Coptic

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Hi, I was just wondering if someone could possibly sum up the main types of Coptic (Greco, old boiharic etc..) and the main differences in pronunciation and a little history of each. And if this could be as short of a summary as possible with maybe some links to references that would be much appreciated. Or if there has been a previous thread about this please post the link.Thanks.
«13

Comments

  • Common people I know you guys know please help out
  • Thanks! That helped a lot. There's just one thing i couldnt find in those links and if someone could tell me I would greatly appreciate it:
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks
  • [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    Thanks! That helped a lot. There's just one thing i couldnt find in those links and if someone could tell me I would greatly appreciate it:
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks


    Dear Amdah,

    The Greco Bohairis is an invention by one person named Aryan Moftah in the year 1858. Old Bohairic is the authentic and well documented pronunciation of the Coptic language.

    You can read about it here:

    http://www.coptic.org/language/pronounciation.html


    I do not want to overwhelm you, but if you need more references please let me know.
  • That was also very helpful. thanks! I think it would be interesting to read on into it so if you (or anyone else) has any more references, they would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks so much
  • Dear Cephas,
    I can see that on the wikipedia page you referred us to, one of the references is about "a Coptic family who still speaks Coptic language" (can't remember the name right now - I am at work). So that is in addition to the family of Ms Mona Zaki, and Fr. Bigol in Germany. Do you still stick to your idea of the Coptic language as a dead language?
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142407#msg142407 date=1312225011]
    Dear Cephas,
    I can see that on the wikipedia page you referred us to, one of the references is about "a Coptic family who still speaks Coptic language" (can't remember the name right now - I am at work). So that is in addition to the family of Ms Mona Zaki, and Fr. Bigol in Germany. Do you still stick to your idea of the Coptic language as a dead language?
    Oujai qen `P[C



    This is just getting beyond pathetic. This has already been discussed ad nauseum already. Coptic is a dead language. Accept it. It has gone the way of Latin, Aramaic, Sanskrit and countless other languages. There are people that still speak these languages, but that does not make them any more alive than Coptic. Let it go man. Get a life. Don't bring up an old thread here. You want to revisit this, go back to the thread and read through everything.

    Edit: Your selective reading is very telling. Also from the same wiki article:

    Geographic distribution

    A nearly extinct language, Coptic no longer has any official status in Egypt. However, it is presently a liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Catholic churches (along with Arabic). Coptic Egyptian was spoken only in Egypt, and historically has had little influence outside of Egypt proper, with the exception of monasteries located in Nubia. Coptic's most noticeable impact has been on the various dialects of Egyptian Arabic, which is characterized by a Coptic substratum in terms of lexical, morphological, syntactical, and phonological features.

  • Dear Cephas,
    You are serious, aren't you? OK, so Coptic is nearly extinct and it is a dead language? Good to know how you view the different adjectives lie on your spectrum. Anyway, I will let it go as you say... Sorry to have disturbed you by my persistence and insistence to call the language not dead, but you know something I ask you to tone down your posts. It is not helping your argument. You probably know this in the etiquette of dialogues: when somebody raises their voice they probably have a weak argument.
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142414#msg142414 date=1312233365]
    Dear Cephas,
    You are serious, aren't you? OK, so Coptic is nearly extinct and it is a dead language? Good to know how you view the different adjectives lie on your spectrum. Anyway, I will let it go as you say... Sorry to have disturbed you by my persistence and insistence to call the language not dead, but you know something I ask you to tone down your posts. It is not helping your argument. You probably know this in the etiquette of dialogues: when somebody raises their voice they probably have a weak argument.
    Oujai qen `P[C



    ::)
  • [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks

    There is no such thing as correct and incorrect pronunciation. All languages and pronunciations are variations influenced by social and political environments.
  • [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142396#msg142396 date=1312206690]
    Old Bohairic is the authentic and well documented pronunciation of the Coptic language.


    Apparently, imikahil is also discussing an issue that was discussed ad nauseum. Old Bohairic is neither authentic nor well-documented. Both these terms are subjective. That's all I say about this.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11962.msg142423#msg142423 date=1312242330]
    [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks

    There is no such thing as correct and incorrect pronunciation. All languages and pronunciations are variations influenced by social and political environments.


