Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Ebarthenos
Dear all,
If you go to http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/nativity/listen/ you can find the hymn ebarthenos sung in the Greek Orthodox Church tune. It is so nice to hear how they sing it. Much faster than we do; plus the second voice and every thing. That is very interesting really, because I would like to ask every one's views: did the hymn change over time (either from their part (the Greek Orthodox Church), or ours (Coptic Orthodox Church) for lack of proper rendering), or merely the tune wasn't set right from the start? I think I will need the views of every one, especially jydeacon, hos erof, gergesezzat, cephas, shnoda, and all others please
God bless you and pray for us a lot
If you go to http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/nativity/listen/ you can find the hymn ebarthenos sung in the Greek Orthodox Church tune. It is so nice to hear how they sing it. Much faster than we do; plus the second voice and every thing. That is very interesting really, because I would like to ask every one's views: did the hymn change over time (either from their part (the Greek Orthodox Church), or ours (Coptic Orthodox Church) for lack of proper rendering), or merely the tune wasn't set right from the start? I think I will need the views of every one, especially jydeacon, hos erof, gergesezzat, cephas, shnoda, and all others please
God bless you and pray for us a lot
Comments
The Coptic tune is distinctly Egyptian and therefore does not reflect the original Syrian melody. Byzantine/Greek chant is based on the musical tradition of Syria but, of course, has evolved much over time, so I'm pretty sure the melody currently used is much later.
cuz there voices are different from our voices. in other way we can not say in there tunes.
also by time most of hymns getting changed from the original one. you can notice that if you hear the same hymn for 2 different cantor witch they learned it together !
Dear all,
If you go to http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/nativity/listen/ you can find the hymn ebarthenos sung in the Greek Orthodox Church tune. It is so nice to hear how they sing it. Much faster than we do; plus the second voice and every thing. That is very interesting really, because I would like to ask every one's views: did the hymn change over time (either from their part (the Greek Orthodox Church), or ours (Coptic Orthodox Church) for lack of proper rendering), or merely the tune wasn't set right from the start? I think I will need the views of every one, especially jydeacon, hos erof, gergesezzat, cephas, shnoda, and all others please
God bless you and pray for us a lot
the text of the hymn was more important than the tune. same to all the the greek hymns that were taken from the greek church, hoping to unite as an orthodox church. but this didn't happen but we still have the texts of the greek parts here, http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/cat/232
among those hymns we know the coptic tune for, [coptic]`Ypar;enoc> Entygennyci tyn>`Anizw to `ctoma> `Axion ectinwc `aly;wc> Touc couc umnologouc> Tou dipnou cou tou[/coptic], which is great after being lost for a long time.
All the the greek hymns that were taken from the greek church, hoping to unite as an orthodox church. but this didn't happen
That's very interesting! I had never heard about this before.
Would you be able to elaborate more on when this took place, and also which other Byzantine hymns were imported into the Coptic church for the sake of reunion?
Thanks!
Nice views from every one, and very formative, and educational to me. However, as jydeacon pointed out, I find it a bit sad that our Coptic hymns have been "arabicised". It is really hard for me to imagine how the arabs affected us massively (uselessly as well), losing us some of our identity, as I believe (besides the reason minagir gave) that we wanted to say thank you to the Greek who helped spread the Gospel in an old pagan Egypt. However, it is true that hymns must have evolved over time as orthodox11 said, whether on our part, or on the Greek's part. More views extremely welcome.
God bless you all and pray for us a lot
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5993.msg80043#msg80043 date=1196967898]
All the the greek hymns that were taken from the greek church, hoping to unite as an orthodox church. but this didn't happen
That's very interesting! I had never heard about this before.
Would you be able to elaborate more on when this took place, and also which other Byzantine hymns were imported into the Coptic church for the sake of reunion?
the hymn are on the link below.
the hymns were taken from the church by Pope Kerolos the 4th (maybe the 5th), to maybe encourage the union with the church. I'll try to find more info about this.....
the hymn are on the link below.
the hymns were taken from the church by Pope Kerolos the 4th (maybe the 5th), to maybe encourage the union with the church. I'll try to find more info about this.....
That sounds about right. I know Pope Cyril IV "The Reformer" had consultations with the Greek Orthodox Church, particularly on issues of language and pronounciation.
