Coptic first and foremost; it would be more than silly to alienate people by splitting the pro-Coptic side into two camps (old v. new pronunciation).
I believe we should focus on making Coptic the standard in our churches again; once that is accomplished, we can work on the correct pronunciation.
There are 2 points I want to bring up. First, Greco-Bohairic was not made yesterday, it's been around for 150 years and only in the last 25 years has it become the rule. Compare that to 1500 years of Old Bohairic, which has survived as is until 1860. GB is part of our heritage but not as much nor as important as OB.
Second, if you want to bring Coptic back first and foremost, you need to tweak out the inconsistencies and errors, otherwise you're only doing half the job. Even if there is a renaissance for the use of the Coptic language, which version will be taught, spoken and encouraged? Which version will be the standard, as you put it? You can't ignore this question just because you don't want to alienate potential students. You need to have a cirriculum before you can actually teach.
I vote for OB. There is just so much evidence that it is the authentic Coptic tongue and it's much easier to the ear than GB, as Bashandy pointed out. And it has less inconsistencies and errors.
Remnkemi - Jun 10, 2003 - 12:14 AM
Post subject:
From ramez mikhail:bottom line: this change although synthetic, not spontaneous and unscientific was made official by church leaders and by clerical college which leads us in many issues...then i dont think we should come now after 150 years and start a counter-movment to "correct" wat our scientists did. especially since it can very much threaten our hymnology and create great confusion in a congreagation not anymore very familiar with coptic anyway
Things done by the Synod and the pope are not always correct. The Pope is not infalliable. In the early 17 and 18th centuries, the Coptic church fell under the sin of Simony: selling the priesthood. Does that make it right? No of course not. Just because the Synod and the Pope use GB doesn't mean that GB should have precedence. In fact, it was Pope Shenouda (then Bishop Antonios) who commission Emil Maher (now Fr. Shenouda Maher) to investigate OB. And when people called Mr. Maher a devil and other profanity for his insistence on OB, Pope Shenouda ordained him priest. Obviously, Pope Shenouda acknowledges the authenticity and value of OB by promoting and supporting Fr. Shenouda.
Concerning the Coptic pronunciation, the Synod of 1860 and the Pope did not know Coptic as their first language. Naturally, they would defer all decisions on Coptic to the Seminary (Elklerikia) on such matters. Guess who was in charge of the Seminary in 1860. Yes, Arian Moftah. So the Synod followed the advise of Moftah. They didn't know enough to challenge his decision. And there was no other Seminary to send potential priests. Once the ball started moving, Greco-Bohairic picked up for many reasons. But the fact remains, it is not authentic Coptic. And Arian Moftah was not a scientist. As I posted before, he did not use any lingustic or scientific theory. He did not compare to other languages. He did not explain his changes. And his students all differed on GB pronunciation, which caused more inconsistencies. All we can gather is that he changed the pronunciation to be more Greek. There was no science behind it. It was pure corruption. It was unintentional but nonetheless, linguistic corruption not linguistic evolution.
As for the hymns, yes returning to OB will bring confusion but remember the hymns were also changed by M. Mikhail and Rageb Moftah (Arian's grandson). Since we do not have any recordings of any other cantors before the pronunciation changes of 1860, we must conclude that use of GB in hymns was also a synthetic chage. In fact, when Fr. Shenouda prays the psalmody in OB, it sounds so much more natural and unstressed. I would venture to say, it sounds more authentic.
Change is always hard. But changing for a good reason is necessary. We now know that OB is more authentic, more natural, and more Coptic than GB. It would be foolish to favor GB.
rashi - Jun 10, 2003 - 01:03 AM
Post subject:
Since Remenkimi rose the issue of H.H Pope Shenouda and Dr. Emil Maher ..May I share with you the recent history of Old Boharic e mailed to me by Sidhom:
- Since the very early introduction of Greco-Bohairic pronounciation
1858-1860 it was met by severe resistant, that later on
faded due to Papal patronage of this pronounciation considering the
right one as informed by Arian G. Moftah
- Up to 1918 it was not that common in the Coptic Church
- In 1938 it was spreading heavily where Coptologists where tracing
the reaminings of the Old Bohairic
- By the 1950's it became almost the one & the only used in Coptic
Church (except for a very few minority)
- In 60's of past Century Dr.Emile Maher (now Fr.Shenouda Maher)
appeared in the scene as a teacher of the Greco-Bohairic
pronounciation who has got no idea about Old Bohairic
- Few years later, abba Shenouda Bishop of Education (now Pope
Shenouda III) discovered a mansucript discussing changes
of pronounciation, which he handled to Dr.Emile Maher to study
- The same study of phonetics was highly recommended by Shakir
Basilios main teacher of Coptic at the klirikia
- Dr.Emile Maher started conducting this study, which was sponsored
by Bishop Shenouda, he reviewed all available
documents, books & manuscripts related to the subjects that are
present in Coptic Monasteries of Egypt, The Old Patriarchate
manuscript Libray, the klirikia Library, the societe d'archeologie
Copte, other Catholic important libraries, in addition to audio
recordings from the very few churches preserving this same heritage,
including a very rare recording of a 102 old man who as
born at 1860, & witnessed all the changes himself & still keeping by
heart the old authentic pronounciation.
- In 1968, Dr.Emile Maher announced his re-discovery of the authentic
Bohairic pronounciation
- The results were shocking to almost all, esp. because it's hard for
older Coptic teachers & heads of Coptic institutes to
re-learn this pronounciation, so if they admitted it they would have
to lose their positions or spend an effort to learn it.
- Envy, fear to lose positions (as told by eye witnesses) were
amongst the main causes towards a vigorous attack towards this
pronounciation, but, this led to no more than more enthusiasm to
Dr.Emile to spread the re-discovery of the authentic
pronounciation
- 1972, two British Coptologists were in a visit to Egypt, they saw
the works of Dr.Emile Maher, they offered apost for him at
the UK to accomplish his studies, the post was accepted, sponsored &
encouraged by Pope Shenouda III, & Dr.Emile Maher
travelled to spend about 2-3 years in United Kingdom
- 1975, Dr.Emile Maher returned to Egypt with a ph.d from Oxford
University about the Old Bohairic pronounciation.
- 1976, Dr.Emile Maher starts a massive education of Old Bohairic
pronounciation to many Churches
- 1976, the Openin of the Institute of the Coptic Language for the
Old authentic Bohairic pronounciation at the abba Rewais
Cathedral which covers a sapce that is almost equal to the Insitute
of Coptic Studies which includes Coptic Language, Coptic
Music, African Studies, Coptic History, Coptic Art, Coptic Textiles,
Coptic Theology.
- 1976, Pope Shenouda III, abba Maximos Bishop of Qualybeyya, abba
Bishoy, abba Timothaos attended special party
congratulating hundereds of students for their mastery of Coptic in
the Bohairic (OB) pronounciation.
- 1979-1981, Institute of Coptic Language for Old authentic Bohairic
pronounciation, continues teaching Coptic depending on
its scientific superiority, without religious interference or
supervision. It continues in its same place at the heart of the abba
Rewais Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, which inclludes the Patriarchate
building, the klirikia, Bishopric of Social Services etc.
- 1980's massive attacks towards the Insitute of Coptic Language, led
by Dr.Shakir Basilios & Fr. Theodosius of Syrian Monastery.
Attacks included calling him Arius of Coptic Language, the Heretic,
causative of schism etc. Most opnions renders these attacks to envy
to this supreme success, fear to lose positions of this OB spreads,
other opinions renders it to the strict nature of Dr.Emile Maher &
the stubborn nature of his enemies to pronounciation
- 1990's Pope Shenouda orders Fr.Theodosius to return to his Monstery
& not to re-attack the Institute
- Mid 1990'a Pope Shenouda III ordains Dr.Emile Maher as a priest.
which in turn shut down any mouth yelling he's a heretic
- Recent years, Fr.Shenouda Maher prays in Old Bohairic, teaches Old
Bohairic, even the Church Chorus sings in Old Bohairic at the Church
he serves in Rochester.
Biboboy - Jun 10, 2003 - 02:29 AM
Post subject:
Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, have mercy on us.
Hi everyone,
This is my very first post in this forum. The topic you are all discussing is very interesting, I think, but I jsut want to interfere with a small point to show that it makes no difference whether we pronounce the old or new Bohairic.
So, why is there no difference?
Ans: Because the old Bohairic followed the Greek grammar and pronounciation rules (which is called "koine" Greek), and the new Bohairic also follows the Greek grammar and pronounciation rules (which is Byzantine Greek).
In other words, both are actually "Greko-Bohairic"!
So there's no need to argue for or against any version of Bohairic... what matters is that the language survives, and may it survive in whatever way we pronounce it...
Personally, I don't see any problem with the modern pronounciation of Coptic, especially on the basis that both ways rely on the Greek pronounciation. For e.g. Coptic in the past relied on the newest pronounciation of Greek (koine), rather than the older versions, such as Ionic. There's no harm, then, to follow the new and easier pronounciation and grammar of the even newer Greek, Byzantine Greek.
In Christ,
Your little fobby brother,
Bishoy
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 10, 2003 - 04:47 AM
Post subject:
i think i am kinda late....and i really dont have many evidence material to dispute or prove OB over GB or vice versa...but i would like to point some things in a later post:
Coptic was not used a
spoken language in delta & Cairo since 14th Century, so the factor of
language death is to be excluded generally
i am not sure of what you meant, but if you meant that there is some kind of causation relation between the diminshing of the coptic language as a result of the introduction of the arabic language and the dispute over OB and GB, then i will have to say that you lost me. What does the deterioration of usage of coptic "as a general term of a language with many dialects" has to do with OB or GB in particular? in other words, this deterioration would have happened any way for several reasons, either it was OB or GB.
After the 1860 GB, Arabic & English are replacing Coptic heavily
at the mass
i still do not see any connection between the deterioration of the coptic language usage and the introduction of GB. arabic and later english started replacing coptic because fewer people knew coptic well enough to undersand the liturgy. it doesnt have to do with pronounciation, but rather with the fact that coptic is replaced in daily lives with arabic or english.
The coptic midnight praise is being sung in Arabic or English
still, a third statment that i dont find any connection between it and our debate. what does the deterioration of the usage of coptic has to do with the introduction of GB? it is known that coptic was declining already even before 1850 as a result of arabic government restrictions on copts.
nowadays new Church books including Euchologion,
Ministry of the Deacon, Pascha book & other books are almost exclusively
printed only in Arabic, & Coptic is oftenly overlooked or if written
it's written only in Arabicized Coptic.(Coptic in Arabic letters)
that is absolutley not true. i admit that ten or fifteen years ago arabicized coptic was dominating many service books. but ever since, coptic texts have been rapidly replacing the arabicized form. more service books are constantly being printed with arabic and coptic fonts. why? because as a deacon who lived in egypt for 16 years myself i have witnessed a dramatic and revolutionary revival of coptic especially among adolescent deacons and congregation. i dont see how can you ignore the past ten years that witnessed such an active effort to encourage coptic in many churches.