    The correct pronunciation is what has been documented in the ritual books, manuscripts, academics.

    Greco Bohairis is an invention by one person that distorted the authentic Bohairic pronunciation as has been recorded and received.
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11962.msg142424#msg142424 date=1312242517]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142396#msg142396 date=1312206690]
    Old Bohairic is the authentic and well documented pronunciation of the Coptic language.


    Apparently, imikahil is also discussing an issue that was discussed ad nauseum. Old Bohairic is neither authentic nor well-documented. Both these terms are subjective. That's all I say about this.


    Well tell us what evidence you have, of Greco Bohairic, prior to 1858 the year this invention came into existence.

    Do not just make empty claims.

    I have presented you with at least 13 scholarly references proving the authenticity of Old Bohairic.

    Why do not you tell us about your standard of "well-documented"

  • + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142425#msg142425 date=1312243154]
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11962.msg142423#msg142423 date=1312242330]
    [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks

    There is no such thing as correct and incorrect pronunciation. All languages and pronunciations are variations influenced by social and political environments.


    The correct pronunciation is what has been documented in the ritual books, manuscripts, academics.



    Unless there is an established pronunciation guide in these ritual books, manuscripts and 'academics', this makes absolutely no sense. Pronunciation is only determined verbally, not in written text.
  • [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11962.msg142427#msg142427 date=1312243683]
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142425#msg142425 date=1312243154]
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11962.msg142423#msg142423 date=1312242330]
    [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks

    There is no such thing as correct and incorrect pronunciation. All languages and pronunciations are variations influenced by social and political environments.





    Unless there is an established pronunciation guide in these ritual books, manuscripts and 'academics', this makes absolutely no sense. Pronunciation is only determined verbally, not in written text.

    Yes it can. You only need to refer to the references I have provided in the "Shenoudi or Shenouda" thread.

    The correct pronunciation is what has been documented in the ritual books, manuscripts, academics.



  • [quote author=Amdah link=topic=11962.msg142386#msg142386 date=1312179201]
    Thanks! That helped a lot. There's just one thing i couldnt find in those links and if someone could tell me I would greatly appreciate it:
    What is the correct pronunciation of the old bohairic letters that differ from their Greco-bohairic pronunciation.
    Thanks


    Here are more references:

    1 - Al Adella Al Rabteya,
    2 - Fr. Shounada Maher's Thesis
    3 - The Coptic Encycclopedia by Ateya Soriel - The pronunciation of late Bohairic Vol 8
    4 - Sobhy, Georgy PG (1915). The pronunciation of Coptic in the Church of Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 2(1):15-19.)
    5 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic sounds. University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; XXVI. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan press, 1934
    6 - Worrell, William Hoyt. Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection (With a study in the popular traditions of Coptic). University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series; 46. Ann Arbor : London, 1942.
    7 - http://www.coptic.org/language/pronounciation.html (I already gave you this one)
    8 - Al Asas Al Matine fi dabt notk loghat al masriyin - by Fr Abdel Messih Salib Al Baramousi
    9 - Torath Al Adab Al Qebti - by Fr Shenouda Maher and Dr Youhanna Nessim (Pages 19-39)
    10 - The Modern Pronunciation of Coptic in the Mass, J. Dyneley Prince, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 23, (1902), pp. 289-306, Published by: American Oriental Society
    11 - The Sounds of Old Bohairic, A short phological outline, by Mike S
    12 - Damanhour Euchologion 1525 a.m., 1809 (Early 19th Century)
    13- Common words in the spoken Arabic of Egypt, of Greek or Coptic origin, by Dr Georgy Sobhy Bey

  • I'll come to that post later to answer Cephas' queries with a few examples. I have to also say that Remenkimi bearing on himself this scholastic views about languages should admit there are certain facts he wasn't aware of and learn from the lowly others. I couldn't see this happening in the last couple of years...
    Oujai
  • [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142426#msg142426 date=1312243244]
    Do not just make empty claims.