I was not aware that the Copts had appropriated these hymns so late (19th century), but at least now I have an explanation as to why so many hymns, troparia and kontakia written by Chalcedonian saints (St. Romanos the Melodist, St. Simon Metaphrastes, etc.) are used also in the Coptic Church.
Any more information would be greatly appreciated.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=5993.msg80047#msg80047 date=1196970434]
However, it is true that hymns must have evolved over time as orthodox11 said, whether on our part, or on the Greek's part.
Given the information Mina has posted above, it is safe to say that the hymn in question does indeed have its origins in the Byzantine church, and that the Coptic melody is a recent composition from the 19th or 20th Century.
St. Romanos, the hymns composer, reposed in the 6th Century. This is before St. John of Damascus arranged the Syrian chant using the Greek modal system. I also believe Byzantine hymnography became more elaborate during the Middle Ages and onwards (but that does not mean it must be the case for the particular hymn).
So to answer the original question of this thread, it is safe to say that the Byzantine version of the hymn is closer to the original, but given that it was composed before St. John of Damascus it has almost certainly undergone some alteration viz. melody.
That is very interesting, what orthodox11 explains. I used to think that we had these hymns long ago, as a means of "thank you" to the Greek for spreading the Gosepl in the Greek language, but it seems as minagir pointed out it was St. Cyril IV "The Reformer" who adopted these hymns into our Coptic liturgy for unity. But that leads me to ask an important question: before adopting "Ekhristos Anesti" in the Glorified feast of Resurrection from the Greek, and also "tonsina", and "tolitho", did we only have "kata nikhoros", the iconstasis, and the Resurrection exposition, and that was all?
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
God bless you all and pray for me a lot
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
"I Parthenos" is Greek, not Coptic. Secondly, they are two words, not one (so even with your pronounciation, it should be "E Barthenos"). Thirdly, changing the P to a B is, as far as I know, an Arabic thing. It's like sayign "basta" instead of pasta :P
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=5993.msg80069#msg80069 date=1197023516]
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
"I Parthenos" is Greek, not Coptic. Secondly, they are two words, not one (so even with your pronounciation, it should be "E Barthenos"). Thirdly, changing the P to a B is, as far as I know, an Arabic thing. It's like sayign "basta" instead of pasta :P
Oh...thanks. i'll change that n the text.
ophadece,
i don't think it's going to matter about the order. you still say E-Parthenos, if u really try to read ir right because there is a jinkum on the [coptic]Y[/coptic]. So Orthodox11 is reasonable at his saying.
Also sine the hymns says, "Today, the virgin bears Him who is..."
the word virgin ought to be "Virgin", refering to St. Mary. And doing the same for coptic as i always do, it makes sense.
Traditionally, the [coptic]p[/coptic] in Coptic was pronounced without aspiration and would hence not have sounded like the p in 'pasta'. In this sense, it would have sounded almost indistinguishable from a 'b' (the [coptic]b[/coptic] being traditionally pronounced like a 'v').
As a simple exercise, contrast the sound of 'pin' and 'bin'--the difference is obvious, because in english the 'p' here is said with aspiration. Now contrast the sound of 'spin' and 'sbin' (I know this latter word doesn't actually exist, but that's not relevant for this exercise)--as you will see, it is difficult to note the difference in sound because the 'p' loses its aspiration in 'spin.'
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5993.msg80070#msg80070 date=1197054117]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=5993.msg80069#msg80069 date=1197023516]
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
"I Parthenos" is Greek, not Coptic. Secondly, they are two words, not one (so even with your pronounciation, it should be "E Barthenos"). Thirdly, changing the P to a B is, as far as I know, an Arabic thing. It's like sayign "basta" instead of pasta :P
Oh...thanks. i'll change that n the text.
ophadece,
i don't think it's going to matter about the order. you still say E-Parthenos, if u really try to read ir right because there is a jinkum on the [coptic]Y[/coptic]. So Orthodox11 is reasonable at his saying.
Also sine the hymns says, "Today, the virgin bears Him who is..."
the word virgin ought to be "Virgin", refering to St. Mary. And doing the same for coptic as i always do, it makes sense.
By the way, there are NO jenkims in greek!!
