It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It is precisely because GB is an introduced pronunciation that we can say that it is not an organic pronunciation.
there is nothing to prevent GB from being considered alongside the Akhmimic, Sahidic and other dialects. Indeed, that is how I see it. This does not preclude recognizing that the GB pronunciation is an artificial standard. The same fact is always taken into account when dealing with other standardized varieties of languages, such as Modern Standard Arabic.
Because Coptic is no longer a living language, such processes as those that affect language change do not apply to it, thereby making any standard established so many years post-mortem necessarily inorganic. This was the point in specifying that the Old Bohairic pronunciation is also a reconstruction. It is not less inorganic than GB (heck, it was introduced in 1960s, wasn't it?), but it nevertheless appears to more closely mirror what evidence we do have to support what Coptic probably sounded like when it still was an everyday spoken language in Egypt.
I'll discuss organic development below. I would just add that teachers of GB, for the most part, are not linguists. With the exception of Fr. Shenouda's thesis, it's only empirical data that attests to a historical, abrupt, inorganic shift of pronunciation.
In fact, some GB proponents like the Basilli family claim Pope Cyril IV never commissioned Erian Moftah to change the pronunciation or that there was any documented attempt to unite with the Greek Church and hence no intentional attempt to change Coptic pronunciation.
Some also claim OB has as many inconsistencies as GB, making it just as instable as GB. The point I want to focus on is to find linguistic, social or anthropologic data to support the existence and equality of GB (or one more than the other).
Now we've entered a circular argument. Just like your observation of modern Hebrew, an "introduced" pronunciation does not equate to an inorganic development.
If GB has linguistic characteristics found in other naturally obtained, "organically-developed" Coptic dialects, or other languages in the Semitic family, then one can't assume GB must be categorized as inorganic.
If GB is inorganic because a pronunciation was introduced, then the same is true for modern Hebrew, Welsh, Navajo, and many other re-introduced languages.
This brings me to RLS (Reverse Language Shift) as described by Joshua Fishman and others. Any attempt to revitalize an indigenous "dead" language is an introduction.
Any language shift may be considered "inorganic".
But since so many languages undergo introduced language shifts, then one may also consider language shift is organic. Artifical introduction is not a small exception to be considered inorganic. It may be considered the rule.
All indigenous languages (and there are thousands) have undergone an introduced suppression system. Take Quecha for example. As Fishman says, "The Bolivian government took a quite different approach: in 1980, the government approved a 'unified alphabet'... In Equador, in contrast, an Equadorian 'National Unified Alphabet' was established for all Quichua varieties...this form diverged linguistically from what was commonly used in Boliva and Peru." The point here is that language shift, which occurs abruptly like GB's introduction, does not make the language inorganic.
No one ever actually reconstructed OB. Fr. Shenouda's 1975 thesis attempted to argue that OB was the pronunciation pre-1865. In the process, he had to reconstruct OB but it wasn't as systematic or comprehensive as it should be. And it was not his intention to do so.
Regardless, the evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation. Most linguistic studies deal with morpho-synctactic rules of each Coptic dialect. I have not yet read Lopriano's text in detail. But I believe pronunciation was not a comprehensively studied linguistic topic, as much as grammar and literary evidence was.
Coptic is rich linguistically. And while I prefer OB, I think it's a shame to devalue GB because of personal opinion.George
The evidence we have about Coptic pronunciation is at best miniscule. There isn't really much evidence about Bohairic pronunciation.
I can go on but you get the point. Your argument actually proves that OB is the authentic pronunciation. Inconsistencies are expected in any language.
Zefte Pantes, o kirios
The kiahk expositions said in the vesper praises