    I have presented you with at least 13 scholarly references proving the authenticity of Old Bohairic.

    Why do not you tell us about your standard of "well-documented"


    I was going through your 13 scholarly references which you claim proves the authenticity of Old Bohairic. In Worrell's, "Popular Traditions of the Coptic Language" paragraph #27, p. 317, he writes "The distinction between y=/a/ and  y=/i/ long ago vanished and gave rise to bad "old" pronunciation which preceded the "reform" [Greco-Bohairic]. Yet the distinction is still preserved in Zeniya and Farshut". Coptic words use both /i/ and /a/. So ,ymy is /kami/ while hyki is /haki/. Yet in the 20th century, the distinction disappeared and OB proponents outside of these cities pronounced all words with the /a/ sound exclusively.

    This corroborates what I was saying all along. There is more than one reconstructed pronunciation of Old Bohairic. Which one is "authentic"? Or more accurately, "which one is more correct?" since you continue to argue OB is more authentic and more correct than GB.

    According to paragraph #26 Worrell writes, "An entirely different case is y=/a/ in Greek words or proper names. Probably a preponderance of y=/a/ in Coptic words led to its use in Greek words ending in yc, mostly accented." In other words, Greek words and proper names that have an accented y should be pronounced as /i/. But eventually OB changed this rule so that all Greek words and proper names with accented y like provytyc were pronounced /brofidas/ to copy Coptic words.

    My standard of authentic is simple. It has a history of use. Both OB and GB have a history of use. Both are authentic Coptic. Both have multiple variants. Neither is more authentic than the other.

    My standard of well-documented is also simple. Corroborated in multiple sources. Both OB and GB have been corroborated in multiple sources. What is not well-documented is the specific OB construction used today. Even in the 1940's there wasn't agreement on OB. I'm sure when I finish reading your other sources, I'll find more inconsistencies in OB.

    PS. I apologize in advance for hijacking this thread. I know Amdah had a simple question. I believe his question was answered. But there is no correct pronunciation.
  • On reflection there is no need for me to give any more examples than the references imikhail posted before. If people however think I should do, let me know.
    Dear Remenkimi,
    What evidence of use are you talking about to prove authenticity? There is something so fundamental that you disagree with, but it is a fact - Greco-bohairic dialect is a made up dialect. Now you can go on arguing that even if that is the case, it is still a dialect, but you can never call Indians speaking English as an Indian English dialect, can you? They mostly pronounce the letter 'w' as 'v' and vice versa. That is an example of a "made up" dialect in some narrow sense. Another thing is that it is absolutely fine to have more than one pronunciation for a word in a particular dialect. Fr. Peter told us before how he sometimes pronounces "biscuit" differently (as far as I can remember). I gave you examples about words which can be pronounced differently in a certain dialect in English language, e.g. either, associate, incarnate... etc. If anything that proves the livelihood of that language, without the artificial "fixed" rules of pronunciation of Greco-Bohairic. I can see why you don't want to change your stance after years and years of supporting an argument without having a good opposing view, but now you keep supporting an argument without basis. Scholarly thinking about it, you wouldn't accept it, would you?
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11962.msg142466#msg142466 date=1312305989]
    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11962.msg142426#msg142426 date=1312243244]
    Do not just make empty claims.

    I have presented you with at least 13 scholarly references proving the authenticity of Old Bohairic.

    Why do not you tell us about your standard of "well-documented"


    I was going through your 13 scholarly references which you claim proves the authenticity of Old Bohairic. In Worrell's, "Popular Traditions of the Coptic Language" paragraph #27, p. 317, he writes "The distinction between y=/a/ and  y=/i/ long ago vanished and gave rise to bad "old" pronunciation which preceded the "reform" [Greco-Bohairic]. Yet the distinction is still preserved in Zeniya and Farshut". Coptic words use both /i/ and /a/. So ,ymy is /kami/ while hyki is /haki/. Yet in the 20th century, the distinction disappeared and OB proponents outside of these cities pronounced all words with the /a/ sound exclusively.

