[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11144.msg135399#msg135399 date=1302126095] What I would dispute is that those who advocate Coptic as THE language of worship are truly multilingual since they are not native speakers of Coptic and their relation to Coptic is the same as my relation to French and Finnish.
No one is saying that anyone who uses Coptic or advocates for the use of Coptic is a native speaker or even fluent, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
I can communicate in French and Finnish. I am not monolingual. But I while I would happily worship in French and Finnish if I lived in France or Finland, I would not believe it to be acceptable for a Frenchman or a Finn, coming to live in England, to insist that English people should worship in French or Finnish in England. This is what it seems is being insisted by some Copts. I would learn another language if I went to live in another country, and I would worship in that language. But THIS IS ENGLAND AND WE SPEAK ENGLISH HERE.
Okay.
I find it hard to believe that the nuances of Coptic are apparent to the vast majority of those using Coptic hymns or prayers since they are essentially being prayed in translation.
This is essentially irrelevant if we are talking about the properties of language. A child who is learning English as a native language will not recognize the complexities of what he is learning. This does not mean that they are not present. We are talking about properties of language itself (not just Coptic) that hold true regardless of what language is used. With regard to bilingualism or multilingualism, it is exactly that process of learning another language to whatever level of fluency that you do that helps to highlight the difference between speaking one language and speaking the native language which we largely take for granted (particularly if it is the dominant language of the country or region). The more you learn, the more the other languages open your mind to the interface between language and culture and the better you are able to integrate your language learning into your life so that it actually changes the way you think, rather than viewing it in a strictly utilitarian sense of having to learn it for a specific task or what have you (not that this isn't valuable in and of itself; eventually I will probably have to learn French for this very reason, but I doubt I will connect with it in the same way as I do with Spanish or Russian, precisely because of the different goals that I have in learning it versus some other language).
There is a great difference between my singing Frere Jacque (the French song) and knowing what it means, and actually singing it without having to think or know what it means because I am singing it in my native tongue.
Indeed. No one would argue that there isn't.
I do not think that most people use Coptic in the same way that a Frenchman uses French. Therefore I am not convinced by arguments about the hidden content of Coptic worship or that English people are at fault for expecting to be able to be entirely Orthodox without learning any other language.
Wow, is that what you got out of my post? I think it is probably best that I stop posting in this topic if this is how I am being understood. Better to keep silent than to cause frustration or anything like that. But I still am a little bit shocked and saddened. That is 100% the opposite of not only what I'm trying to say, but also of what I'm fairly certain I did say. I am disappointed in myself that I have tried repeatedly to draw fairly fine distinctions that are still not clear. This does not bode well for my future! :( I am sorry, Father, if what I have written has offended you in any way. It was not at all intended that way.
I can sing Hayr Mer, or Abun d'Bashmayo, but even though I know what the words mean I am not singing them as a native Armenian or Syrian would. And I believe it to be the same with the vast majority of those using Coptic.
Indeed. And that is "problem" with Coptic and indeed all moribund languages (I suppose I can't say "dead", because Ophadece and others say there are still native speakers). Revitalization efforts must be undertaken if Coptic is ever to be understood as Syriac or Ancient Armenian are by the speakers of their modern forms. No doubt it would involve a certain updating and possibly even some degree of relexification, maybe similar to what has happened in the case of Modern Hebrew.
They are using that language as a second language, and in most cases are translating in parallel rather than using the language fluently and as if it were their native language.
Yes.
I am happy to be corrected. But I know some Kernewek, the lost language of Cornwall in England. But I know it in translation, not natively. I do not believe that it is possible for me to know the inflections of thought which existed in the language when it was alive.
Luckily for you, this is not really what is called for. When I write about language being a window on to life in any respect (including religiously of course, particularly in the case of Coptic since that is when we encounter it most often unless we are Coptologists), it isn't a matter of speaking the language and finding some sort of "hidden" aspect that will somehow leap out of the pages. It is not about reading something and then magically knowing how the speakers thought and lived. It is a lot more plain than that, precisely because it is not hidden at all. Anyone who commits themselves to learning a language, if they stick with it and learn it with an idea of language as a transmitter of cultural knowledge, will eventually pick up a sort of worldview along with the language. It won't replace their own worldview, but like my silly Rocky & Bullwinkle example, things that seemed to not make sense before will gradually reveal a certain beauty, logic, and aesthetic sensibility unique to it that was always there, but perhaps not transparently obvious.
All that I can do is read into the bare vocabulary my own English language. I can never view Kernewek from the inside. I am not convinced that most/any can view Coptic from the inside either - except the small group of possible native speakers in the South.
Indeed, people who try to learn languages with the idea that they can reach and maintain fluency in isolation from a robust native speech community in which they are willing to immerse themselves are generally the first to become discouraged and quit. With dead or moribund languages it is thus that much more difficult to reach and maintain a high level of communicative competency, to say nothing of the what "fluency" might entail in such a situation! (If a tree falls in southern Egypt, does it make a sound in Coptic? And if it does, who can recognize what it sounds like? :P)
I think it is completely wrong to suggest that the spiritual tradition of the Church is the same as language. It manifestly isn't.