Papers: pamphlets, brochures, flyers & visual aids that are commonly
distributed at special occasions e.g. Christmas, or udring the Sunday
schools' service are almost completely devoid of anything related to
coptic language.
you are still relating the introduction of GB to the overall deterioration of coptic usage. you are relating an event that happened 150 years ago to a current observation that is really a result of the wide effect of arabic and english in our lives. tell you what, i dont see how could have OB survived this deterioration had it remained the official pronounciation, or hadn't Moftah done his thing...coptic would have still been replaced gradually by arabic and english
this sharp drawback of Coptic, with only one fzctor changing in Coptic
that's pronounciation.
that is basically your whole argument. that since the only thing that changed in coptic was the pronounication then it must be the factor that caused less enthusiasm.i do not see that. a correlation does not mean causation. there are many other factos that we all know that caused the deterioration of coptic in out church. the most obvious that any non-expert can tell you is that we do not use coptic in our lives as our ancestors before GB used to do...did we stop using coptic because the GB is synthetic? i dont think so, coptic was already diminishing before GB and was rapidly replaced by arabic.
again i appreciate further clarification
Remnkemi - Jun 10, 2003 - 11:15 AM
Post subject:
From Biboboy:
Ans: Because the old Bohairic followed the Greek grammar and pronounciation rules (which is called "koine" Greek), and the new Bohairic also follows the Greek grammar and pronounciation rules (which is Byzantine Greek).
In other words, both are actually "Greko-Bohairic"!
So there's no need to argue for or against any version of Bohairic... what matters is that the language survives, and may it survive in whatever way we pronounce it...
Personally, I don't see any problem with the modern pronounciation of Coptic, especially on the basis that both ways rely on the Greek pronounciation. For e.g. Coptic in the past relied on the newest pronounciation of Greek (koine), rather than the older versions, such as Ionic. There's no harm, then, to follow the new and easier pronounciation and grammar of the even newer Greek, Byzantine Greek.
In Christ,
Your little fobby brother,
Bishoy
Hi Bishoy, welcome to the forum. I'm sure you must know Theophilus/Sherif. You guys have a great service.
I would like to point out to all that Coptic is NOT related to Greek in anyway shape or form, except sharing 28 characters of the alphabet. Vocabulary is different. Grammar is very different. And pronunciation is very different. To say Coptic follows Greek, whether Koine or Byzantine Greek, is wrong. In fact, if you think about it, it is the other way around.
Here's an abridged history on the Coptic language. I am preparing an entry into the encyclopedia.
Coptic is the 4th generation of Heiroglyphics: Heiroglyphics, Heraritic, Demotic and Coptic. All vocabulary (non-Greek loan words) is Egyptian/Heiroglyphic. In other words, the Heiroglyphic word for Father is Piwt. Just like Coptic. The only difference between heiroglyphics and Coptic the alphabet (which I'll get to in a moment). Grammar and vocabulary remained the same for the most part. That is why the Rosetta stone was interpeted. When Thomas Young and Jean Champollion found the stone in Upper Egypt, they were able dicepher heiroglyphics because it had a late Demotic Coptic translation. Coptic was the key to rediscovering Heiroglyphics.
Now travel along in history to 1800BC. Pheonicians worked in the turquois mines of Egypt. Pheonicians did not have verbal/written language, just an oral one. The theory goes that one such Pheonician worker was able to learn Heiroglyphics. As a result, he adapted the alphabet to develope the Pheonician alphablet. From the Pheonician alphabet came all the Semitic alphabets and most of their vocabulary. This includes Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, etc. The Greeks revised the Pheonician alphabet to suit their needs. They just changed the characters. But Greek is closer to the Semitic languages than to the Egyptian language. The same thing happened with the Romans. They borrowed the Greek alphabet and developed Latin. The point that you need to know is that Coptic came before Greek.
When Christianity came to Egypt and Coptic was revolutionized, they kept Coptic vocabulary and grammar and borrowed the Greek Koine Alphabet. They started borrowing vocabulary too, but not as much as most people think. Eventually, Greek changed into what is called Modern Greek and it has even less similarities to Coptic than Koine Greek does.
In the last 20 years, there has been a movement for Coptic to distance itself from Greek. Scholars now know that Coptic is very different than Greek, not just 7 additional letters. The authenticity of Coptic has helped in Biblical studies. One of the oldest versions of St. John's Gospel is in Coptic, not Greek. There are many examples of the importance of Coptic over Greek. Naturally, since people do not associate Coptic with Greek, why would they associate with Greco-Bohairic, either. Also, both Greco-Bohairic and Old Bohairic do not follow Greek pronunciation, just ask Sherif.
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.
George
MikeS - Jun 10, 2003 - 08:13 PM
Post subject: Old Bohairic or Greco Bohairic?
Hello all,
Well put Remnkemi!
As a non-Copt, and one who doesn't use/hear Coptic spoken as much as you all do, part of me felt that I really shouldn't put forth an opinion or any thoughts on the matter of GB vs. OB, but the Linguist in me was screaming to say something, so... I offer here my 2 cents worth. First, please understand that the following thoughts are more from a linguistic point of view than a Liturgical one. Also, it may sound like this is somewhat "wishy-washy" in that I don't seem to take either side ñ I'm trying to stay somewhat neutral; again, these are just some thoughts on the issue.
First, let me say that the debate is quite interesting and brings up some good points. It's good to see people "thinking" about their language and the future of it!! It is, however, not a new debate in the bigger picture of language development.
Concerning the alphabet issue someone had brought up ñ The fact that the Egyptians borrowed the Greek alphabet to write their language, doesn't make their language any more "Greek". People have been borrowing alphabets from their neighbors since writing was invented. (see the post above mine!)The fact that the Egyptians took several letters from their own script (Demotic) to represent sounds not found in Greek at that time, seems to indicate they were well aware of the fact that the alphabet they were borrowing wasn't a perfect "fit" for the Egyptian language. I think it's quite probable they used the letters somewhat loosely which is evidenced in some of the differences found between OB and GB today. Greek, of course, has changed quite a bit as well over the centuries. Just because a specific letter was borrowed, doesn't mean the original sound that went with it was borrowed as well. Russian and other Slavic languages have borrowed the Greek alphabet as well ñ The Cyrillic alphabet even contains two Coptic letters with two variations for one of the letters!! Again, an example of how the speakers change the alphabet to best suit their language. The Coptic letter "Shai" without the tail is "sh" in the Cyrillic, while "shai" with the tail is "shch" (a common sound in Slavic languages!). The Coptic "fai" in the Cyrillic represents the sound "ch" in 'church'. So, as you can see, it's not a one-to-one borrowing. As a result, I think we need to exclude the alphabet issue from the GB/OB debate; I don't think the two issues are related.
Concerning GB ñ Let me just say that all languages develop and change over time in both pronunciation and grammar ñ some more than others. The English of 800 years ago would hardly be recognized as such by modern speakers today unless they've studied it. Some of the changes which occur in the pronunciation of languages were not at all based on any "natural" linguistic occurring event/issue. Many changes are/were done for socio-political reasons. A modern example would be the so-called "Russification" of many of the Slavic and non-Slavic languages of the former Soviet Union and Soviet controlled countries. When I was learning Ukrainian in Cambridge, MA several years ago, there were people whose ancestors (grandparents, great-grandparents) came from Ukraine and that's where these students learned much of their Ukrainian (i.e. from their grand parents/parents). When they had to learn the "modern standard Ukrainian" (that of Kiev), which contained a multitude of Russifications, many flat out refused to learn these forms and continued to speak using the "old way". I use this example just to illustrate that sometimes, language change is not really linguistically driven ñ I'm not by ANY means suggesting that GB was politically driven (I don't know enough of the details to make that kind of statement) ñ the above is just the first example that comes to mind.
So, with that being said, it can be argued that GB, though "synthetic" and artificially created, can be considered as part of the natural development of the Coptic language as a whole. By the way, these Russifications are still to be found in these languages today and are considered part of the modern standard.
Other languages have undergone similar developments. Switzerland's fourth language, Romontsch (more properly, Rhaeto-Romance), spoken almost exclusively in one small canton is actually five separate very minor Romance languages, few of which are mutually intelligible. As a result of this, an artificial form of the language was created about 20 years ago called Romontsch Grischun (The Rumantsch of Grissons). It has been adopted as the "official" language of government, TV, radio, etc. It is purely literary, no one grows up speaking RG as their maternal language ñ it's used in conjunction with what everyone speaks "at home". It's intent was to make the language more accessible to the general public and to help preserve its usage as an official language as well as help people who don't speak the same variation of the language to be able to communicate with each other more easily.
It can be argued that GB is doing the same thing. It is an artificial pronunciation created to make Coptic more accessible to people who aren't familiar with it. Of course, unlike the example I gave, you don't have the same situation where several dialects of Coptic are still spoken on a day to day basis and GB was created to help people who speak these various dialects (which may not be mutually intelligible) communicate with one another, but it does, I suppose, make the language a little less intimidating and easier to learn to pronounce.
As for myself, this is just a personal opinion, but when I first became familiar with GB, I was surprised to see who much it sounded like modern Greek. The only Coptic I had experienced prior to this was Sahidic which uses an older pronunciation. As I was saying to someone on another list, for a lack of a better way of putting it, GB sort of takes out some of the "Egyptian-ness" of the language.
Some have mentioned having to re-learn hymns ñ maybe it's my unfamiliarity with Coptic hymnology, but I'm not sure I understand why a person would have to learn the hymn differently ñ the tune would still be the same, it's just the pronunciation of the words that would change ñ Again, I'm not familiar enough with OB, but I don't think words are stressed any differently in OB and GB, it's just the pronunciation of the letters that would change ñ Please correct me if I'm wrong here ñ does OB have a different stress pattern than GB??!! As I understand it, whether you say "emefriti" or "amabradi", you're still spelling it 'mvry] and the stress is still on the next to last syllable.
To turn to OB ñ This is the language as it is truly spoken and was spoken by your ancestors. It should be preserved and allowed to develop naturally as all languages do. It is the link to the past and a connection to ancient Egypt ñ so is GB, but it's not quite the same because it's pronunciation doesn't reflect a natural development from Egyptian to Coptic; it's been too modified. OB represents the true continuation of Egyptian.
Other languages are not modified and simplified so that they can be more easily learnt. Well, OK, to be fair, some writing systems have been simplified (i.e. Chinese - you have simplified characters used in mainland China and older traditional ones used in other Chinese speaking countries ñ Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. and there are, of course, "Pidgin" languages ), but it's not the same issue. One can argue that Coptic (OB) is pronounced like "such and such" and that's just the way it is and just the way you have to learn it, just like any other language! This is just how the language is spoken. Arabic to me is VERY difficult to learn to pronounce, but I don't think it should be simplified just to make it easier for the rest of the world to learn!
I guess in short, it can be argues that OB is the true pronunciation of the language and, as such, should be the language that is taught and used.