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5993.msg80071#msg80071 date=1197055412]
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5993.msg80070#msg80070 date=1197054117]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=5993.msg80069#msg80069 date=1197023516]
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
"I Parthenos" is Greek, not Coptic. Secondly, they are two words, not one (so even with your pronounciation, it should be "E Barthenos"). Thirdly, changing the P to a B is, as far as I know, an Arabic thing. It's like sayign "basta" instead of pasta :P
Oh...thanks. i'll change that n the text.
ophadece,
i don't think it's going to matter about the order. you still say E-Parthenos, if u really try to read ir right because there is a jinkum on the [coptic]Y[/coptic]. So Orthodox11 is reasonable at his saying.
Also sine the hymns says, "Today, the virgin bears Him who is..."
the word virgin ought to be "Virgin", refering to St. Mary. And doing the same for coptic as i always do, it makes sense.
By the way, there are NO jenkims in greek!!
i was talkin about the coptic text. yes the origin of the word are in greek, but theyy are written for us in coptic to be able to read, which is a language that have jinkums.
As is the case with Greek (even in its modern form) - hence t's sound similar (but not identical) to d's, k's to g's, etc. But there is nevertheless a noticable difference in pronounciation.
If you think there is a noticeable difference between "spin" and "sbin" then you must have supernatural hearing.
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=5993.msg80096#msg80096 date=1197139619]
[quote author=minagir link=topic=5993.msg80071#msg80071 date=1197055412]
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5993.msg80070#msg80070 date=1197054117]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=5993.msg80069#msg80069 date=1197023516]
One last point, I hope we stick to the Coptic pronunciation "ebarthenos", rather than the modern Greek pronunciation "I Parthenos", without going down that route so much.
"I Parthenos" is Greek, not Coptic. Secondly, they are two words, not one (so even with your pronounciation, it should be "E Barthenos"). Thirdly, changing the P to a B is, as far as I know, an Arabic thing. It's like sayign "basta" instead of pasta :P
Oh...thanks. i'll change that n the text.
ophadece,
i don't think it's going to matter about the order. you still say E-Parthenos, if u really try to read ir right because there is a jinkum on the [coptic]Y[/coptic]. So Orthodox11 is reasonable at his saying.
Also sine the hymns says, "Today, the virgin bears Him who is..."
the word virgin ought to be "Virgin", refering to St. Mary. And doing the same for coptic as i always do, it makes sense.
By the way, there are NO jenkims in greek!!
i was talkin about the coptic text. yes the origin of the word are in greek, but theyy are written for us in coptic to be able to read, which is a language that have jinkums.
Yes that is true, yet we should remove the jenkims that are on the greek words, otherwise we are changing the word and its correct pronounciation, its like someone who is trying to speak english and say things like "worled" or "six wingez." we do the same thing by adding jenkims on greek words. Also, greek is not the only language we mispronounce i.e. "sarex, afechy, ebooro..."
GB
tony
It is natural for loan words to acquire their own distinct flavour in the language into which they are incorporated. This was not a modern innovation, but it is even evident in the most ancient Coptic texts that are still preserved today. Even spelling differs significant with respect to some words (and I am here referring even to words where all the relevant Greek letters exist in the Coptic alphabet).
By the way, after reading back over our exchange it is clear you did not understand the distinction I made between aspirated and non-aspirated pronunciation. Pi in Koine Greek is not, as you claim, non-aspirated, but in fact aspirated. I refer you to Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. He explains that pi is pronounced as the p in peach. The p in peach is aspirated, so ofcourse there is a notable difference between such a p and the aspirated 'b.' Like I said earlier, compare "pin" and "bin"--in both these cases, the p and the b, both being placed at the beginning of the word, are aspirated and as such their sounds are distinctly different. But, in the case of "spin" and "sbin", where the respective p and b are non-aspirated, there is no such noticeable difference.
In Coptic, all cases of [coptic]p[/coptic] are non-aspirated. Thus the difference between Greek and Coptic. There is simply, in Coptic, no significant audible difference between Parthenos/barthenos, epouro/ebouro, etc. Whoever pronounces these words in such a way that conveys a noticeable difference is simply mispronouncing them.
I'll admit I'm not the brightest person on this earth, but I do know the difference between aspirated and non-aspirated pronounciation.