    This corroborates what I was saying all along. There is more than one reconstructed pronunciation of Old Bohairic. Which one is "authentic"? Or more accurately, "which one is more correct?" since you continue to argue OB is more authentic and more correct than GB.





    Now you have changed the subject to studying specific letters and words.

    My purpose of providing the references is to prove to you the invention of Greco Bohairic and the change that took place by Aryan Moftah.

    Now that you have accepted the fact that Greco Bohairic is an invention, we can study the words as you see fit. Worrel is not a source of such a study. You can refer to my earlier process I explained in the "Shenouti or Shenouda" thread. Any study of specific words must involve manuscripts.

    My standard of authentic is simple. It has a history of use. Both OB and GB have a history of use. Both are authentic Coptic. Both have multiple variants. Neither is more authentic than the other.

    That is your own standard or Reminkimi Standard which is an unscholarly and inacademic.

    If you look up the word authentic, you will find three main charactaristics:

    1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.
    2. having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: an authentic document of the Middle Ages;
    3. entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy:

    Greco Bohairic fails to have any of these three charactaristics. Old Bohairic does.

    My standard of well-documented is also simple. Corroborated in multiple sources. Both OB and GB have been corroborated in multiple sources.

    I have asked you before if you can provide any source that supports Greco Bohairic befor the year of its invention in the year 1858 by Aryan Moftah.

    I am still waiting ....


    What is not well-documented is the specific OB construction used today. Even in the 1940's there wasn't agreement on OB. I'm sure when I finish reading your other sources.

    And where is your source that "Even in the 1940's there wasn't agreement on OB"

    I'll find more inconsistencies in OB

    We already debated this point and your idea of inconsistencies is really a natural phenomenon of any natural language. I presented you with multiple English words that you call inconsistencies. They are really not as such but are part of the natural English language.

  • [quote author=ophadece link=topic=11962.msg142469#msg142469 date=1312308338]
    On reflection there is no need for me to give any more examples than the references imikhail posted before. If people however think I should do, let me know.
    Dear Remenkimi,
    What evidence of use are you talking about to prove authenticity? There is something so fundamental that you disagree with, but it is a fact - Greco-bohairic dialect is a made up dialect.
    First, I am reluctant to call OB or GB a dialect. They are linguistic variations of Bohairic. It's irrelevant if one was abruptly introduced or made up. I am not disputing Erian Moftah introduced the pronunciation artificially or abruptly or what have you. Just because one man introduces a language or a dialect or a variant, why would an entire society adopt it? Because linguistics tell us political and social forces influences which variant becomes the standard. It is not one man who forces the language on the entire society. It has nothing to do with the language itself or linguistic purism. Since there are multiple examples of linguistic variations, whether introduced or not, the sociolinguistic processes to adopt or resist the language still takes place. Therefore, there is no such thing as a made up dialect.

    Now you can go on arguing that even if that is the case, it is still a dialect, but you can never call Indians speaking English as an Indian English dialect, can you? They mostly pronounce the letter 'w' as 'v' and vice versa. That is an example of a "made up" dialect in some narrow sense.
    No it's a linguistic variety, not a made up dialect. Even American English among 1st generation Copts would be considered a linguistic variety of American English.

    Another thing is that it is absolutely fine to have more than one pronunciation for a word in a particular dialect. Fr. Peter told us before how he sometimes pronounces "biscuit" differently (as far as I can remember). I gave you examples about words which can be pronounced differently in a certain dialect in English language, e.g. either, associate, incarnate... etc. If anything that proves the livelihood of that language, without the artificial "fixed" rules of pronunciation of Greco-Bohairic.
    OB has fixed rules also. GB has flexible rules as much as OB. This is not the issue. Nor multiple pronunciations of a small amount of words is the issue. Out of the millions of English words, of course a small percentage will have multiple pronunciations, as it does in nearly all living and extinct languages. This about the sociolinguistic dynamic of Coptic that follows the same properties as any other language where there is multi-lingual contact. The issue here is that OB is just as usable, intelligible, dynamic and fluid as GB, not more. The advantage of GB is that the same sociolinguistic processes, the political and social pressures of the religious society, favors GB over OB. To simply state OB is real and GB is fake, artificial, arbitrary, fixed or inferior and the Church is wrong to advocate GB ignores universal linguistic dynamics. 