Speaking of which, you have the whole teaching issue. As others have pointed out, you have to have a curriculum before you can teach. This brings up a whole other issue of what should be taught ñ if Coptic is to be revived (hopefully someday it will make a comeback as a true living language!), which version should be taught as "Modern Standard Coptic"? Bohairic, I think would be the natural answer, but what pronunciation? Again, I think the natural answer would be the traditional OB pronunciation. There's no reason why the two variations couldn't live side by side for a while until OB becomes the norm. Obviously, this isn't something any of us will see in our lifetimes. It is a process which will take several generations.
Other languages which have been revived also face similar issues ñ Cornish, the original Celtic language of Cornwall, is enjoying a revival. In the 100 or so years since it's revival, however, there are already dialects and orthographic variations developing. The heated debate with Cornish now is what dialect and orthography (writing system) to accept as "standard". I can see this happening with Coptic as well. I don't think there's any question on how to write it, though if it were revived, I think someone would have to begin thinking about a longhand version 
! But I think the bigger question would be on how to revive it.
Coptic is in a very unique situation in that it survives today as primarily a liturgical language; how do you revive a language and with it, revert to a more traditional pronunciation without "messing" with the Liturgy and confusing people even more??!! Indeed, a very hard question with no simple answer. Suddenly reverting the Liturgy to OB would, I think, just add fuel to those who want to dispense with Coptic all together in the Liturgy. Again, I think it would have to be something which would have to be done very gradually over the course of a few generations, not a matter of a few years.
Speaking of reviving Coptic ñ should it be made to be a compulsory language in Egyptian schools, kind of like what Irish Gaelic is in Ireland today? Perhaps a few years of it at the elementary level and high school level would be a good idea. The problems with this are, of course, multiple. Where would you get so many Coptic teachers (not that they would have to be Copts, per se, they would just need to know the language enough to teach it at those specific age levels)? The language is also associated with Christianity in Egypt, a language belonging to a people who (as I understand it) are a minority in their own country, and thus would probably meet with a great deal of opposition by the Islamic majority. You'd almost have to "secularize" the curriculum. There are a number of things to consider, but I'm veering off the track of the discussion here!
To sum up, I think both the GB and OB debate can be argued equally well on both sides ñ both sides of the debate have viable issues and points. Personally, I would have to say that I would have to cast a vote for OB, more for historical and linguistic reasons than anything else ñ Don't get me wrong though, I have nothing against GB; it is perfectly fine in it's own right and I see no reason why the two can't simultaneously exist, at least for a while, one as a Liturgical language, one as a common spoken language.
Sorry for taking up so much room and rambling on so much!! Please keep on thinking about your language and its history ñ Coptic must be allowed to survive regardless of the guise in which it does so!
Respectfully,
Mike S
MikeS - Jun 10, 2003 - 08:16 PM
Post subject:
Just realized I spelt the Coptic word wrong - it should be `m`vry] !
Mike S
Mikey - Jun 10, 2003 - 09:10 PM
Post subject: Re: Old Bohairic or Greco Bohairic?
Hello,
Mike, those were some very good points that you made there. I was also about to bring up the whole language changing idea. let's take english for example...im sure we've all taken shakespeare...so the english that was used back then would be "the original"..right? but we're using a modern version of it. I was talking to a guy in my church who's been living in canada for the past 30 some years...and he was involved in writing the very first english liturgy here...he said that it was all "thou" "thee" "thine" does this mean that we should use that because it's how the first english liturgies were written (not that im for using the english in liturgies...but we gotta face the facts..we have to use it..for now at least).
so saying we're gonna revert back to the OB is just like saying...we gotta go back to the old english. I know it's also different since one is a spoken language and the other is a Liturgical language.
From MikeS:Speaking of reviving Coptic ñ should it be made to be a compulsory language in Egyptian schools, kind of like what Irish Gaelic is in Ireland today? Perhaps a few years of it at the elementary level and high school level would be a good idea. The problems with this are, of course, multiple. Where would you get so many Coptic teachers (not that they would have to be Copts, per se, they would just need to know the language enough to teach it at those specific age levels)? The language is also associated with Christianity in Egypt, a language belonging to a people who (as I understand it) are a minority in their own country, and thus would probably meet with a great deal of opposition by the Islamic majority. You'd almost have to "secularize" the curriculum. There are a number of things to consider, but I'm veering off the track of the discussion here!
About this part here...actually in religion class in egypt...if there were any Christians in the class..they would have to leave the room and go to a separate room for their own class. Also churches in Egypt have been teaching the youth a lot of coptic..and here too. in egypt..there is the "mahragan" every year...where there are competitions in religion, history, hymns, coptic language, sports and games. So there have been efforts to revive coptic. but im also getting off topic here...sorry!
i still vote for GB in our liturgies and hymns but i would love to learn OB and i will be talking to Abouna Shenouda Maher about this very soon since i live only an hour away from Rochester. I will ask him and see what he says about it and what kinds of stuff he got from his research.
God bless,
Mike
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 10, 2003 - 09:31 PM
Post subject:
i think Mike nailed it....
i expected that from a noncopt, no offence of course i am complimenting your post. i was just talking to a friend yesterday about that, he is not a linguist oe anything, but he gave me a spontaneous answer that pretty much matched what mike said. i think the only problem with copts agreeing to use GB as a liturgical language and OB as aspoken language is that we r to sentimental about it. why took sides without a chance of compromise, which if we didnt, we would have had a good chance of reaching a compromise.
that is why actually i intend to learn OB, not cuz i am against GB but because i JUST wanna learn the correct thing. but for liturgical use i will just stick to the GB which even though it is "fake" still sounds more religous in my ears than OB. and that is not cuz GB is better, but it is the case with any language u get used to using in liturgy. if i am used to pray in chinese..it will always sound more sacred in my ears than any other language.
that is also why i voted for GB...not cuz i think it is the original or the correct coptic...but cuz i know i will always use it in liturgy..even if i know it is fake and even after i learn OB
rashi - Jun 10, 2003 - 11:57 PM
Post subject:
Hi everyone ,
I love this thread because it has real "scientific" debate...Kalam kebeir awi..
I just have a small request from those who are good in OB..Can you please give us a summary of the pronounciation of OB,the rules and stuff like that...
Peace be with you all
atthoowi - Jun 11, 2003 - 02:52 AM
Post subject: Bohairic vs Greco-Bohairic
I love this debate because for once we are using facts moreso than opinions. I love the dates, names, places etc.
Anyway, Someone commented that "Old-Bohairic" AKA "Bohairic" and "New-Bohairic" AKA 'Greco-Bohairic" are actually both Greco-Bohairic. This statement is absolutely erroneous. The original Coptic language adapted the Greek Alphabet to the language. There was no change in the pronunciation when the alphabet was adopted originally. With the New Bohairic the pronunciation was Grecocized (if thats a word LOL). That is why the modern pronunciation is called Greco-Bohairic.
Also, let me give you an example about not accepting facts. In 1492 a brave valiant explorer, Christopher Columbus, set sail from Europe to discover new lands. People thought he was crazy and would falll off the flat Earth. We know it is round, it was always round, and always will be round. The uneducated out of their stubborness chose not to accept the fact of the true nature of the sshape of the world. Needless to say, Chris was right, they were wrong.
In the same manner, the facts say that "Bohairic/OldBohairic" pronunciation is correct. People choose to overlook the facts and ignore its presence. These people are destined to fall of the edge of the Earth, figuratively of course, whereas the open minded intelligent people will turn a flat map into a globe and correct their erroneous ways.
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:43 AM
Post subject:
In the same manner, the facts say that "Bohairic/OldBohairic" pronunciation is correct. People choose to overlook the facts and ignore its presence. These people are destined to fall of the edge of the Earth, figuratively of course, whereas the open minded intelligent people will turn a flat map into a globe and correct their erroneous ways.
Aside from being offensive and condescending, I find this comment unpersuasive.
If we're going to use analogies to describe Coptic pronunciaton, we might as well use something that fits, not an indisputable, scientifically certifiable natural fact.
We can say that Old Bohairic was certainly correct before the advent of Greco-Bohairic, but now that we have the latter, it is ridiculous to accuse entire generations of being ignorant (the natural antithesis of the "open minded [sic] intelligent people.") Stated simply, language evolves, and our hymnology evolves. You can't tell me that our brothers who speak French in Canada, Morocco, and even France now speak the exact same language with the same pronunciation, grammar rules, etc., as the French-speaking peoples of the 15th century did.
Additionally, you and I are writing this post in modern, lax American English, which isn't the same as colonial American English, which wasn't the same as proper British English, which wasn't the same as the English of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and other great writers from centuries past.
I guess we're destined to fall off the edge of the earth, too.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:52 AM
Post subject:
Paul...
i think the only difference between what ur examples are and the debate over OB and GB is that GB is not considered to be natural evolution of language by those who support OB. that main argument against OB is that it is "synthetic", not natural gradual evolution of language.
i still vote for GB as a liturgical language though
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:54 AM
Post subject:
I disagree, Ramez.
I'm sure modern English, which incorporates a lot of non-standard words, like "wow" and such, is "synthetic," too, but we call it English.
It doesn't matter how things were merged; the fact of the matter is the Coptic people once spoke Old Bohairic in their liturgies and now they speak Greco-Bohairic.
There's your evolution.
maherkaldas - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:56 AM
Post subject:
The Coptic Language:
Coptic, the authorized liturgical language of the Coptic orthodox Church of Egypt, derives from the last developmental stage of ancient Egyptian civilization. That language had existed from 3500 BC. The earliest Egyptian writing discovered so far, according to our limited knowledge in that regard, is dated around 3000BC.
Coptic is known as the Kemitian language ( Metremn,/mi) and this language was used in ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language had three different scripts:
(1) Hieroglyphic script, Greek name from ( Ieroc) and its meaning is Holy, and it uses symbols . This type remained in use until 294 and then vanished.
(2) Heratic script, from the Greek word, Ieratikoc This type of script remained until 452, and it was simpler than the previous one.
(3) Dimotic script, from the Greek word D/motikoc meaning belonging to the people. This type of script is the parent of the Coptic language.(22)
Coptic language and Greek language:
The Coptic and Greek languages are finely interlaced. The interrelationship between these two languages can not be separated, including letters of the alphabet, writings, words, and expressions. Starting in 320B.C., the Greek language slowly came into use with the Demotic language, until the Greek language was the most commonly used.
In 150B.C., the Egyptians began writing their ancient language using the Greek alphabet. Although this was done unofficially, a large number of manuscripts with this format were found. The Egyptians found that the writing of their alphabet was overly complicated , and the usage of the Greek alphabet was tremendously simpler and faster to use. In addition to using the existing Greek alphabet, seven other letters were added for the sounds which did not exist in the Greek language(23), and the resulting alphabet became a single unit.
The developments of the Coptic language:
Dimotic, the simplified version of Hieratic, emerged during the Greco-Roman period. During the early Christian centuries Egyptians adopted the Greek alphabet, retaining just seven Dimotic characters to represent sounds nonexistent in Greek. Historians attribute this momentous change to the fact that Dimotic language writing had become overly complicated. Greek prevailed as the governmental language of the knowledgeable Eastern world during the Roman and Byzantine eras, which may partially account for the fact that Egypt failed to recognize Coptic as the national Egyptian language.