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=5993.msg80129#msg80129 date=1197174419]
Pi in Koine Greek is not, as you claim, non-aspirated, but in fact aspirated. I refer you to Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. He explains that pi is pronounced as the p in peach. The p in peach is aspirated, so ofcourse there is a notable difference between such a p and the aspirated 'b.' Like I said earlier, compare "pin" and "bin"--in both these cases, the p and the b, both being placed at the beginning of the word, are aspirated and as such their sounds are distinctly different.
I would advice you not to rely too heavily on the pronounciation guides of western linguists. They are to Koine Greek what modern Hebrew pronounciation (essentially a German/Yiddish accent, with all the uniquely Semitic sounds omited) is to ancient Hebrew.
The pronounciation guide of D.F. Hudson's Teach Yourself New Testament Greek, in addition to its p "as in poor" (agreeing with Mounce), suggests [coptic]B[/coptic] is b "as in bad," when the traditional pronounciation has always been a v sound. It also suggests the letter combination [coptic]ai[/coptic] is ai "as in Isaiah" - yet the Coptic spelling of the Greek word [coptic]kai[/coptic] has been changed to [coptic]ke[/coptic], suggesting that the Koine pronounciation was "e" like it remains in modern Greek.
There was no recording equipment around at the time to verify what the correct pronounciation would have been, but I, like many others, am fairly confident the artificial Erasmian pronounciation is quite far off the mark.
Whatever the case is for Koine, consonants in modern Greek are not aspirated (although I'm sure there are exceptional regional dialects/accents), hence my example of k's sounding almost exactly like g's, t's like d's, etc.
Thanks for supporting my argument.
Dear orthodox11,
It seems you know a lot of Greek; I don't. But I assert that it wasn't an Arabic thing that the "p" changed to a "b". I go by what Fr. Shenouda Maher teaches, which is that the modern pronunciaion to the Copic language is actually derived from the modern Greek lanuage (as it has evolved), but this shouldn't be applied on the Coptic one.
God bless you all and pray for me a lot
Dear iqbal,
Thanks for supporting my argument.
Dear orthodox11,
It seems you know a lot of Greek; I don't. But I assert that it wasn't an Arabic thing that the "p" changed to a "b". I go by what Fr. Shenouda Maher teaches, which is that the modern pronunciaion to the Copic language is actually derived from the modern Greek lanuage (as it has evolved), but this shouldn't be applied on the Coptic one.
God bless you all and pray for me a lot
If the fact of the matter is that B is occasionally used in transliteration because the sound (unlike the aspirated B of most Egyptian cantors) is so close to the soft (un-aspirated) p ([coptic]p[/coptic]) of Greek, and not because of the common habit among Arabic speakers to confuse the two letters, then I'm quite happy to stand corrected. Although I still believe it is more appropriate to use P for the purposes of transliteration.
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=5993.msg80121#msg80121 date=1197159918]Yes that is true, yet we should remove the jenkims that are on the greek words, otherwise we are changing the word and its correct pronounciation, its like someone who is trying to speak english and say things like "worled" or "six wingez." we do the same thing by adding jenkims on greek words. Also, greek is not the only language we mispronounce i.e. "sarex, afechy, ebooro..."
It is natural for loan words to acquire their own distinct flavour in the language into which they are incorporated. This was not a modern innovation, but it is even evident in the most ancient Coptic texts that are still preserved today. Even spelling differs significant with respect to some words (and I am here referring even to words where all the relevant Greek letters exist in the Coptic alphabet).
Iqbal, are you advocating the idea that we should not correct the mistakes found in the coptic texts? why not? i am aware that some words have a "flavour" but the fact of the matter is, we have a lot of greek in the church and therefore, it is only proper to use the correct pronounciation for the greek. I gave an analogy earlier regarding the english words that nearly all native egyptians butcher on a daily basis. but if i have the ability to correct my mistakes, why not? it is unjustifiable to argue to keep all these mistakes when we have so many resources available to us.
The point is, as I implied, that they are not mistakes because they are not intended to be perfect replications of the original Greek in the first place. They have intentionally adopted the peculiar spelling and pronunciation that they have because they have been Copticised. Like I said, it is a natural process that loan words often undergo in any language--they do not always necessarily retain the character they had in the original language from which they are borrowed. When you say: You suggest to me that you are not really aware what I meant by the fact Greek loan words acquire their own flavour. When they acquire their own flavour, they are no longer strictly Greek words. They have their origin in the Greek language, but they have been Copticised. There are MANY examples of this, and, as I suggested, many of these examples can be found in Coptic texts that pre-existed the Arab invasion--these Copticised words were INTENDED that way.