    I can see why you don't want to change your stance after years and years of supporting an argument without having a good opposing view, but now you keep supporting an argument without basis.
    I don't see how you can say I don't have any supporting basis. I have given multiple references from linguistic journals and books. I have even given references from Moftah, the Coptic Encyclopedia, and other sources. And I still support the fact that I think OB is more esthetic and pleasing to me, as I did years back. This is personal opinion. Since then I have seen more people claiming OB is superior and claiming this as fact and not opinion. OB has become a God to some people. I draw the line at making unrealistic claims based on hearsay and pseudo-science.
  • Dear Remenkimi,
    I don't think that you are ready (or will ever be) to accept the fact that a made up language doesn't stand up to being a language or a dialect in the first place. What you argue about societal, political or other forces cannot in its own right give way to a contrived set of phonetic values to be adopted to be right. The Greco-Bohairic lingo or dialect is disingenuous FULL STOP. It is not one man who enforced the language, but as you implied later, it was the church who adopted that flawed argument, and the flock in their ignorance obeyed and followed along... pretty much like the inexperienced Egyptian English language teachers in Egyptian schools, or Indian ones in their schools, or ... or ... or ...
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • First, I am reluctant to call OB or GB a dialect.

    So, according to you we do not have any dialect of Coptic. Then what do we have, what do call Old Bohairic the authentic pronunciation?

    We have 5 major dialects of Coptic. Greco is not among them bwecause it is an invention

    They are linguistic variations of Bohairic.

    My understanding of a variation is that it has to be different in grammar, syntax, sentence structure, .... etc Sahidic, Boharic, Fayoumic are variants of Coptic. Greco and Old Boharic are not variants in this regard. Greco is an invention of new sounds that were not originally part of the language.


    It's irrelevant if one was abruptly introduced or made up.

    May be to you but not to those who want to preserve the language's authenticity as it has been received.


    I am not disputing Erian Moftah introduced the pronunciation artificially or abruptly or what have you.

    Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

    Just because one man introduces a language or a dialect or a variant, why would an entire society adopt it?

    None of what you mentioned can be introduced abruptly. All of these are natural evolution. Greco, as invention, does not fit this mold.


    Because linguistics tell us political and social forces influences which variant becomes the standard. It is not one man who forces the language on the entire society. It has nothing to do with the language itself or linguistic purism.

    Excellent. Now you know why we reject Greco Bohairic. Because it was introduced by one man abruptly.


    Since there are multiple examples of linguistic variations, whether introduced or not, the sociolinguistic processes to adopt or resist the language still takes place. Therefore, there is no such thing as a made up dialect.

    Very good .. now you are beginning to trod on the right path of Old Bohairic.
  • This about the sociolinguistic dynamic of Coptic that follows the same properties as any other language where there is multi-lingual contact.

    Will you please enlighten us as with some examples of the sociolinguistic dynamic of Coptic that you referring to?
  • I draw the line at making unrealistic claims based on hearsay and pseudo-science

    Would you please list these unrealistic claims, with examples, and I will be very glad to debate each and every one of them.

    Are you saying that Abouna Shenoda's PHD thesis is based on pseudo-science?

  • Dear Ophadece and imikhail,

    I want to address your main argument against GB: An invented language by one person cannot be considered a language, dialect, or autentic. If this is not the basis of your argument against GB, please clarify.

    Linguistic science disagrees with this priori notion. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of "invented", "artificial" or non-natural languages that were created by one person or one group abruptly. The prefered term among linguist is spontaneous emergence of languages or grammar.

    The groups of languages that are "man-made" include constructed languages, auxillary languages, engineered languages, artistic languages, pidgins and creoles. In all of these language, the majority of scholars consider them languages.