Native Egyptians spoke Coptic; some religious, scientific, and educational institutions used written Coptic until three centuries after the Arab conquest.(25) By the eleventh-century, Coptic literature had lost most of its vitality, yet the spoken language remained alive for a long time, particularly in the Christian villages of Upper Egypt.(26) Today the Coptic language has almost disappeared; although it remains the authorized language of the Coptic Church. This language now faces the threat of extinction.
At its peak time (c.700-1000A.D.) Coptic extended to five dialects, three of which -Akhmimic, Subakhmimic and Fayumic- developed only local importance.
Sahidic, the dialect of Upper Egypt, became the classical literary and spoken language.
Bohairic, a dialect that flourished in Lower Egypt from the fifth through the tenth century, was adopted by the Coptic Church and survives today in the Coptic Church liturgy (Mass).
ì The main body of the Coptic poetry lies in the great collections of hymns whose texts are deeply spiritual. The Coptic language includes numerous Greek words not because it lacks equivalents, but partly because the Copts wanted to purify their language by removing words associated with old heathen practices. For example, the Copts adopted the Greek word Paradeisos, which has the Christian meaning of ëabode of the blessedí despite having their own word ëSekhet yarwí , meaning the ëfield of happy soulsí because the latter had always applied in the context to the pagan Egyptian religion. Also many Greek words came into the Coptic language through repeated use in theological discussions at international religious conferences."(27)
GUYS THIS IS A PART I WAS PREPARING FOR A LITTLE PROJECT I AM WORKING ON with references attached.
WILL BE AVAILABLE COMPLETE IN THE FUTURE.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:58 AM
Post subject:
i am not sure where did "wow" and the modern usage of "kool" come from, but i am sure its incorporation was natural and unintentional.
GB on the other hand was "made" and "introduced" by ONE person....i dont think u can consider one person to be able to evolve a language....while in other languages it was completely spontaneous and took many years. not a day or two that took to come up with GB
ps....why did you edit "wat r u talking about Ramez?", for"i disagree ramez"..lol u didnt have to do this
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:04 AM
Post subject:
Again, it doesn't matter if one person made the synthesis or not. If the fact that it was only one person who started the whole thing was relevant, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because only that one person would be using Greco-Bohairic.
However, as we know, the entire Coptic church worldwide followed this one person, so it does not matter how it started. There is no difference between Shakespeare using a new word that causes English to evolve and Eryan Moftah using a new pronunciation that causes Coptic to evolve.
Either way, it is the same, because every evolution starts with a single person, event, revelation, etc.
P.S. I made the change from "What are you talking about, Ramez" to "I disagree, Ramez" to make sure I didn't accidentally offend you by using condescending language, because when I hear people say "What are you talking about" on TV or in society, it sounds kind of bad...
maherkaldas - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:17 AM
Post subject:
Guys,
I think that one individual did not start the whole thing. It is impossible to do. The movement must of been there. Maybe the standard he put in place made it what it is today.
But, to create what we have in our hands today in all these service books. It is impossible.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:21 AM
Post subject:
lol....what r u talking about paul......see, it doesnt sound so bad...j/k
it is ok...i know u probably thought what i wrote didnt make sense or was absolute blasphemy that is why the first comment was "dude...r u insane"
never mind people...back to discussion...just thought to easen it up a little
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:23 AM
Post subject:
I've always been open about the fact that I think you're insane... ever since the PC gamer stuff.
lol. 
atthoowi - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:26 AM
Post subject: Sorry
Sorry if I upset anyone. My intent was to make a point that we have undeniable evidence of the truth that shouldn't be ignored.
Also, not every church worldwide uses the Greco bohairic. There are few who still use the old bohairic. Even in America, in Los Angeles, I have a direct eye witness account of church elders in the 1970's still praying "Tok de di jom" instead of "thok te te gom." Of course they have passed on, and as the spread of cassette tapes came about the language is as we know it now.
Also Maher, please study the facts about the reformation of the Coptic Language in the 1800's. There is undeniable documentation stating that Arian Moftah was behing the Greco pronunciation change, not evolution as was previously insinuated. Evolution of a language is a gradual process that takes place over time, not an abrupt change brought about by someone with good intentions that ended up destroying the original language.
maherkaldas - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:32 AM
Post subject:
ATTHOOWI,
I copied a part from a research i am working on and every word in that post has a reference number next to it. which means there are eveidence to these facts documented.
unfourtionetly, this is what i can share with all of you now.
Ramez Mikhail - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:34 AM
Post subject:
that is what i meant to say atthowi.....thank u.
it is true that shakspeare DID introduce HUNDREDS of words to english. he made them up, simple as that and put them in his plays.
that doesnt say anything other than the fact that it is another example of abrupt change and not evolution.....besides, the thing with coptic is not a matter of adding some words, it is a TOTAL change in the pronounciation of the language, imagine if german sounds like french and not like german anymore.
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 04:43 AM
Post subject:
Ramez,
You're now picking at miniscule things that don't support your point in any way. I can understand what both of you are trying to say, but atthoowi's point doesn't help you. He was replying to Maher, who said it wasn't really one person who started the movement.
I've been saying that it doesn't matter how many people started the movement. The movement just happened. You know from physics that any time X becomes Y, there is a change. In this case, you're telling me that just because one person made X into Y, we should now accept X as the undeniably correct choice (as atthoowi said above). I think you see the fallacy in that argument, because it doesn't matter how long it took X to become Y or how many forces effectuated the change. The point is that X is now Y, and it is widely accepted. This is an evolution whether you like it or not.
You can pick out minor differences between "synthetic" and "natural" changes all you like, but I don't think Y (or anyone else) cares whether it was made via a "synthetic" or "natural" way; the only thing that matters is that Y exists from X. End of it.
atthoowi - Jun 11, 2003 - 03:58 PM
Post subject: Coptic
GOd Bless America for in this country we are entitled to our own opinions. All I know is that when my friends and I speak Coptic with each other, the Greco-Bohairic pronunciation confuses the grammar. It becomes difficult to differentiate between "He" and "they" in many of the tenses. It is also difficult to ascertain the word being used because the pronunciation generalizes and completely different words sound exactly the same. For example, "Ouwsh" can be read by greco-bohairic "ou-osh" which means a reading. The word in actuality, depending on pronunciation and usage can mean "a reading" or "wish." In the old bohairic the distinction is clearly made, innew bohairic the two different words are identical. Thus for Coptic speakers the greco-bohairic is impractical. In the case of a reading, it would be pronounced "ou-osh" with the noun being preceded by the indefinate article. If the word was pronounced "wosh" then it is a single word, without prefix, meaning "to wish." In summation, for people who don't speak the language it doesn't make a difference. For speakers it makes a huge difference. God willing many of you will learn to speak Coptic and see my point.
Also, Maher, I wasn't refuting the data you contributed, I was refuting the statement where you said "I think not one person initiated this movement." If you look at your sentence it says "I think" not "It is documented inthis source that ....."
Anyway, this is just a big circular argument that will never end. I implore you, learn Coptic and you will see why it is necessary to revert to the older pronunciation for this to be an usable spoken language, not just a sung liturgical language.
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 05:13 PM
Post subject:
Joe,
We appreciate your knowledge and opinions for sure, but I nonetheless think something is missing from your point.
First, please note that the original question (way, way back on page 1) was whether Bohairic or Greco-Bohairic is proper for use in hymns. I don't see anything in Mikey's original post that mentions conversational Coptic. Indeed, that topic is a difficult one, because I think it is fair to say that Coptic will never be the official conversational in any modern locale, so anyone who has an interest in it is mostly in it for heritage, academic, or pure hobbyist purposes. We've been discussing hymns here, and the movement you have thrown yourself into (i.e., the movement to use Bohairic in liturgical services) is a movement started by one man in the mid-1980s and has, for those 20 years or so, been confined to that one man. If you don't know what I am talking about, I strongly urge you to send a message to Maher Kaldas, who can probably explain it better to you than I can.
Second, as Maher noted above, Eryan Moftah is certainly the man to whom we attribute the Greco-Bohairic movement, but he is not the only person behind it. Maher Kaldas cited an encyclopedia entry list of 7 people, including His Holiness Pope Cyril IV and Mu'allim Takla, who undoubtedly agreed with Eryan Moftah and helped him achieve the transition. Look at that list of seven again and come back here and tell me that those seven were all wrong and that this one modern person who started speaking in the 1980s is right. I don't think so.
Third, and again as Maher pointed out, Bohairic was not the "original" Coptic language as you and others seem to think. There were several different versions of Coptic floating around after its national disintegration following the Muslim conquest. Why do you and others now say that Bohairic is the "original" as if it were something that was largely followed in Egypt centuries ago? That's simply not true, and I would appreciate it if you would justify this view. History tells us that there were no fewer than four different dialects after the Muslim invaders came, and that Bohairic was merely one of the four. What, then, makes Bohairic the magical piece of our heritage that you, Ramez, and others seem to think it is? Yes, it is older than Greco-Bohairic, but what makes it more indicative of our heritage than Akhmimic? Forgive me, but I don't think you realize the difference. Instead, I think you are just following that modern movement from the 1980s, which, as I mentioned, has virtually no support today except in a few circles.
Fourth and finally, for those that think Greco-Bohairic was entirely created only 150 years ago, I would like to call your attention to the fact that Coptic and Greek coexisted a long time before the Muslims came. Indeed, if you read any history about why many Copts in Egypt welcomed the Muslim invaders, you will see that the Byzantines and Greeks that ran Egypt before that time were heavily insistent on a syncretism between the Coptic language and the Greek language. There are many reference works about this, especially those that discuss the economic dynamics of the period, but for my present purposes, I want you to know that Greek and Coptic began merging into each other a long, long time before even Eryan Moftah's great ancestors.
Everything I wrote here has been answered to some extent by Maher Kaldas, but since people are not reading his posts carefully enough, I am laying it out for you very clearly here. If you disagree with anything I have said, I would love to hear it.
God bless you,
Paul
atthoowi - Jun 11, 2003 - 06:46 PM
Post subject: Answer
To answer the original question, which I was not aware of because I came into this discussion late, I think, it is my opinion, feel free to criticize it I don't mind, but Greco-Bohairic Pronunciation is fine for the Liturgy for most people. Again, however, for those who understand Coptic it is not always optimal because it confuses the grammar as stated in my previous message.
Also, to comment on the statement about reviving the language. You are correct Paul that it may never be done with Coptic, but did you guys know that Hebrew was actually a dead language. It was actually worse off than Coptic in that it was totally dead and had been dead for longer than Coptic has been dead. However through the inginuity and desire of the Jews, within the last 100 years it has been revived and is now the common spoken language of the Jews.
Also, there were more than 5 Coptic dialects. In fact, each dialect had many sub-dialects in nearby villages. Why has Bohairic been chosen as the "magical" one? Simply because it is the official dialect of the church services. No magic to it. SOme pope a while ago decided that Bohairic should be made the official dialect because all the churches in all the different regions used different dialects in their liturgies. The only reason I studied and learned it is because I love the Coptic Hymns and traditions of the church and I wanted to read and understand what our fathers had to say without an intermediary interpretation. Believe me guys, the translations we have do not do our great grand fathers justice.