Think about it: Do you think that the Church was ignorant of Greek for over 2000 years, and that all of the sudden you have been enlightened by God with knowledge of Greek so as to call for a revision of a language that has been as it has been for almost as long as the Church itself?
Tony,
The point is, as I implied, that they are not mistakes because they are not intended to be perfect replications of the original Greek in the first place. They have intentionally adopted the peculiar spelling and pronunciation that they have because they have been Copticised. Like I said, it is a natural process that loan words often undergo in any language--they do not always necessarily retain the character they had in the original language from which they are borrowed. When you say: You suggest to me that you are not really aware what I meant by the fact Greek loan words acquire their own flavour. When they acquire their own flavour, they are no longer strictly Greek words. They have their origin in the Greek language, but they have been Copticised. There are MANY examples of this, and, as I suggested, many of these examples can be found in Coptic texts that pre-existed the Arab invasion--these Copticised words were INTENDED that way.
Think about it: Do you think that the Church was ignorant of Greek for over 2000 years, and that all of the sudden you have been enlightened by God with knowledge of Greek so as to call for a revision of a language that has been as it has been for almost as long as the Church itself?
I am curious, to what knowledge are you basing this on, the fact that they were intended to be "copticized?" what is your reference, or are you just going by what YOU think or YOUR understanding. because i do not see the logic in what you just said. For example: why on earth would i take an english word and "arabicize" it? what benefit do i get from that? It then becomes neither english nor arabic, so what is the meaning of this? second, the greek in our church, while written in coptic, is very similiar to how the greeks chants their hymns except for the fact of jenkims and a couple other things like "p" instead of "b," but then again that is a coptic mistake as well. If you listen to how the greeks chant their hymns like "Ton sina" for example, you will see what i am talking about. So since there is few mistakes such as teh jenkims why not fix it?
For an obvious demonstration of how loan words are transformed, I ask you to consider the english language. You are aware that there are many words in english, just as in Coptic, which are in fact Greek loan words right? And just as the Greek words have been Copticised in the Coptic, so too have the Greek words been Englishised in the English. For example, philosophy is a Greek word that has been Englishised. Now, one might say in a similar vein, "this is an error, it should be spelt and pronounced philosophia"--after all, the english language has the available letters and sounds to convey the perfect Greek pronunciation and to more closely resemble the Greek spelling. I just gave you an obvious example of Englishised Greek words. In fact English has a number of loan words from a number of languages that are likewise Englishised--French words, German words etc. None of these words have perfectly retained their original character, would you likewise like to call for a revision of the entire english language?
It doesn't matter WHY such a phenomena occurs, the fact of the matter is that such a phenomena DOES occur according to the natural development of a language that chooses or needs to incorporate words from other languages. To call these developments "errors" implies that there was an intention to perfectly replicate the spelling and pronunciation of the original word as if the only reason such an intention was not fulfilled is ignorance of the original language of the words in question.
Again, I ask you, do you really think you know Greek better than our Coptic Fathers such as to make a proposition that implies you want to "correct" THEIR understanding of Greek? So what? Similar, but not the same, and not meant to be the same. I have already explained the p/b distinction; you want to ignore it, that's fine, that's your problem. Ophadece has additionally mentioned Fr. Shenouda Maher who I believe acquired his Phd in Bohairic studies who testifies to the fact that the [coptic]p[/coptic] in Coptic had traditionally been used to signify a sound that resembles a b sound that is indistinguishable from a non-aspirated p. The fact it is a Greek character does not necessitate that it assumes the Greek sound--Greek characters were employed for convenience and the idea was that they signify already existing Coptic sounds. Because they are NOT MISTAKES. They are Coptic words of Greek Origin--or "Copticised Greek words" if you will, they are no longer strictly Greek words once they have been incorporated into the COPTIC language. Just as the word "philosophy" is an english word of Greek origin, but no longer a strictly Greek word, and yet you will find no English professor calling for the word philosophy to be spelt and pronounced philosophia.
There are many points that i have to mention regarding your last post. unfortunately, unlike you, i do not have the time to sit down and write a lengthly article as to why i find your arguement faulty. I will however do my best to respond as soon as i am done with my studies
tony