    Constructed languages or the term language planning means the prescriptions given to a natural language to standardize it; in this regard, even "natural languages" may be artificial in some respects. ... The term glossopoeia is also used to mean language construction, particularly construction of artistic languages. So we can see even natural languages undergo modification, spontaneous emergence or standardization in an abrupt pattern.

    In terms of purpose, most constructed languages can broadly be divided into:
    1. Engineered languages (engelangs /ˈɛnd͡ʒlæŋz/), further subdivided into logical languages (loglangs), philosophical languages and experimental languages; devised for the purpose of experimentation in logic, philosophy, or linguistics;
    2. Auxiliary languages (auxlangs) devised for international communication (also IALs, for International Auxiliary Language);
    3. Artistic languages (artlangs) devised to create aesthetic pleasure or humorous effect, just for fun; usually secret languages and mystical languages are classified as artlangs (from the same Wikipedia article)

    And lest we think Aryan Moftah was the only theorist who invented a language (or a phenome/pronunciation system), look at this article of List of language inventors

    The history of spontaneous language creation is nothing new
    Examples of constructed languages 12-17th century
    1. Lingual Ignota. 12th century described by Hildegard of Bingen.
    2. Balaiibalan 14-15th century Ottoman Empire. The creator was the mystic Muhyî-i Gülşenî
    3. De vulgari eloquentia created in 1302-1305. The creator was Dante.

    Many of these constructed languages even have ISO-639 approval as a language. An international committee defined them as languages.
    ISO-639 approved constructed languages

    Here are some 19-20th century examples
    1. Interlingua Created in 1951 and still used today.
    2. Esperanto Created by Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof. "In 1887. Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy-to-learn and politically neutral language that would foster peace and international understanding between people with different regional and/or national languages.". Esperanto has 200-2000 natural speakers who learned it from their parents. By Ethnologue's standards, Esperanto (a completely invented language) is considered a living language, while Coptic is not.
    3. Volapük. Created in 1879 by Johann Martin Schyler, a German Catholic priest.
    4. Ido. Created in 1907 by L. L. Zamenhof the same person who invented Esperanto.
    5. Occidental/Interlingua. Created in 1922 by Edgar de Wahl
    6. Novial first described in Jespersen's book An International Language in 1928.
    7. Eurolengo was created by Leslie Jones' Eurolengo in 1972
    8. Talossan was created by R. Ben Madison in 1980


    Let's look at another linguistic phenomenum or process: Pidgin and creoles.
    Pidgins are fundamentally, a simplified means of linguistic communication, as it is constructed impromptu, or by convention, between groups of people. It is usually created when 2 groups from different countries commercially trade in a third country and cannot communicate with each other. As a result they create a pidgin. Here is a list of pidgins based on English. There are many more non-English pidgins. Coptic is not a pidgin. I only bring this up to show an entire branch of linguistic that deals with spontaneous emergence.

    In a creole language, "it is often posited that pidgins become creole languages when a generation of children learn a pidgin as their first language, a process that regularizes speaker-dependent variation in grammar". They are more complex than pidgins but they are also spontaneously invented.

    Now I understand these are languages, consisting of grammar, vocabulary, syntax, and phonology whereas GB/OB only deals with phonology. However, the same linguistic dynamic occurs: languages (or pronunciation systems) are invented by a single person or group, either out of nothing (a priori constructed language) or based on a natural language (a posteriori constructed language). GB, therefore, should be considered a posteriori linguistic phonological and orthographic variety. The fact that it was spontaneously invented by one person does not disqualify it or make it less authentic than OB.

    Finally, the article on constructed langauges corroborates my statement on GB. Although it started by one person, constructed langagues undergo the same linguistic evolution as natural languages. Traces of OB existed into the 1930's-1940's. GB, therefore, which started in 1859 took nearly 100 years to develop and overtake OB. This gives us some evidence that GB also evolved naturally.
  • Linguistic science disagrees with this priori notion. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of "invented", "artificial" or non-natural languages that were created by one person or one group abruptly. The prefered term among linguist is spontaneous emergence of languages or grammar.

    You are still missing the point regarding the artificial pronunciation that Aryan invented.

    Your argument does not withstand what we are talking about here.