It is clearly possible to be Orthodox and not use Coptic. The vast majority of Orthodox do not use Coptic. But it is not possible to be Orthodox and not fast. I am not sure why you are promoting the lesser and saying that the more important is not necessary.
If I am wrong to have approached the Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox is a recent term) to become Orthodox because I don't want to have to learn another language then you are surely suggesting that no Western people can properly become Orthodox because the vast majority of Western people - who are quite prepared to embrace the spiritual tradition of Orthodoxy - do not believe it is necessary to have to learn Coptic, or Arabic, or Greek, or Syriac, or Armenian, or Ge'ez or any other such languages. Nor did the Apostles say that it was necessary to learn another language to become Orthodox. English speakers have been Orthodox since the 6th century at least, and British people since the first century. We are only asking to be able to be Orthodox as our ancestors were. What will happen when the majority of members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the US are non-Egyptians? Why should they have to worship in a language that is not their own? What happens when the non-Egyptians are a great majority in the US? Are you able to look forward to such a day? What would it mean for someone not to wish that so many people became Orthodox that the Egyptians in the US were a minority? Surely this is what God wills?
Coptic was a pagan tongue and was blessed by saints of the old Testament like Moses and Joseph. In the New Testament by our Lord Jesus, St Mary, St Joseph, the apostles, the martyrs and saints. Yet, the language is NOT a barrier to becoming Orthodox.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11144.msg135403#msg135403 date=1302130389] I think it is completely wrong to suggest that the spiritual tradition of the Church is the same as language. It manifestly isn't. It is apparent that you don't find spirituality in a non-English language. This fine for you. But there are some who find deep spirituality in the nuances of a second language. I would claim that there is a real long standing linguistic tradition in the Church, every Orthodox Church, as much as there is a fasting tradition.
It is clearly possible to be Orthodox and not use Coptic. The vast majority of Orthodox do not use Coptic. But it is not possible to be Orthodox and not fast. I am not sure why you are promoting the lesser and saying that the more important is not necessary.
You misunderstand. I never said you had to know Coptic to be Orthodox. What I was trying to portray is that there are many ways to fast, just as there are many languages to communicate with. In a particular Orthodox family, there is a specific primary language used (and sometimes a secondary language) and there is a specific fasting practice. If the parishioners requested to change the strict fasting practice to another relaxed fasting practice found in a different family, would you be willing relax the practice for the sake of the people? What if they felt that the current fasting practice is not their own. They don't want it. They want someone else's practice. It wouldn't make them any less Orthodox if you allowed them to change the fasting practice. But it does say something about identity.
We are only asking to be able to be Orthodox as our ancestors were. What will happen when the majority of members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the US are non-Egyptians? Why should they have to worship in a language that is not their own?
As far as I can tell our ancestors were all bilingual, even in England. And to answer your second question, the majority of the Coptic Orthodox church in the US are non-Egyptian already. They are Egyptian Americans. And they are bilingual (albeit English and Arabic, not English and Coptic. But I'm working on that) And to answer your third question, both the Coptic and English are our own as Egyptian Americans. Some Copts (and maybe many Copts) don't feel Coptic is their own. But that goes back to what I said about identity). It is a question of how bilingual you want to be.
From the rest of your post, it is apparent you understood opposite of what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being clear.
What I was trying to portray is that there are many ways to fast, just as there are many languages to communicate with. In a particular Orthodox family, there is a specific primary language used (and sometimes a secondary language) and there is a specific fasting practice.
Equating a language to a ritualistic practice is not proper. The Church received the way to fast, it did not receive a language. The Church may change the language she uses but she CANNOT change the practice she received.
Yes, Churches did change the way they fast and that does not make it right.
Comments
What I would dispute is that those who advocate Coptic as THE language of worship are truly multilingual since they are not native speakers of Coptic and their relation to Coptic is the same as my relation to French and Finnish.