Anyway, this topic always gives me a headache. Im gonna have lunch now guys.
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 06:49 PM
Post subject:
Why has Bohairic been chosen as the "magical" one? Simply because it is the official dialect of the church services. No magic to it. SOme pope a while ago decided that Bohairic should be made the official dialect because all the churches in all the different regions used different dialects in their liturgies.
I agree; this topic will never see agreement.
However, since you want to do justice to your ancestors (and that is wonderful), why do you accept the teaching of one Pope who made Bohairic "official" and reject the teaching of another Pope (Pope Cyril IV) who made Greco-Bohairic official? Is the judgment of one better than the other, or should we follow the teaching of only the ones we agree with?
Something to think about.
atthoowi - Jun 11, 2003 - 07:26 PM
Post subject: Actually
Actually, there has never been an official Church position on pronunciation. In fact, When Deacon Emile Maher, Now Fr. Shenouda, was being criticized about the old bahairic he so believed in the Pope ordained him a Priest and openly allowed him to pray with the Old Pronunciation to quiet the people against him.
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 07:38 PM
Post subject:
As I said, Joe, I respect your knowledge and opinions, but we're now entering the realm of church politics which is something we should avoid at all costs.
I will just say that I have a different view of the relationship of Fr. Shenouda vis-·-vis the church hierarchy. In other words, I am not sure the church supports a conversion to Old Bohairic in the least bit (at least not from what I have heard).
Anyway, I have learned a lot from this debate, so thank you and God bless you.
Pishoy - Jun 11, 2003 - 07:57 PM
Post subject:
Dear Pauls:
the reason is very easy:
Bohairic Coptic was chosen cause it is the dialect used in Alexandria the official Papal residence or Patriarchate (as rome, Vatican in Italy), at a time where few people could understand Coptic in general, cause actually it didn't differ which dialect to use, that's why the decided to use bohairic one.
about what happened during the time of (Pope Cyril IV), this was a totally different thing, it was a mutilation of the language, done by one person (3erian Mofta7), and not the Pope.
again I should emphasize that this is a pure linguistic scientific issue, not a sacred one, so please don't give it a sacred effect, just because it happened at the time of (Pope Cyril IV).
PaulS - Jun 11, 2003 - 08:06 PM
Post subject:
Pishoy,
Welcome to the site.
Please read the encyclopledia entry above posted by Maher Kaldas. There were seven people involved in this "mutilation" of the language, and Pope Cyril IV (and all of the Popes since him) allowed their work to become the standard for the entire church. Additionally, even though Pope Shenouda and the Holy Synod is undoubtedly aware of the history of this issue, no one has made any kind of official declaration on it, and the HICS does not teach Old Bohairic in its hymnology.
maherkaldas - Jun 12, 2003 - 03:48 AM
Post subject: Re: Actually
From atthoowi:Actually, there has never been an official Church position on pronunciation. In fact, When Deacon Emile Maher, Now Fr. Shenouda, was being criticized about the old bahairic he so believed in the Pope ordained him a Priest and openly allowed him to pray with the Old Pronunciation to quiet the people against him.
Hi,
Quick point about this ordination stuff that is floating as it is a validation to his teaching of OB is nonsense.
And allowing him to pray in OB is not a blessing of teaching OB and dividing the Church into two camps. One has nothing to do with the other.
Besides, if his knowledge of OB is the only grounds why he was ordained a Priest WE ARE IN REAL TROUBLE.
SO, LET US KEEP THE PRIESTHOOD OUT OF THIS. BECAUSE, I AM SURE HE HAS MUCH MORE QULITIES THAT MADE HIM DESERVE PRIESTHOOD AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT THE POPE SAW IN HIM WHEN HE CHOSE HIM TO SERVE.
I CAN PUT ANOTHER SPIN TO IT .... BUT, I CHOOSE NOT TOO
Mikey - Jun 12, 2003 - 04:08 AM
Post subject:
yes...Abouna Shenouda was also a theology major (as i was told by him) and he always goes with some of the members of the Holy Synod that work with other churches to unify the faith with them...his knowledge in the Bible is amazing.
Abouna Shenouda is also amazing in his lectures, waazat. His liturgies are so nice too (really long but good and he uses Coptic more than anything else) he makes the congregation say Our Father in coptic and things like that. on Good Friday he starts at 7 and ends at 9pm!! i know this is way off topic.. but i just wanted to point this out to support what Maher said about his ordination and clarify things a bit. I know he was not ordained just for the OB and the people criticizing him.
God bless,
Mike
maherkaldas - Jun 12, 2003 - 06:17 AM
Post subject:
Hi,
I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FEW VITAL POINTS WITH YOU ON THIS IMOPRTANT AND SENSITIVE TOPIC TO US AND TO OUR BELOVED CHURCH
What we have today in our hands it might look as it has been created in the past 150 years or so... In realty the only people that know the condition of the Coptic language and Hymns in 1841 when HIS HOLINESS POPE CYRIL IV commissioned Iryan and Mlm. TAKLA, Mlm.KOZMAN AND BARSOUM EL RAHEB are these great fathers and masters.
All we could do is try to trace back any accounts that could shed some light to what went on. Since all we could gather is bits and pieces of truth we can not in good faith lean one way or the other. Attacking our fathers and these masters that worked hard to serve the Church serves no one.
From reading different Historic Accounts written in various times around that time frame by different authors they describe that time(1841) where Coptic was about to disappear and EL MOALMEEN were in control. They did not want to teach anyone, they rebelled against Pope Cyril IV upon his creation for schools and creating a Chorus of deacons under the supervision of Mlm.Takla.
HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT COPTIC LANGUAGE AFTER THE ARAB CONQUEST:
By the eleventh-century,
Coptic literature had lost most of its vitality, yet the spoken language remained alive for a long time, particularly in the Christian villages of Upper Egypt.
At its peak time (c.700-1000A.D.)
Coptic extended to five dialects, three of which -
Akhmimic, Subakhmimic and Fayumic -
Sahidic , the dialect of Upper Egypt, became the classical literary and spoken language.
Bohairic, a dialect that flourished in Lower Egypt from the fifth through the tenth century, was adopted by the Coptic Church and survives today in the Coptic Church liturgy (Mass).
So, it is obvious from these accounts what the conditions were. It needed a lot of attention and that is what pope Cyril IV did. he brought the second printer into Egypt after the National printer of the government. And, he was away when it arrived to the port of Alexandria. So, he ordered the clergy to receive the printer wearing the service vestments and chant hymns. A lot of People criticized him so, he answered graciously, if was there I would of danced as David did. We doing that because of the knowledge this printer will bring. IS THIS THE TYPE THAT WILL SIT BACK AND LET DISTRUCTION TAKE PLACE??
NOW, IT IS TIME TO REBUTTLE SOME OF THE IRRENOUS CLAIMS MADE ON THIS FOURM:
OB IS THE ORIGIN OF THE COPTIC LANGUGE
THE QUESTION WOULD BE ACCORDING TO WHOM? WHO IS THE AUTHORITY THAT IS COMING OUT WITH THAT STATEMENT? MAHER KALDAS? ATTHOOWI? PAUL? EMIL MAHER?.....
Regardless whom it is. We are not going to take one man's opinion over 7 or 8 great people that knew what they were up against back then. Pope Cyril IV used to make daily rounds in the schools sit among students while teachers such as Iryan taught Coptic. He perfected few languages one of them was Coptic so, Iryan did not falsify and made up his own model of Coptic and The Pope sat allowing it to happen....
Dr. EMIL MAHER deserves all the respect as a researcher and a scholar to put out whatever thesis he likes to come up with. But, is the conclusion that he arrives to an accurate one? THAT IS DEBATABLE among scholars and people that use common sense. We do not follow THE NEW COOL TREND we follow our fathers. That is what we were ordained deacons for. THAT IS WHAT OUR CHURCH TEACHES US.
As for the hymns, yes returning to OB will bring confusion but remember the hymns were also changed by M. Mikhail and Ragheb MUFTAH (Arian's grandson). Since we do not have any recordings of any other cantors before the pronunciation changes of 1860, we must conclude that use of GB in hymns was also a synthetic change.
Mlm.MIkhail was the most accurate Mlm the Church ever had in recent history. Historic accounts tell us that he traveled to verify the authenticity of hymns and learn on the hands of other Mualmeen whom knew Hymns that has not been known in Cairo or the Delta. Does this tell you he is a man that likes to change things? Also, the Late Ragheb moftah used to bring Mlm. SALAMA and sit him down in the recoding studio before Mlm.Mikhail's arrival so he would not know of his presence and since Mlm.Mikhail was legally blind he would not know. After they have finished the recordings in 1957 Dr. Ragheb told Mlm. Mikhail about the presence of Mlm. SALAMA sometimes during recordings. Mlm. Mikhail laughed because he felt his presence anyway. THIS SHOWS YOU WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE WERE THEY? DO YOU THINK SOMEONE THAT IS MAKING CHANGES NEEDS A WITNESS???!!!
WE COULD CONTINUE FOREVER. But, FACTS ARE DOCUMENTED and NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE TRUTH.
IF I CONTINUE FURTHER IT WILL BE ADDRESSING THE 1984 SITUITION WHICH I PREFER NOT TO. I HAVE ALL THE BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO KNOW MORE. THIS ISSUE IS A POLITICAL ONE IN A BIG WAY AND I LIVED IN EGYPT THEN. SO, IT IS FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE NOT SOMEONE SIDE.
PRAY FOR ME,
Remnkemi - Jun 12, 2003 - 03:16 PM
Post subject:
From PaulS:First, please note that the original question (way, way back on page 1) was whether Bohairic or Greco-Bohairic is proper for use in hymns.
OB is actually easier in hymn pronunciation because it is more natural than GB. I'll show you how:
Take the bilabial sound made from pronouncing an English word with P or T. Let use Paul. In order to make that sound, when you exhale (all sound are made during exhaling), you have to keep your lips together until the air reaches your lips. As a result of the air travelling to your entire oral/lyrngeal cavity, it builds up energy. And when you say the sound, it bursts out. Now this happens so fast, you don't notice it. But you will notice that if you have your mouth next to a microphone, the extra energy is amplified in the microphone and you get that pop sound. Every deacon knows what I'm talking about. The same is true for the letter t. Now, you may notice that there is an English dialect (I thought it was exclusive to NY/NJ) but I've heard others do it), where words with the letter t are not pronounced. For example, water is usually pronounce wa der. It's not really a d sound, it's a light t sound. The difference you don't keep your tongue to the roof of your mouth as long. A few years ago, when Bishop Moussa was finished with his sermon on the ECCYC convention, he pulled me up fron to recite the Agpeya into the microphone, while leading the people. When I got to the Creed, where it says, "Begotten of the Father..." I pronounced be ga en (no t sound at all). Bishop Moussa had a kick with that. The point I'm making is that use and overuse of T an P is not natural. That is why OB converts t to d and p to b, etc.
