Pronunciation of Ne-Et(et)chosee

In preparation for Palm Sunday and Holy Week, the deacons at my church have been reviewing the gospel responses and encountered the same argument- how to say ny`et[oci. Our priest says it as "Ni-et-etchosee". However, I've heard moa3llemeen (including Ibrahim) say both "Ni-etchosee" and "Ni-et-etchosee". Last year, at the cathedral, I'm fairly sure it was said "Ni-etchosee", but this issue has plagued our church for 2 years and it's frankly annoying.
I see it to be "ni-etchosee" because there is no jinkem over the chima, but the recordings of moa3llem Ibrahim for the verses of the cymbals and the long conclusion both clearly are "ni-et-etchosee." 
And this whole "mispronunciation of letters" issue isn't new- I'm sure ' and x do not have a jinkem sound before them by default, but I was taught that they did and I hear adults say it that way all the time. What's the right way? Is there a right way? 

Comments

  • Dear @Daniel_Kyrillos,
    Staying away from the argument of authentic Bohairic and Greco-Bohairic, your explanation is quite right. It should be /nietchosi/ as there is no jinkim.. Fair enough.. Yes unfortunately many cantors pronounce both based on the premise that the letter is pronounced /echima/ but that's a flawed argument of course..
    The same goes for eksi and ebsi as you rightly said, but again not many people would pronounce them as /ks/ and /bs/ rather than /eks/ and /ebs/..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • I should have said except in a few cases when eksi or ebsi are the first letter of some specific words, especially "made up" ones!
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • Ibrahim Ayad stated in a recent interview that even if the whole church is pronouncing something wrong, it is important to maintain church unity. 
  • edited March 24
    @churchbob....he did say that in the interview but it is being taken a bit out of context. Simply, because that is an extreme that we shouldn't concentrate on. 

    The thing is, if the change proposed is to fix a specific issue, and it's possible changing with the agreements of most parties affected, then we should do the change. It's just a matter taking the proper approach towards changing to what is correct or most accepted.

    To take it a step further and to be specific in considering context, C Ibrahim comments were concentrated on hymns and pronunciation. The intention here is: if changing the pronunciation has a major affect on the hymn or tune, then let's not do it. But if it has little or no affect on chanting, then with the correct approach in dealing with people, it should be done.

    So you cannot use "unity" to justify an incorrect practice, but you can use it as a reason in implementing the change in the correct approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.