No one is saying that anyone who uses Coptic or advocates for the use of Coptic is a native speaker or even fluent, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Okay. This is essentially irrelevant if we are talking about the properties of language. A child who is learning English as a native language will not recognize the complexities of what he is learning. This does not mean that they are not present. We are talking about properties of language itself (not just Coptic) that hold true regardless of what language is used. With regard to bilingualism or multilingualism, it is exactly that process of learning another language to whatever level of fluency that you do that helps to highlight the difference between speaking one language and speaking the native language which we largely take for granted (particularly if it is the dominant language of the country or region). The more you learn, the more the other languages open your mind to the interface between language and culture and the better you are able to integrate your language learning into your life so that it actually changes the way you think, rather than viewing it in a strictly utilitarian sense of having to learn it for a specific task or what have you (not that this isn't valuable in and of itself; eventually I will probably have to learn French for this very reason, but I doubt I will connect with it in the same way as I do with Spanish or Russian, precisely because of the different goals that I have in learning it versus some other language). Indeed. No one would argue that there isn't. Wow, is that what you got out of my post? I think it is probably best that I stop posting in this topic if this is how I am being understood. Better to keep silent than to cause frustration or anything like that. But I still am a little bit shocked and saddened. That is 100% the opposite of not only what I'm trying to say, but also of what I'm fairly certain I did say. I am disappointed in myself that I have tried repeatedly to draw fairly fine distinctions that are still not clear. This does not bode well for my future! :( I am sorry, Father, if what I have written has offended you in any way. It was not at all intended that way. Indeed. And that is "problem" with Coptic and indeed all moribund languages (I suppose I can't say "dead", because Ophadece and others say there are still native speakers). Revitalization efforts must be undertaken if Coptic is ever to be understood as Syriac or Ancient Armenian are by the speakers of their modern forms. No doubt it would involve a certain updating and possibly even some degree of relexification, maybe similar to what has happened in the case of Modern Hebrew. Yes. Luckily for you, this is not really what is called for. When I write about language being a window on to life in any respect (including religiously of course, particularly in the case of Coptic since that is when we encounter it most often unless we are Coptologists), it isn't a matter of speaking the language and finding some sort of "hidden" aspect that will somehow leap out of the pages. It is not about reading something and then magically knowing how the speakers thought and lived. It is a lot more plain than that, precisely because it is not hidden at all. Anyone who commits themselves to learning a language, if they stick with it and learn it with an idea of language as a transmitter of cultural knowledge, will eventually pick up a sort of worldview along with the language. It won't replace their own worldview, but like my silly Rocky & Bullwinkle example, things that seemed to not make sense before will gradually reveal a certain beauty, logic, and aesthetic sensibility unique to it that was always there, but perhaps not transparently obvious. Indeed, people who try to learn languages with the idea that they can reach and maintain fluency in isolation from a robust native speech community in which they are willing to immerse themselves are generally the first to become discouraged and quit. With dead or moribund languages it is thus that much more difficult to reach and maintain a high level of communicative competency, to say nothing of the what "fluency" might entail in such a situation! (If a tree falls in southern Egypt, does it make a sound in Coptic? And if it does, who can recognize what it sounds like? :P)
It is clearly possible to be Orthodox and not use Coptic. The vast majority of Orthodox do not use Coptic. But it is not possible to be Orthodox and not fast. I am not sure why you are promoting the lesser and saying that the more important is not necessary.
If I am wrong to have approached the Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox is a recent term) to become Orthodox because I don't want to have to learn another language then you are surely suggesting that no Western people can properly become Orthodox because the vast majority of Western people - who are quite prepared to embrace the spiritual tradition of Orthodoxy - do not believe it is necessary to have to learn Coptic, or Arabic, or Greek, or Syriac, or Armenian, or Ge'ez or any other such languages. Nor did the Apostles say that it was necessary to learn another language to become Orthodox. English speakers have been Orthodox since the 6th century at least, and British people since the first century. We are only asking to be able to be Orthodox as our ancestors were. What will happen when the majority of members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the US are non-Egyptians? Why should they have to worship in a language that is not their own? What happens when the non-Egyptians are a great majority in the US? Are you able to look forward to such a day? What would it mean for someone not to wish that so many people became Orthodox that the Egyptians in the US were a minority? Surely this is what God wills?
Coptic was a pagan tongue and was blessed by saints of the old Testament like Moses and Joseph. In the New Testament by our Lord Jesus, St Mary, St Joseph, the apostles, the martyrs and saints. Yet, the language is NOT a barrier to becoming Orthodox.
I think it is completely wrong to suggest that the spiritual tradition of the Church is the same as language. It manifestly isn't.
It is apparent that you don't find spirituality in a non-English language. This fine for you. But there are some who find deep spirituality in the nuances of a second language. I would claim that there is a real long standing linguistic tradition in the Church, every Orthodox Church, as much as there is a fasting tradition. You misunderstand. I never said you had to know Coptic to be Orthodox. What I was trying to portray is that there are many ways to fast, just as there are many languages to communicate with. In a particular Orthodox family, there is a specific primary language used (and sometimes a secondary language) and there is a specific fasting practice. If the parishioners requested to change the strict fasting practice to another relaxed fasting practice found in a different family, would you be willing relax the practice for the sake of the people? What if they felt that the current fasting practice is not their own. They don't want it. They want someone else's practice. It wouldn't make them any less Orthodox if you allowed them to change the fasting practice. But it does say something about identity. As far as I can tell our ancestors were all bilingual, even in England. And to answer your second question, the majority of the Coptic Orthodox church in the US are non-Egyptian already. They are Egyptian Americans. And they are bilingual (albeit English and Arabic, not English and Coptic. But I'm working on that) And to answer your third question, both the Coptic and English are our own as Egyptian Americans. Some Copts (and maybe many Copts) don't feel Coptic is their own. But that goes back to what I said about identity). It is a question of how bilingual you want to be.
From the rest of your post, it is apparent you understood opposite of what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being clear.
Yes, Churches did change the way they fast and that does not make it right.