The first time I heard Fr. Shenouda pray in OB for tasbeha, I thought it sounded like baby talk. I came to realize what I called baby talk was actually relaxed, natural pronunciation. That's why people talk to little kids that way, so they can learn relaxed pronounciation first.
I posted a message about natural pronunciation. Take for example, the word Egyptian. It is 4 syllables. But if you pronounce all 4 syllables, you'll have to say E-gyp-shi-an. But naturally, it's pronounce E-gyp-shan. It's the same for hymns. Rather than saying Esmoo e-ep-chois (like Albeir does on the HCOC cds), saying esmoo epchois is easier (like how the choir actually sings the hymn). The same is true for Pi-ekhristos and Bekhristos. Eventually, you are constantly stressing each and every syllable. That is why you have to speed up in certain hymns to fit all those stressed syllables. Sometimes you can't do it. For example, the conclusion of the Adam Psali, Loipon, when you sing the hymn with its tune and you come to [code]nem Pi`pneuma e;ouab[/cod], you have to say epnevmath owab. You basically ignore the e in ethowab. The same is true with Apinav shopi and other hymns. In Ob, you would say epneu ma etwab. (one less stressed syllable). And there are many examples of OB remnants in GB hymnology because it's just easier to say.
Second, as Maher noted above, Eryan Moftah is certainly the man to whom we attribute the Greco-Bohairic movement, but he is not the only person behind it. Maher Kaldas cited an encyclopedia entry list of 7 people, including His Holiness Pope Cyril IV and Mu'allim Takla, who undoubtedly agreed with Eryan Moftah and helped him achieve the transition. Look at that list of seven again and come back here and tell me that those seven were all wrong and that this one modern person who started speaking in the 1980s is right. I don't think so.
7 men is not much compared to the many scholars and linguists who prove Coptic was pronounced in OB and it has been that way for 1500 years. Fr. Shenouda had to convince Oxford University this to defend his PhD thesis. He had a huge bibliography of scholars who defended OB. Also concerning these 7 people, other than Arian Moftah, how much do we know about their knowledge of Coptic language. I would guess that Arian Moftah knew the most Coptic as a language, while the others knew other aspects of Coptic, such as Pope Cyril knew theology, M. Takla knew hymns, etc. As I said, the Synod and the Pope usually reserve their decision on linguists according to the expertese of the Coptic linguists in the Klerkia. It probably was the same scenerio in 1860. I can't verify this.
Third, and again as Maher pointed out, Bohairic was not the "original" Coptic language as you and others seem to think. There were several different versions of Coptic floating around after its national disintegration following the Muslim conquest. Why do you and others now say that Bohairic is the "original" as if it were something that was largely followed in Egypt centuries ago? That's simply not true, and I would appreciate it if you would justify this view. History tells us that there were no fewer than four different dialects after the Muslim invaders came, and that Bohairic was merely one of the four. What, then, makes Bohairic the magical piece of our heritage that you, Ramez, and others seem to think it is? Yes, it is older than Greco-Bohairic, but what makes it more indicative of our heritage than Akhmimic?
No one disagrees there were other dialects of Coptic. But the differences in dialects is not pronunciation, vocabulary or grammar as much as it is spelling. There are some differences but very minor. Like English, honor vs. honour. Yet they are all Coptic. Each dialect had its niche. Bohairic in church services, Sahidic in texts and research, etc. The problem with GB is that by introducing unnatural pronunciation rules, it diminished overall use of Bohairic, as Atthoowi showed. Personally, I would rather return to Akhmimic or Sahidic Coptic before promoting GB.
Fourth and finally, for those that think Greco-Bohairic was entirely created only 150 years ago, I would like to call your attention to the fact that Coptic and Greek coexisted a long time before the Muslims came. Indeed, if you read any history about why many Copts in Egypt welcomed the Muslim invaders, you will see that the Byzantines and Greeks that ran Egypt before that time were heavily insistent on a syncretism between the Coptic language and the Greek language. There are many reference works about this, especially those that discuss the economic dynamics of the period, but for my present purposes, I want you to know that Greek and Coptic began merging into each other a long, long time before even Eryan Moftah's great ancestors.
Egypt, like many countries were hellenized by the Roman and Byzantine Empires. By hellenized, I mean Greek culture incorporating with the countries own culture, much like Egypt is Arabicized. Also, Pharonic Egypt and Arabic were Copticized. This is a natural process. It occurs in both directions. Moftah's changes is not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. You were talking about merging cultures and languages as natural process and compared it to Moftah's changes which were not natural.
I hope I didn't give people a bigger headache.Thanks for the discussion.
George
Remnkemi - Jun 12, 2003 - 03:35 PM
Post subject:
From maherkaldas:So, it is obvious from these accounts what the conditions were. It needed a lot of attention and that is what pope Cyril IV did. he brought the second printer into Egypt after the National printer of the government. And, he was away when it arrived to the port of Alexandria. So, he ordered the clergy to receive the printer wearing the service vestments and chant hymns. A lot of People criticized him so, he answered graciously, if was there I would of danced as David did. We doing that because of the knowledge this printer will bring. IS THIS THE TYPE THAT WILL SIT BACK AND LET DISTRUCTION TAKE PLACE??
Obviously, they did not know it was destruction. Pope Cyril could only believe that it would be helpful. That's why he wanted to dance. Hindsight is 20/20 but future sight is always 0/0.
OB IS THE ORIGIN OF THE COPTIC LANGUGE
THE QUESTION WOULD BE ACCORDING TO WHOM? WHO IS THE AUTHORITY THAT IS COMING OUT WITH THAT STATEMENT? MAHER KALDAS? ATTHOOWI? PAUL? EMIL MAHER?.....
Regardless whom it is. We are not going to take one man's opinion over 7 or 8 great people that knew what they were up against back then. Pope Cyril IV used to make daily rounds in the schools sit among students while teachers such as Iryan taught Coptic. He perfected few languages one of them was Coptic so, Iryan did not falsify and made up his own model of Coptic and The Pope sat allowing it to happen....
We are not taking one man's opinon over 7 or 8 "great" people. We are taking the scientific research of many people, as Fr. Shenouda's thesis shows, over 7 or 8 people you already described as great. The fact is, they were great because they had a vision. But they did not use logic, linguistic theory or any convincing reasoning for these changes. And besides, I have a difficult time thinking it was 7. I think it was mostly Moftah. But that's just my opinion.
We do not follow THE NEW COOL TREND we follow our fathers. That is what we were ordained deacons for. THAT IS WHAT OUR CHURCH TEACHES US.
Which fathers are you talking about. Our 7 fathers from 1860 or our thousands of fathers, who preserved OB for 1500 years?
As for the hymns, yes returning to OB will bring confusion but remember the hymns were also changed by M. Mikhail and Ragheb MUFTAH (Arian's grandson). Since we do not have any recordings of any other cantors before the pronunciation changes of 1860, we must conclude that use of GB in hymns was also a synthetic change.
Mlm.MIkhail was the most accurate Mlm the Church ever had in recent history. Historic accounts tell us that he traveled to verify the authenticity of hymns and learn on the hands of other Mualmeen whom knew Hymns that has not been known in Cairo or the Delta. Does this tell you he is a man that likes to change things? Also, the Late Ragheb moftah used to bring Mlm. SALAMA and sit him down in the recoding studio before Mlm.Mikhail's arrival so he would not know of his presence and since Mlm.Mikhail was legally blind he would not know. After they have finished the recordings in 1957 Dr. Ragheb told Mlm. Mikhail about the presence of Mlm. SALAMA sometimes during recordings. Mlm. Mikhail laughed because he felt his presence anyway. THIS SHOWS YOU WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE WERE THEY? DO YOU THINK SOMEONE THAT IS MAKING CHANGES NEEDS A WITNESS???!!!
I never said he was not accurate or authentic. I merely said that even hymns were said in OB until 1860. In fact, I would say even after that. I merely pointed out that just like Coptic language, Coptic hymns changed by using GB. And like Coptic hymns, the added rules make it unnatural. I don't think M. Mikhail changed any hymns at all. My point was that hymns were changed before. And this change was encouraged by Rageb Moftah. We can't say that GB hymns are older than 1860. Right?
Maher, thanks for your comments. I hope you don't think I'm attacking you. We have a difference of opinion. But I think logical reasoning acknowledges OB's authenticity over Gb.
George
maherkaldas - Jun 12, 2003 - 04:38 PM
Post subject:
DR. EMAIL MAHER THESIS
GREAT IN THEORY. AS THESIS TO AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A HISTORY OF WHAT OF MIGHT EXISTED BEFORE 1841.
HE IS RIGHT OR WRONG IT IS UP IN THE AIR. SO, IS THE CASE FOR THE Oxford people THAT AGREE with HIS STUDY? They might be fascinated by the findings or the amount of info. Included but, it does not mean it is for application.
IT IS ACADEMIC
IT IS AN ATTEMPT. NOT FACT.
Remnkemi - Jun 12, 2003 - 05:10 PM
Post subject:
From maherkaldas:DR. EMAIL MAHER THESIS
GREAT IN THEORY. AS THESIS TO AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A HISTORY OF WHAT OF MIGHT EXISTED BEFORE 1841.
HE IS RIGHT OR WRONG IT IS UP IN THE AIR. SO, IS THE CASE FOR THE Oxford people THAT AGREE with HIS STUDY? They might be fascinated by the findings or the amount of info. Included but, it does not mean it is for application.
IT IS ACADEMIC
IT IS AN ATTEMPT. NOT FACT.
What fact are talking about? That GB existed before 1841? That GB is more authentic than OB (which is not a fact)?
Fr. Shenouda's thesis was an academic theory but you won't find that with proponents of GB. GB's only claim to its dominance is circumstantial use and popularity. By circumstantial, I mean it's used because they learned it that way. They didn't know any other way because of circumstances. That doesn't make it right. At least proponents of OB, show scientific, academic, logical theory. What logical, academic theory does GB have? It's just more popular. That's all. That doesn't make it right. It was more popular to believe in Arianism, but Athanasius didn't think majority makes equals right.
George
maherkaldas - Jun 12, 2003 - 05:22 PM
Post subject:
IT IS NOT STATING HISTORIC FACTS> IT IS STATING A MIGHT OF BEEN FACTS> SO YOU CAN NOT SAY > LET US GO BACK TO WHAT MIGHT HAVE EXSISTED BACK THEN.
BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW IF YOU ARE RIGHT OR NOT. IT IS AN ASSUMPTION. SO, please DO NOT EVER CLAIM THAT OB AS E.M. TAGUHT IT IS THE ORIGIN OF COPTIC LANGUAGE BECAUSE, EVEN HE CAN NOT CLAIM THAT CAN HE?
I BELEIVE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE SO IMPRESSED BY HIM TO THE POINT THEY ARE WILLING TO SAY THAT
HE DID NOT LIVE THEN NEITHER YOU NOR ANYONE OF THE ENTUSIAST OF OB
atthoowi - Jun 12, 2003 - 05:40 PM
Post subject: Facts
Believe me, without facts and evidence you cannot be considered for a PhD in any University, especially Oxford one of the greatest in the world. Let me give you some examples:
I studied manuscripts written in the 12th century and 18th century. Some of these had arabic words written with Coptic letters. The arabic word "wa" meaning and was always written "BE." That is the coptic letter Beta and E. This needs no further explanation of.