    Coptic is not an artificial, non-natural language that was created by one person. Rather, Coptic is a language that goes back to thousands of years and is not an invention as you suggest.

    The invention is of the sound values of the Coptic letters that Aryan invented.

    The groups of languages that are "man-made" include constructed languages, auxillary languages, engineered languages, pidgins and creoles. In all of these language, the majority of scholars and layperson consider them languages. I will discuss the philosophy of communication and language in another message.

    Again Coptic is not man-made.

    There is no reason for me to debate you on the rest of your argument since it is flawed given the topic we are debating which is THE ARTIFICIAL VALUES OF THE COPTIC LETTERS.

  • Now it's obvious you never read anything I write. I'm sure you didn't read any of the references. I gave you plenty of references why GB should be considered a linguistic phonologic variant. I even used your own references.

    Let me repeat again. It's irrelevant if the pronunciation was invented by one person. Hundreds of languages are invented. And many natural languages are standardized by one person or one group (including their pronuncation). By your standard, Modern Hebrew (which also codified pronunciation) is not a language. Go tell that to the millions of people in Israel.

    And you continue to confobulate Coptic as a language and the Bohairic pronunciation. I never said Coptic was artifical or man-made so stop putting words in my mouth. You can't prove how OB was pronounced before the 12-13th century. So stop implying OB is thousands of years old. The language is approximately 2000 years old. Bohairic Coptic is probably 1300 years old. The current GB pronunciation is 150 years old. The OB pronunciation is probably 700-900 years old.

  • It's irrelevant if the pronunciation was invented by one person.

    May irrelevant to you .. but not to me and those who love their heritage.

    Hundreds of languages are invented.

    Excellent  .. Coptic is not one of these languages. So, you cannot use them to support your argument.

    And many natural languages are standardized by one person or one group (including their pronuncation).

    May I ask you why these natural languages were standardized.

    Coptic did not need standardization as its pronunciation was already in use.

    By your standard, Modern Hebrew (which also codified pronunciation) is not a language.

    Again flawed argument.

    May be if you educate yourself on how Modern Hebrew developed and compare it to what Aryan Moftah did, you will stop using it as an example or rather an excuse of Aryan's mutilation to the Coptic language.


  • Dear Remenkimi,
    I may go tomorrow to church, and ask them to pronounce every 'a' letter as an 'o' and the followers of the church will follow me blindly. Then next generation Egyptians will adopt the same teaching, and in almost 40- 50 years' time we have 1% of the British pronouncing what comes to be known as Fadenglish. How sound is that? How do you think it is going to stand the test of time, the test of reason, and the test of comparativeness with the authentic British English (as I live in Britain). Now this is of course what didn't happen in Egypt, because by the time Mr. Moftah invented his flawed principle, the authentic Coptic speakers were widespread elsewhere other than Alexandria, and therefore the "good news" was not preached to them. Surely, by widespread I don't imply a large number of Coptic-speaking Copts at that time, because the day-to-day language was declining, and suppressed by social factors, but the church encouraged the adoption of the new system, and it started to spread. This created a conflict (something that doesn't usually happen with evolution of languages, or the making up of a newer dialect or lingo as the Jewish), and people started to say "hold on a minute, are you talking the same language I am talking?" So Coptic had a newly man-made dialect with no premise whatsoever except to unite two churches, that we know the history, Greek church kept adamant no unity between the two of us.
    Now, has this new dialect been an attempt to standardise? NO - read Mr. Moftah's book, he calls it rectification.
    Has this new dialect been an attempt to unify Copts? No, he argues that minimal language spoken in his day doesn't amount to being a viable language, and full of mistakes, and it was necessary to unite with Greeks.
    Has this new dialect been clearly and unequivocally been taught as an addition to the dialects present at that time? NO - it's been taught to be superior and authentic.
    Lastly, has this new dialect agreed with people's tongues, their societal norms, or traditions at the time? No, it created a group of society called "khawagat" (= foreigners in English) by the muslim population (at least if not created, it established the already pejorative descriptions).
    Oujai qen `P[C
Sign In or Register to comment.