The word "ward" meaning flowers is actually a coptic word spelled "BERT." It still survives til today and I'm sure you still pronunce is "ward" Maher, not "Bert." So you yourself have evidence inside of you that supports Fr. Shenouda.
Another example is the word "dawsha" meaning sound or noise. This is actually the Greek word "TI-EVKEE" meaning "the prayer" spelled ti-e-epsilon-khi-eeta. The muslims heard Christians praying with fervor in church and sais "batallo el dawsha" because thats what the word was pronounced like then. As we lost the knowledge of the meaning this word is used as sound now. I'm sure if you have kids Maher you told them this word with the old bohairic accent yourself.
Also, like I said, Many elders who came to America in the 70's, God rest their souls, said "Tok de di jom nem pi-o" not "Thok te tigom nem pi-o-oo" I have eye witness accounts of this.
There are hundreds of words that we still use today in Arabic, that we think are Arabic, but are actuallly coptic and still pronounced today with old bohairic. Not to mention the manuscripts that support this.
Another example, you know the hymn neknai. We say "Niteltili mounhwou." In Arabic we still have the word "teltili" but we say "daldil." Meaning drop or hang. The facts are out there.
In the 1960's, then Emile Maher, Interviewed a 102 year old man who told him about the changes of the pronunciation since his childhood. Another fact to support him.
These are only a few pieces of evidence.
My Friend when he was young said many of the elders in his city in Egypt had many psalms memorized. It was all in the original bohairic accent exactly as Fr. Shenouda pronounces it. His own father and grandfather recited Psalms this way when he was young. Fr. Shenouda wasn't even alive at their time so obviously they didn't learn it from them
maherkaldas - Jun 12, 2003 - 06:01 PM
Post subject:
DR EMIL MAHER PUBLISHED BOOKS IN GB AND PRINTED THESE BOOKS TWICE AND THEY LASTED FOR FEW YEARS EVEN AFTER THESE DATES YOU TALK ABOUT AND AFTER OB AND HIS FASCNITION WITH IT> THAT CHANGED WHEN HE INTRODUCED THE THIRD EDITION OF THE SAME BOOKS HE INSERTED OB WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.
AND THE BOOKS DID NOT SELL SO HE STARTED TO GIVE IT AS GIFTS
Corrected a TYPO
rashi - Jun 12, 2003 - 06:05 PM
Post subject:
Hi all ..
I'll quote here from an email i got from Sidhom about "few "evidence in faour of OB:
"
1. Is the Bohairic pronounciation true?
2. Should it be used or not?
Let's start here by the outlining the scientific verficication, I sent previously this as an enumeration now I resend it but, more detailed; samples of these evidences were sent before e.g. samples of:
- Document in Arabic written in Coptic letters, dating to 10th century
- Transliterations by various scholars
- Comments of Coptologists
- Spelling mistakes & variants of the current Psalmody
- URLs showing Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian pronounciation
- URLs showing history of Coptic language, & the pronounciation of alphabet
- Here's a URL to Nubian alphabet http://www.napata.org/
- Here's a URL of Russian alphabet http://langintro.com/rintro/
Outline Scientific backup of Old Bohairic pronounciation
1. The names of Roman emprors written in hieroglyphic scripts are written in a way that throughs lights about pronounciation i.e. the usage of phone of "W" in compensation for a name starting with a "V" e.g. Valentinos, Valerian etc. & the usage of same phone in describing names iwth 2 different phones e.g. Diocletian where the symbol used for d & t was the same etc.
2. Spelling mistakes in hieroglyphic due to dictation, this is found in the continious intermingling of late Egyptian script between the hieroglyphic symbol of "P" & that of "B" the exchange was totally free & even by the same author in the same manuscript, this raises the conclusion that these phones changed to have the same phonetic value, the same finding was present in Demotic scripts
3. Quality of letters in Heiroglyphic & their phonetic values e.g. Heiroglyphic never included "Th", "dh" ,"v", The Hieroglyphic script does not contain sets of letters' pronounciation that are found in the Greco-Bohairic as previously mentioned. Coptic as a direct descendant could never develop such pronounciations.
4. Spelling mistakes due to dictation of Greek names &/or specific terms e.g. Theotokos, Cephalion in Coptic, where written by same authors in different ways denoting their identicality, the mistakes were usually arising from dictaion as it was a famus way to copy & reproduce manuscripts.
5. Spelling variation & mistakes in typing Coptic itself, rendering same phonetic values for some letters e.g. in English some & sum, son & sun, die & dye etc. This's where the example of the current psalmody gave light to.
6. Coptic manuscripts transcribing Arabic, in Coptic letters, in other words manuscripts where Arabic is written in Coptic for educational purposes dating as far as 10th Century, where for example theta was always used to describe the letter "taa" & not "thaa". These are very reliable becaue Coptic was very strong at that time as well in sounds that are common between both languages e.g. t,d,b, etc.
7. Latin Phonetic transliteration done by various scholars dating from 16th upto 40's of last Century, done by Petraeus (1659), Maria Cramer, Rochemonix (1891), Georgy Sobhy (1915,1918), Worrell (1942), These also give light about letters that could not be totally concluded from Copticized Arabic manuscripts e.g. v,p, etc.
8. Coptic manuscripts written in 3 columns Coptic/Arabicized-Coptic/Arabic translation, to aid people to read Coptic, in other words, manuscripts writing Coptic in Arabic letters, dating to 18th, & 19th Century, where events took place prior to Arian's era. these are very valuble in the context that the give equa;t results with other values, give a good account on the same topic.
9. Live evidence from a very few churches in Upper Egypt, that do not accept outsiders priests, Live evidence is of paramount importance, because they form the outcome of all manuscripts, i.e. the audio recordings of old laymen done by Dr.Emile Maher's scholars in areas as El-Zeneyya, El-Dabe3eyya, El-Kosheh, through real light about the Bohairic pronounciation as a genuine heritage not a matter of scientific debate, The recordings where made in the 60's of past century, a very few churches preserve till now, this inherited heritage. The results of these live recordings perfeclty matches with all above evdinces.
10. Research & academic papers done by Georgy Sobhy, Worrell, Vischyl, Emile Maher, Hany Takla, Joseph Sedrak, Gawdat Gabra, Youssef Rashed, Wafik Adly, Kamal Isaac, these researches vary from a doctor of philosophy degree of Bohairic phonetics, stresses & accent to unpublished amateur findings. They are all in the same track.
11. Colloquial pronounciation of Arabic language, many letters of Arabic were lost in colloquial Egyptian dialect of Arabic, due to their lack in Coptic e.g. th, dh, etc.
12. Ancient Greek pronounciation clarifying differences between it & modern Greek borrowed by Arian G. Moftah, this also matches with the results
13. Various records by Arian's contemporary copts, who recorded the changes & commented about it, there are many books written by Yassa 3abdel-Messi7, AbdelMessi7 el-Mas3oudy, and other people who wrote books about the event naming Arian Moftah, & describing both pronounciations in comparison to each other to show the difference made.
14. Musicality & tonality of the Old pronounciation as compared to the new one proving its superiority & its matching with spoken languages. Old Bohairic pronounciation is very musical appealing to the ear as a natural one as compared to the Greco-Bohairic which lakes this musicality, this is admitted by almost all who listened to it.
15. The Coptic words that still survive in colloquial Egyptian dialect of Arabic, matches with Old Bohiric, but has nothing to do with Greco-Bohairic.
16. Other languages that borrowed the Coptic alphabet either completely or partially including Nubian, & Russian, Nubian borrowed almost all the alphabet & Russian borrowed 2 letters, they both have pronounciation matching with Old Bohairic.
The all above evidences match with each other, making it a prefect close towards a real, authentic, living heritage named Bohairic pronounciation, that in addition to its being backed up with all these scinetific researches, evidences & findings, it's a living heritage that could be traced in egyptian colloquial dialect of arabic & in the churches that preserved this oral tradition, as well as its support by historical evidence dscribing the whole situation denoting a name of a person who did that & the year he did it, & the social circumstances for it. It's an unbroken chain, that can not be accused. Though scientific researches knows no shore as meterology or weather but it is like Anatomy or Geography, where you can't miss the arm or the presence of a mounatin, sea shore, rivers etc.
There's no point of suspecting defects with all above mentioned outlines, moreover, the Greco-Bohairic is not supported by a single evidence, instead it's accused not only by coptologists & coptic linguists but also by amateurs, & lay men who spend some time reading about Coptic or meditating in the names of people, food, villages & animal in colloquial egyptian dialect of arabic.
"{
PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL
Bashandy - Jun 12, 2003 - 06:42 PM
Post subject:
About the correlation bet. the drawback of Coptic & the GB:
The drawbback of Coptic as a liturgical language coincides with the date of of appearance of GB. The more the GB appears the less Coptic become a viable language in the church.
The deacons who love Coptic just pick the books that are written in Coptic & ignore all the multitiude of arabiczed Coptic books.
Coptic was a dead language in delta for about 5 Centuries, what is the factor that made Coptic fall this rapid fall in the 20th Century?
People tolerated this dead language bec. deep inside them they felt it's theirs but after the change of pronounciation, they felt it's not theirs, this is why they reject it.
Bashandy - Jun 12, 2003 - 07:16 PM
Post subject:
Dear all,
While OB is backed by hundereds of manuscripts & scientific back up.
GB comes unbacked scinetifically at all.
& while those who tried the change witness it's not that hard & it is possible
Gb proponents refuse to think of it.
So, I believe the real reasons for opposing OB are:
1. A non-objective view
2. Emotional bias & feeling of uncomofrt due to being faced by truth
3. Laziness & unwillingness to change & to re-learn
4. Various fears of schism, troubles of change & facing self by being wring
I believe we should have a more objective view about how the Church reacts to such things & basically what is the Church's state
The Coptic Orthodox Church is a traditional Church but, it is not a museum or a static statue. She's (it's) a living creature that is always growing, it's growth is directed towards the truth, & it's the truth in its vast meaning where ever it is. Our Church is compassed to this. Whenever there's a change the Church refuses it.
Pope Cyril IV father of reform apppointed Arian Moftah for he was the most knowligeble person of Coptic at that time. He did not interfere with his decisions so long Arian thinks he's right. Nowadays, there are much much more knowledge, Science (meaning all previously metnioned evidences) says Old Bohairic pronounciation is correct, authentic & true.
Did we become that lazy so that we do not want to bother ourselves with reading, judging & changing, or we're trying now to deal with the Church as a statue that is unamenable to a change, or perhaps we think that a change in the pronounciation would ruin a Church that is built by Our Lord's Holy Blood, & preached by St.Mark & preserved by the bloods of the multitude of martyrs who never feared the Christianity would vanish from Egypt due to their martyrdom.?
The Church is always dynamic, compare the changes made in the 20th Cnetury in Coptic architecture, iconography & textiles etc. They all change to be more Coptic, less Hellenized or Europeanized. The Church is got its own identity we don't have the right to oppose this. This is why I am with OB
Can we have some sort of meditation about this condition, Why OB reappeared again? It's bec.truth can't hide & it will wipe - sooner or later - all what's fake, this is nature, we can't oppose that.
If we can just get rid of our dignity, & our unwillingness to say we were wrong in something, . If we can pay effort to learn OB then decide
that would be much more easier
Pishoy - Jun 12, 2003 - 07:28 PM
Post subject:
another proof of the genuineness of Old Bohairic pronunciation:
take a look at this manusucript written in Arabic language, but in Coptic letters, from the 10th century A.D.
* you must have a yahoo ID.
Click here.
Admin's note: I modified the link to read "Click here" instead of the huge URL, because it was making the forum way too wide and breaking our images. --PaulS
KidofKaras - Jun 12, 2003 - 10:01 PM
Post subject:
Thanks Pishoy its really cool. Did you make this site? Or did you find it? Well, thanks and I appreciate it.
Shepehmot 
Peace be with all
rashi - Jun 13, 2003 - 02:52 AM
Post subject:
I 'm asking again if someone who is good in OB could tell us how to pronounce it
Thanks
Mikey - Jun 13, 2003 - 06:38 AM
Post subject:
Rashi,
there is a post somewhere in the middle of this discussion that shows all the differences in pronounciation between GB and OB.
God bless,
Bashandy - Jun 13, 2003 - 08:20 AM
Post subject:
In response to your Q about Old Bohairic pronounciation. The old Bohairic has got no strict rules of pronounciation, it is as variable as English, sounds much like a natural language, where you can not state what are the rules of pronounciation. It just comes by listening & practice. It fits 100% with slang Egyptian tongue. Many consonants are the same as the Ecclesiastical pronounciation e.g. z,k,l,m,n,r,s,sh,f,kh, others are different. Here's a rough guide about its pronounciation.
Alpha (a, a) as in far & at
Wida (b,w) as in bad, was
Gamma (g,n,gh) ...
Dalda (d) as in duck
Eia (a) as in at
So (6)
Zada (z)
Hada(h) (a, ee) as in at, teen
Tita (t) as in town
I (i) as in pin
Kappa (K)
Laula (L)
Mei (M)
Nei(N)
Eksi (X)
O (o,oa) as in off, oat
Bei (b) as in boat
Ro (R)
Sima (S)
Dau (D,T) as in do, wet
ha ( i , w) as in pin, how
Fi (F,B) as in fat, bat
Kei (K,sh, kh)
Epsi (ps)
Omega (oa) as in boat
shy (sh)
fy (f)
khy (kh)
hoary (h, h) as hat & occasionally, like haa (7a) in Arabic as in temsa7, 7arb,
djandja (dj) as in age
gshima (gsh, sh)
di (di) as in dig
rashi - Jun 13, 2003 - 11:31 AM
Post subject:
Thanks alot Bashandy and Mikey..
Happy Pentecost everyone..
I really miss "fool " ,"fries" and co..,Apostles' fast is back
Peace be with you all
Remnkemi - Jun 13, 2003 - 01:50 PM
Post subject:
[quote="The same is true for the letter t. Now, you may notice that there is an English dialect (I thought it was exclusive to NY/NJ) but I've heard others do it), where words with the letter t are not pronounced. For example, water is usually pronounce wa der. It's not really a d sound, it's a light t sound. The difference you don't keep your tongue to the roof of your mouth as long. A few years ago, when Bishop Moussa was finished with his sermon on the ECCYC convention, he pulled me up fron to recite the Agpeya into the microphone, while leading the people. When I got to the Creed, where it says, "Begotten of the Father..." I pronounced be ga en (no t sound at all). Bishop Moussa had a kick with that. The point I'm making is that use and overuse of T an P is not natural. That is why OB converts t to d and p to b, etc. [/quote]
Has anybody else noticed this English pronunciation thing. Have you noticed people don't say t in water? Is it only in NY. Here in Boston, people don't do it. Who else pronounces words like that, other than myself?
maherkaldas - Jun 13, 2003 - 02:10 PM
Post subject:
It is a famous thing. i remember noticeing it as soon as i landed in JFK.
IT IS A COMMON THING HERE IN THE EAST COAST.
Bashandy - Jun 13, 2003 - 04:14 PM
Post subject:
Natural languages follow their own norms that are against our expectations when we learn. That's clear in English & any livin' language. The fact is that if you learn Egnlish from books you will pronounce English in a very funny way, compare (sugar, sure, sins, sons, vision, shy, szelog) to what we learned 'bout the pronounciation of "s" as in 'sun'. The same goes with the "t" that changes to a 'd' or get unpronounced at all. The same applies to Afro-Americans pronouncing the th as d e.g. 'the' to 'da'. the same goes to the 'e' near end of words e.g. water, computer it's more lighter then 'e' in pen.
Old Bohairic pronounciation contains these qualities that follow the norms of natural pronounciation, & not what's written in books. This is its beauty & its authenticity, we need to understand this. The call for OB, is not a call to revert to the past it's rather a call to get to the future, on scientific basis, exactly as done with architecture & iconography where they followed European models in the 19th Century, now they develop to adopt the Coptic style, nobody, called this a schism or a revert to the past it is a development to the natural dynamic nature of the Coptic Orthodox Church that searches for its identity bec. it's part of her integrity. And it won't get rest until she get it in all aspects.
I think by refusin' OB we refuse nature
MikeS - Jun 13, 2003 - 08:40 PM
Post subject:
Concerning the 't' in "water" thing...
American English has a rule that a "t" inbetween two vowels gets pronounced like what is called a "flap" - that is, a single flick of the tongue against the roof of the mouth. Linguistically, a flap is considered an "r" sound. This also frequently happens with "d" in between vowels as well. By the way, T/D are different from each other in only one respect; "t" is voiceless and 'd' is voiced - in other words, your vocal cords vibrate when you say "d", they don't when you say "t".
Mike S
PaulS - Jun 14, 2003 - 01:12 AM
Post subject:
Dear Members and Coptic Scholars,
The original topic of this thread was whether Old Bohairic or Greco-Bohairic pronunciation should be used in Coptic liturgical services and prayers. To this end, I have heard many of you, including Bashandy, Remnkemi, and others, say that we need some kind of a movement to restore Old Bohairic pronunciation to our services, and that to neglect doing so, would amount to "laziness" and an action against "nature."
For this reason, I certified this very question (and this entire thread) to H.G. Bishop Youssef, who responded thus:
The peace of the Lord be with you.
The work of Fr. Shenouda Maher in the field of Coptic Language is very appreciated by everybody but should not be used to change the pronunciation of the Coptic language in the Liturgy and church praises. Any langauge goes through stages and this is very acceptable. It happened with Arabic and English languages. As we don't change the English or the Arabic to use archaic words or pronunciation, in the same way we should not change the Coptic to use Old Bohairic.
Thank you so much for helping Sandy, may God reward you with the heavenly reward and be with you in your exams.
Also I enjoyed very much listening to the "instructive" liturgy.
God bless you
BY
Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States
I think His Grace nicely dispenses with this topic completely. He tells us that Old Bohairic should not be restored in our services simply because it is older than Greco-Bohairic.
God bless you.
atthoowi - Jun 14, 2003 - 03:51 AM
Post subject: OK
That statement is fine, and logical and makes perfect sense. I love Anba Youssef and respect him highly but again I have to reiterate one thing, Greco-Bohairic pronunciation causes confusion to those who speak and understand the Coptic. It causes confusion between 3rd person singular masculine tenses and 3rd person plural tenses in the Coptic Grammar. For this reason it is faulty. The two become virtually indistinguishable.
PaulS - Jun 14, 2003 - 06:35 AM
Post subject:
I understand that you were and are talking about Coptic conversation, Joe, but I believe His Grace's comments are more relevant to the people above who have made others feel as if they were lazy, ignorant, and more just because they refuse the movement to reestablish Old Bohairic in Coptic liturgical services. This is what the thread was about originally.
MikeS - Jun 14, 2003 - 11:45 AM
Post subject:
Hello all,
I think H.G. Bishop Youssef makes a very good point - this is just the way the language developed in the Liturgical world, even if the change was "artificial", as many in this thread, myself included, have mentioned; even artificial changes are part of "natural" language development.
That being said, however, I don't think there's any reason why OB can't be used as the "secular" language, if you will - the everyday Coptic of normal conversation. I'm not saying it would be easy, but the two could exist side by side at the same time.
One last small case in point is with Greek itself; there are two varieties of Greek in Greece today; Demotic - used in everyday colloquial Greek and represents the natural progression of the language, and I forget the name of it, sorry, but there is a "Litterary Greek", which is used in proper media, literature, newspapers, some TV (news) and any official government document. This Greek differes with Demotic mainly in grammar rather than pronunciation, but still illustrates the point.
It's sort of a "static" form of the language as it's not allowed to develop (it wouldn't really have a chance anyway as people don't use it in nornmal conversation - well, occasionally it's used by those who wish to sound very educated, but typically it's not).
It uses a lot of cases and grammatical features from Classical Greek which have long since died out in the everyday spoken colloquial language.
The point is, you have two very disticnt forms of one language existing side by side with no problem at all - sure, the Litterary Greek probably sounds strange to the farmer in a little village who speaks one of many dialects of Demotic Greek, but it's not as major a problem as one might think; after all, it's just a variation of the same language. It would sort of be akin to speaking colloquial American English, but having proper Brittish English as our "literary language" used in the same way as litterary Greek mentioned above is. Both pronunciation and grammar are different, maybe there's a few words that are totally different, but all in all, there's really no problem in mutual intelligibility.
I think the same could be said of the OB/GB issue; maybe as a non-Copt, I don't fully understand the "implications" of what I'm suggesting, but again, I see no reason why the two variations couldn't exist side by side.
Respectfully,
Mike S
atthoowi - Jun 14, 2003 - 12:55 PM
Post subject: Hymns
When I was saying the grammar gets confused I wasn't just referring to conversation outside of church, but conversation inside church (aka hymns). Believe me, in some cases it makes a huge difference in meaning. Anyway, HG Bishop Youssef has spoken and answered this topic, thus I think it should be closed by one of the administrators.
PaulS - Jun 14, 2003 - 03:00 PM
Post subject:
I am posting one more message here in response to Bashandy's concerns. My original e-mail to Bishop Youssef expressly mentioned Fr. Shenouda Maher and directly referenced this thread. His Grace has been on our forums reading posts at our request before, and he is very kind to do so with his busy schedule. Nevertheless, he had this huge thread to consider, as well as the very specific questions I asked him.
I know you are eager to speak Old Bohairic once again, but it sounds very bad when a learned member of the clergy speaks unequivocally and your respnse is, "Yes, but this or that." I don't think there are any "buts" in the words of our fathers.
Maher's closing of this thread remains in effect; I just wanted to make the point that Bishop Youssef did indeed have all your words and comments to consider before he wrote me a reply.
God bless you.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours