she just means that it sounds cool and all british people speak with a deliberately strange accent. titL, i can promise u father peter's awesome british accent is 100% natural! when he says 'bingo' it sounds like a smart person preaching.
when british people say 'bingo' it doesn't sound american at all!
People from the South sound the way they do to match their style of cooking, and also because they're enemies with the North and want nothing to do with their dialect (PCWS: Post Civil War Syndrome). The North sound the way they do because they think its fun to copy Robert De Niro.
Neither the South nor North speak those dialects naturally.
Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today". It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156] Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150249#msg150249 date=1326242185] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156] Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=12781.msg150258#msg150258 date=1326252814] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150249#msg150249 date=1326242185] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156] Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
ahh...but you should love C more. I did simple things in C when i took operating systems but it is definitly much more powerful than c++ because it is 'closest to the metal' without being there.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150263#msg150263 date=1326255187] [quote author=geomike link=topic=12781.msg150258#msg150258 date=1326252814] [quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150249#msg150249 date=1326242185] [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156] Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
ahh...but you should love C more. I did simple things in C when i took operating systems but it is definitly much more powerful than c++ because it is 'closest to the metal' without being there.
Lol, talking about "closest to metal" i did some coding in assembly just to see how it is. It was so frustrating because it's so hard to keep clean coding in assembly. Plus C is just C++ but c++ has more features such as OOP (object oriented programming) like classes and stuff that make it more useable than C. They are the same because the compiler just converts your code to asm anyway.
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12781.msg150248#msg150248 date=1326240825] Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today". It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
Without realizing it TITL, you just became an Old Bohairic proponent. I guess it should be called Old Bohairic-like English proponent. This is the same exact argument the Old Bohairicists say against Greco-Bohairic.
I must say that even though you're the Guardian of Credibility, like OB proponents who use the same argument, you're wrong. There's no evidence that you speak natural English and everyone else speaks something else. That argument goes against hundreds of years of modern anthropology, linguistics and sociology.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150284#msg150284 date=1326289630] [quote author=TITL link=topic=12781.msg150248#msg150248 date=1326240825] Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today". It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
Without realizing it TITL, you just became an Old Bohairic proponent. I guess it should be called Old Bohairic-like English proponent. This is the same exact argument the Old Bohairicists say against Greco-Bohairic.
I must say that even though you're the Guardian of Credibility, like OB proponents who use the same argument, you're wrong. There's no evidence that you speak natural English and everyone else speaks something else. That argument goes against hundreds of years of modern anthropology, linguistics and sociology.
Accent has nothing to do with the difference between the so called Greco Bohairic and authentic Bohairic.
The sound values are intact whether you speak English with Australian, British, American accents.
Same thing with Arabic, there is the Egyptiaan, Moroccan, Yemeni, Saudi, Syrian accents. However the letters values are intact within those accents.
Contrast this with the artificial Greco Bohairic Arian Afandi invented. He changed the sounds of the Coptic letters.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12781.msg150286#msg150286 date=1326292189] Accent has nothing to do with the difference between the so called Greco Bohairic and authentic Bohairic. I wasn't talking about accent. I was discussing how one person can't claim they speak an authentic dialect and everybody else doesn't because there is no such thing as authenticity in linguistics.
The sound values are intact whether you speak English with Australian, British, American accents.
Same thing with Arabic, there is the Egyptiaan, Moroccan, Yemeni, Saudi, Syrian accents. However the letters values are intact within those accents.
Take the Arabic letters kaf and zal. Phonetically, most Arabic variants have them in their phonemic inventory as k' and z. Take the word ذاقت (I tasted). In most Arabic accents/variants, it is pronounced /za kat/. But in Cairene Arabic, it is commonly pronounced /do't/ where the kaf letter takes on the phoneme /'/ (a glottalized stop) and the letter zal takes on the phoneme /d/. In other words different Arabic accents and variants have more than one phoneme in their inventories and they are not consistent across the Arabic language.
Contrast this with the artificial Greco Bohairic Arian Afandi invented. He changed the sounds of the Coptic letters.
I don't see what this has to do with phonology and phonemic inventories. If you wish to discuss linguistic invention, then you'll have to contend with an entire branch of linguistics called constructed languages. It's not a foreign or artificial concept and we have already discussed it in a previous thread.
Therefore, you can't claim sound values are intact across accents.
Please support this claim within the different English accesnts.
Take the Arabic letters kaf and zal. Phonetically, most Arabic variants have them in their phonemic inventory as k' and z.
Not true. Just listen closely to the colloquial accents of various Arab countries especially the gulf states. Though they have different accents, they do keep the sound values intact.
Take the word ذاقت (I tasted). In most Arabic accents/variants, it is pronounced /za kat/.
Not true.
But in Cairene Arabic, it is commonly pronounced /do't/ where the kaf letter takes on the phoneme /'/ (a glottalized stop) and the letter zal takes on the phoneme /d/.
Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and letter "thal" because this sound is not in Coptic.
Therefore, you can't claim sound values are intact across accents.
Please support this claim within the different English accesnts. Have the courtesy to quote the entire argument. Don't ask me to support my conclusion when I already did before the conclusion that you just didn't quote (and possibly didn't even read it).
Not true. Just listen closely to the colloquial accents of various Arab countries especially the gulf states. Though they have different accents, they do keep the sound values intact.
I don't know how else to tell you that accents by definition means there is a different phonemic inventory. Sound value has no semantic meaning. What does the phrase mean? "An 'a' is American English is an 'a' in British English"? Is that what you mean by sound value being the same in different accents? If it is, it's not true. It is a contradiction.
Take the word ذاقت (I tasted). In most Arabic accents/variants, it is pronounced /za kat/.
Not true.
What is not true? The pronunciation in Modern Standard Arabic is /za kat/. I may be wrong but most non-Cairene Arabic accents are close to Modern Standard Arabic. Where's Dzheremi when you need him to confirm this?
Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and letter "thal" because this sound is not in Coptic.
There was no eyin sound or letter in Coptic either, yet Egyptians had no problem with that letter. Regardless, at least now you're talking about Coptic phonemic inventory in relation to the Arabic phonemic inventory. They are not the same because phonemic inventories do not cross linguistic variants.
Therefore, you can't claim sound values are intact across accents.
Please support this claim within the different English accesnts. [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150322#msg150322 date=1326382597]Have the courtesy to quote the entire argument. Don't ask me to support my conclusion when I already did before the conclusion that you just didn't quote (and possibly didn't even read it).
When we are cornered we attack!!!!
Give me one example in any live language you like that has different accents and show me a stark difference in the sound values as the invented Greco Bohairic has done.
Greco Boharic changed the sound "b" as in boy to "v" as in "victory".
I am not going to list all the changes because you know exactly what I am referring to.
I will not respond to the rest of your post above because the claims you made are simply not true. Your lack of Arabic knowledge and in particular the difference between Egyptian Arabic and formal Arabic is the reason you are making such claims.
Please do not take this the wrong way .. you really need to be educated in the Arabic language and are fluent in it to be able to discern between the different Arabic accents.
I didn't say my English dialect is authentic. I said my pronunciation comes naturally to everyone, but they purposely speak in different accents (because of their location...etc). It makes sense if you think about it. Also, if I can't see you, you can't see me.
Hopefully this will end the OB/Arabic/English "debate" you two are having.
Dear Remenkimi, There is "eyin" pronunciation in Coptic, but no letter, as it descended from Demotic in a weak form. Yet it was still pronounced in some words with a. One can argue that in Sahidic it is a bit more pronounced than in Bohairic, but some authors argue the reverse (I tend to believe the former in most cases at least). One can also argue that the letter h is an "eyin" or a "ha'" in some cases, and just a /h/ in others. Oujai qen `P[C
Ophadece, thanks for your comments. [quote author=ophadece link=topic=12781.msg150329#msg150329 date=1326402441] Dear Remenkimi, There is "eyin" pronunciation in Coptic, but no letter, as it descended from Demotic in a weak form. According to the Coptic Encyclopedia, "Ayin belong to the phonological inventory of Ancient and also later Egyptian, perhaps even as far as the beginning of Demotic. However, it probably does not belong any longer to the phonological inventory of Coptic or even Pre-Coptic, not even as a Cryptophoneme, in contrast to Aleph. .... Ayin nonetheless plays an important role in Coptic phonology....itself has not entirely disappeared but has survived in some way, being transformed into the phonological aleph."
In other words, there is no eyin letter or sound in Coptic phonology proper but something like an ayin phoneme was incorporated into the Coptic cyrptophoneme Aleph (Hamza in Arabic). But this conclusion is not universally accepted among Coptic linguists.
What is important to the conversation here is that Ancient Egyptian may have ayin but it doesn't cross over into Demotic or Coptic, as certain phonemes do not pass between dialects of Coptic or non-genetic language families like Coptic and Greek.
This brings me back to my question to imikhail which he avoided. What is meant by sound value? It can't mean phonological inventory as he seems to imply.
Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true.
Fluency in Arabic is a must for someone to discern the real differences between certain sounds among the various Arabic sounds.
I did not avoid the discussion of the ayn that Copts use nawadays. Rather, I chose not to debate something you have no knowledge of or experience in. Unless you are fluent in Arabic and are familiar with different accents, our discussion is fruitless. Your lack of knowledge certainly shows through your last post since you claim that my position is not true and you need someone to verify what we are talking about.
In any case, if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn. Their ayn comes from the back of their moutwith the tounge lowered while saying it. The Egyptian ayn, on the other hand, is much lighter and sounds more like an aathat is pronounced witne the tongue flat.
I apologize for not explaining the pronunciation in technical terms as this is not my area of expertise.
The main contention here is that Greco Bohairic invented sounds that are not part of the Egyptian sounds and thus till today cannot be pronounced. The great error that Aryan fell into was his assumption that since the Coptic alphabet uses the Greek alphabet then, the sounds must be the same. This is a great fallacy that we the Copts are suffering from.
Dear Remenkimi, I am so sorry for my late reply; quite busy these days. You said: "Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true." No, it is pronounced as /da'et/ not /do't/ which is another word without the alef in Arabic. Here I used "'" as to indicate a glottal stop (or a hamza in Arabic). However in Gulf Arabic it is /ᵟakat/ without the "'" glottal stop, or hamza. Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150373#msg150373 date=1326434161] Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true.
the word "ذاقت" is pronounced "da-et" and saying 'she tasted', a past tense. "do't" refers to "ذقت" which means 'I tasted' or 'you tested' since there is not much tashkeel that can specify.
Thank you Mina. I did put "I tasted" in parantheses in Reply #39. So I was looking for /do't/ all along. Which substantiates my claim that Modern Standard Arabic pronounces "I tasted" as /za 'kat/ while Cairene Arabic pronounces it /do't/; which in turn substantiates my claim that phonological inventory is not crossed over into other dialects.
imikhail, I never claimed absolute proficiency in Arabic. But I know enough Arabic and general linguistics to engage in an intellectual discussion. Deflecting the argument, avoiding questions and pointing out my inadequacies does not negate the framework of my argument. Since others have confirmed my evidence of Arabic phonology, it all the more shows how you were attacking me with comments like "When we are corned, we attack" and "I chose not to debate something you have no knowledge of or experience in. Unless you are fluent in Arabic and are familiar with different accents, our discussion is fruitless" instead of addressing the argument.
Your comments, "In any case, if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn. Their ayn comes from the back of their moutwith the tounge lowered while saying it. The Egyptian ayn, on the other hand, is much lighter and sounds more like an aathat is pronounced witne the tongue flat." and "Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and letter "thal" because this sound is not in Coptic.", reinforce my claim that phonological inventories do not cross over to accents. If "sound value" did maintain through accents then the Egyptian ayin would sound like the Arab Gulf ayin; the Egyptian zal and kaf would sound like the Arab Gulf respective letters. I am basing this on the assumption that "sound value" means phonological inventory. I asked you to confirm this assumption and you did not respond.
Additionally, having different phonological inventories does not stop natural langauges for borrowing and modifying loan words and loan sounds to fit into the donor phonological inventory. In other words, just because Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and the letter "thal" because it is not in their phonological inventory, doesn't mean Modern Standard Arabic in Egypt does not use the heavy z sound and letter thal. Just listen to any Egyptian TV news journalist. They do use zal and thal. Yet Egyptian Arabic, as a language, figured out a way to use Modern Standard Arabic in conjuction with colloquail Arabic: diglossia. Egyptians didn't say Modern Standard Arabic forced invented sounds on Egyptians so we reject it. If you reject Greco Bohairic on the basis of a foreign and invented phonological inventory, then you must reject Modern Standard Arabic in Egypt also.
Thank you Mina. I did put "I tasted" in parantheses in Reply #39. So I was looking for /do't/ all along. Which substantiates my claim that Modern Standard Arabic pronounces "I tasted" as /za 'kat/ while Cairene Arabic pronounces it /do't/; which in turn substantiates my claim that phonological inventory is not crossed over into other dialects.
How does this substantiate your claim. You are confused so let me help you out.
Egyptian Arabic:
do't is the past of the verb " yedou' " meaning to taste which is for a male singular.
da'et is the past of the verb " tedou' " meaning to taste which is for a female singular.
Standard Arabic:
The "d" changes to "th" with the sound of "this", "the", "with". Also, the "e" changes to "a" and the "'" changes to "qu" as in "quaf" as follows:
thoqut is the past of the verb " yathouqu " meaning to taste which is for a male singular.
thaquat is the past of the verb " tathouqu " meaning to taste which is for a female singular.
Hope the difference is clear for you now.
My argument still stands that your illiteracy of Arabic makes you make claims that are not true and thus flawed conclusions.
Egyptian Arabic is the product of Coptic and therefore the sound "th" as in "this" cannot be pronounced by the Egyptians because it did not exist in Coptic.
I will not respond to the rest of your post because it is erroneous and is built on no knowledge of the Arabic language and the difference between Egyptian and Standard Arabic.
I asked for "I tasted" which is the first person singular past tense. In Egyptian Arabic, it is /do't/. I didn't ask for the male and female 3rd personal singular present tense forms. You keep giving me the 3rd person singular form and I made my argument with the first person singular form.
Regardless, using the 3rd person male and female singular present form doesn't negate my argument. Egyptian Arabic introduces the "hemza" phoneme in its inventory for the Arabic letter kaf (which is different than the Modern Standard Arabic phonological inventory) because the gluttalinzed k sound is foreign to Egyptians. The same is true for the zal letter. The "light z" phoneme is foreign to Egyptians and they introduce the /d/ phoneme for the zal letter. This is why Doxa Patri is pronounced by many Egyptians as /doks apat ri/ not /zoks apat ri/.
If my claims are not true and flawed, why did you come up with the same conclusion when you said, "if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn."? You are agreeing with my conclusion that phonological inventories do not cross into genetically related linguistic varieties.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150518#msg150518 date=1326735152] I asked for "I tasted" which is the first person singular past tense. In Egyptian Arabic, it is /do't/. I didn't ask for the male and female 3rd personal singular present tense forms. You keep giving me the 3rd person singular form and I made my argument with the first person singular form.
Regardless, using the 3rd person male and female singular present form doesn't negate my argument. Egyptian Arabic introduces the "hemza" phoneme in its inventory for the Arabic letter kaf (which is different than the Modern Standard Arabic phonological inventory) because the gluttalinzed k sound is foreign to Egyptians. The same is true for the zal letter. The "light z" phoneme is foreign to Egyptians and they introduce the /d/ phoneme for the zal letter. This is why Doxa Patri is pronounced by many Egyptians as /doks apat ri/ not /zoks apat ri/.
If my claims are not true and flawed, why did you come up with the same conclusion when you said, "if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn."? You are agreeing with my conclusion that phonological inventories do not cross into genetically related linguistic varieties.
Now we are getting somewhere. When you mix languages and one becomes dominant like the case of Arabic in Egypt, the Arabic introduced becomes a different product than the the one introduced. This is natural development.
We cannot apply this to what Aryan Afandy invented and is called Greco Bohairic is a variety of Coptic since he arbitrarily introduced sounds that cannot be uttered by the Copts.
Coptic does not have the sounds:
"th" as in thorn "th" as in "this" "v" as in "victory" "p" as in "partly"' All the artificial stops that he introduced to the language
Changing the sounds of some of the letters is not natural development.
Dear Remenkimi , You seem to still be confused.. the Arabic word you quoted is pronounced like /thaqat/ in formal Arabic, and as /da'at/ in Egyptian; the word you chose means "she tasted" hence imikhail's response.. however, I tasted is pronounced as /thoqtu/ in formal Arabic and as /do't/ in Egyptian Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12781.msg150521#msg150521 date=1326737360] however, I tasted is pronounced as /thoqtu/ in formal Arabic and as /do't/ in Egyptian Oujai
No I'm not confused. This last line is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. I am talking about the first person singular past tense of the verb "I tasted", not the third person singular female "she tasted" in both Modern Standard Arabic and Colloquial Egyptian Arabic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12781.msg150519#msg150519 date=1326735968] Now we are getting somewhere. When you mix languages and one becomes dominant like the case of Arabic in Egypt, the Arabic introduced becomes a different product than the the one introduced. This is natural development. Technically, this is called diglossia. Yes it is natural. One of the four classical examples given by Charles Ferguson is MSA and colloquial Arabic.
We cannot apply this to what Aryan Afandy invented and is called Greco Bohairic is a variety of Coptic since he arbitrarily introduced sounds that cannot be uttered by the Copts.
Coptic does not have the sounds:
"th" as in thorn "th" as in "this" "v" as in "victory" "p" as in "partly"' All the artificial stops that he introduced to the language
I fail to see how this is different than Modern Standard Arabic. MSA introduced "th", "zal", "kaf", and many other phonemes that are foreign to Egyptians that cannot be uttered by Copts and Egyptians in general. The only difference between Coptic and Arabic is that MSA doesn't have "v" and "p", while GB does. On the other hand, reconstructed OB introduced phonemes that are not foreign to Egyptians. This is an entirely different subject that doesn't need to be discussed at this point. The point I have been trying to make is that foreign phonemes have been incorporated into donor phonological inventories and languages. This is what MSA did in Egypt. This is what GB did and this is found in many natural languages.
I fail to see how this is different than Modern Standard Arabic. MSA introduced "th", "zal", "kaf", and many other phonemes that are foreign to Egyptians that cannot be uttered by Copts and Egyptians in general.
I believe you fail to see the difference because you keep referring to Arabic which you have no knowledge of. Again, do not take this the wrong way.
There is no difference in the sounds between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic in terms of sounds. The thal is still thal "thoqt" is still "thoqt", ...etc
Just like English, there is no difference in the letter sounds between classical English and modern English; the "d" is still d, the "f" is still f, ...etc
I believe your problem is you are mixing between Egyptian Arabic and Standard Arabic. There is no "do't" in standard Arabic; it only exists in the Eqyptian Arabic.
However, when Egyptians (educated) use standard Arabic they would say "thoqut" not "do't"; only when they are reading. Standard Arabic is not a spoken language in Egypt in contrast to the Arab gulf states. That is why the gulf states use the Standard Arabic sounds while Egyptians do not.
Because we have been rehashing the same arguments and since most people have no real interest in linguistics, I am done debating. I fear my debates on the Coptic language are causing others to leave the site. I pray I have not offended anyone.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150530#msg150530 date=1326740477] Because we have been rehashing the same arguments and since most people have no real interest in linguistics, I am done debating. I fear my debates on the Coptic language are causing others to leave the site. I pray I have not offended anyone.
Your debate has to be based on real knowledge of what Egyptians speak nowadays and how does it compare to other states speaking the same language.
Coptic influenced Arabic in Egypt in a great way to the extent that more than7000 Coptic words are still in use (some are arabized but the root is Coptic).
When constructing Coptic we have to use what the Egyptians speak, wrote Coptic in Arabic and vice versa.
The result of what Aryan did was a disaster to the Coptic language and the Coptic heritage. There are some words that if pronounced using Aryan's method would sound ridiculous and offensive.
Remenkimi, you gave the wrong word in Arabic in the beginning if you never alluded to the third person singular verb.. I don't think you could understand my reply either, but that's fine.. I guess your debate with imikhail may have shed the light on the difference anyway Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12781.msg150546#msg150546 date=1326751888] Remenkimi, you gave the wrong word in Arabic in the beginning if you never alluded to the third person singular verb.
For my own sanity, please show me where I gave the wrong word. In reply #39, I inquired about the first person singular past tense "I tasted" which in Arabic is ذافت which I got from Google translate. If this is wrong, please correct. If I gave the wrong word in another post, please show me where. I don't know how or where the confusion about the third person singular past tense came from.
And for clarification, I never said /do't/ is in Standard Arabic. I never said Modern Standard Arabic is used in everyday conversation in Egypt as it is in the other Arab countries. I never argued about the differences in Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic. Everything I did argue about seems to have gone by the wayside.
Comments
titL, i can promise u father peter's awesome british accent is 100% natural!
when he says 'bingo' it sounds like a smart person preaching.
when british people say 'bingo' it doesn't sound american at all!
Neither the South nor North speak those dialects naturally.
Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today".
It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156]
Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150249#msg150249 date=1326242185]
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156]
Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
ahh...but you should love C more. I did simple things in C when i took operating systems but it is definitly much more powerful than c++ because it is 'closest to the metal' without being there.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=12781.msg150258#msg150258 date=1326252814]
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=12781.msg150249#msg150249 date=1326242185]
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=12781.msg150239#msg150239 date=1326231156]
Are you doing Eastern or Western Java? Classical or Modern?
Do you do conversational Java?
when i learned it was the most recent version of java because that class was rooted into c++.....i just didn't continue workin on java so that's why i began to forget.
Lol, c++ all the way baby. I don't want to get off topic or anything, but java has basically the same syntax as c++ but the thing that ticks me off about java is that it can't create a standalone, also they are easy to decompile, and it can't directly access the memory of another process. With c++ the imagination is the limit not the language. I love c++ so much.
ahh...but you should love C more. I did simple things in C when i took operating systems but it is definitly much more powerful than c++ because it is 'closest to the metal' without being there.
Lol, talking about "closest to metal" i did some coding in assembly just to see how it is. It was so frustrating because it's so hard to keep clean coding in assembly. Plus C is just C++ but c++ has more features such as OOP (object oriented programming) like classes and stuff that make it more useable than C. They are the same because the compiler just converts your code to asm anyway.
Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today".
It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
Without realizing it TITL, you just became an Old Bohairic proponent. I guess it should be called Old Bohairic-like English proponent. This is the same exact argument the Old Bohairicists say against Greco-Bohairic.
I must say that even though you're the Guardian of Credibility, like OB proponents who use the same argument, you're wrong. There's no evidence that you speak natural English and everyone else speaks something else. That argument goes against hundreds of years of modern anthropology, linguistics and sociology.
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12781.msg150248#msg150248 date=1326240825]
Everyone really speaks English like me, but (I guess) they wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to speak Australian/British/Southern/FOB today".
It's hard to explain and doesn't really make sense to me, but thats how the world works.
Without realizing it TITL, you just became an Old Bohairic proponent. I guess it should be called Old Bohairic-like English proponent. This is the same exact argument the Old Bohairicists say against Greco-Bohairic.
I must say that even though you're the Guardian of Credibility, like OB proponents who use the same argument, you're wrong. There's no evidence that you speak natural English and everyone else speaks something else. That argument goes against hundreds of years of modern anthropology, linguistics and sociology.
Accent has nothing to do with the difference between the so called Greco Bohairic and authentic Bohairic.
The sound values are intact whether you speak English with Australian, British, American accents.
Same thing with Arabic, there is the Egyptiaan, Moroccan, Yemeni, Saudi, Syrian accents. However the letters values are intact within those accents.
Contrast this with the artificial Greco Bohairic Arian Afandi invented. He changed the sounds of the Coptic letters.
Accent has nothing to do with the difference between the so called Greco Bohairic and authentic Bohairic.
I wasn't talking about accent. I was discussing how one person can't claim they speak an authentic dialect and everybody else doesn't because there is no such thing as authenticity in linguistics. Phonemic inventory, orthography, phonetic transcription and morphophonology are not common between accents. Accents differ in phonology, phonetic transcription, and morphophonology but not orthography. Therefore, you can't claim sound values are intact across accents.
Take the Arabic letters kaf and zal. Phonetically, most Arabic variants have them in their phonemic inventory as k' and z. Take the word ذاقت (I tasted). In most Arabic accents/variants, it is pronounced /za kat/. But in Cairene Arabic, it is commonly pronounced /do't/ where the kaf letter takes on the phoneme /'/ (a glottalized stop) and the letter zal takes on the phoneme /d/. In other words different Arabic accents and variants have more than one phoneme in their inventories and they are not consistent across the Arabic language. I don't see what this has to do with phonology and phonemic inventories. If you wish to discuss linguistic invention, then you'll have to contend with an entire branch of linguistics called constructed languages. It's not a foreign or artificial concept and we have already discussed it in a previous thread.
Not true. Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and letter "thal" because this sound is not in Coptic.
Have the courtesy to quote the entire argument. Don't ask me to support my conclusion when I already did before the conclusion that you just didn't quote (and possibly didn't even read it). I don't know how else to tell you that accents by definition means there is a different phonemic inventory. Sound value has no semantic meaning. What does the phrase mean? "An 'a' is American English is an 'a' in British English"? Is that what you mean by sound value being the same in different accents? If it is, it's not true. It is a contradiction.
What is not true? The pronunciation in Modern Standard Arabic is /za kat/. I may be wrong but most non-Cairene Arabic accents are close to Modern Standard Arabic. Where's Dzheremi when you need him to confirm this? There was no eyin sound or letter in Coptic either, yet Egyptians had no problem with that letter. Regardless, at least now you're talking about Coptic phonemic inventory in relation to the Arabic phonemic inventory. They are not the same because phonemic inventories do not cross linguistic variants.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12781.msg150305#msg150305 date=1326336659]
Therefore, you can't claim sound values are intact across accents.
Please support this claim within the different English accesnts.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12781.msg150322#msg150322 date=1326382597]Have the courtesy to quote the entire argument. Don't ask me to support my conclusion when I already did before the conclusion that you just didn't quote (and possibly didn't even read it).
When we are cornered we attack!!!!
Give me one example in any live language you like that has different accents and show me a stark difference in the sound values as the invented Greco Bohairic has done.
Greco Boharic changed the sound "b" as in boy to "v" as in "victory".
I am not going to list all the changes because you know exactly what I am referring to.
I will not respond to the rest of your post above because the claims you made are simply not true. Your lack of Arabic knowledge and in particular the difference between Egyptian Arabic and formal Arabic is the reason you are making such claims.
Please do not take this the wrong way .. you really need to be educated in the Arabic language and are fluent in it to be able to discern between the different Arabic accents.
It makes sense if you think about it.
Also, if I can't see you, you can't see me.
Hopefully this will end the OB/Arabic/English "debate" you two are having.
There is "eyin" pronunciation in Coptic, but no letter, as it descended from Demotic in a weak form. Yet it was still pronounced in some words with a. One can argue that in Sahidic it is a bit more pronounced than in Bohairic, but some authors argue the reverse (I tend to believe the former in most cases at least). One can also argue that the letter h is an "eyin" or a "ha'" in some cases, and just a /h/ in others.
Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=12781.msg150329#msg150329 date=1326402441]
Dear Remenkimi,
There is "eyin" pronunciation in Coptic, but no letter, as it descended from Demotic in a weak form.
According to the Coptic Encyclopedia, "Ayin belong to the phonological inventory of Ancient and also later Egyptian, perhaps even as far as the beginning of Demotic. However, it probably does not belong any longer to the phonological inventory of Coptic or even Pre-Coptic, not even as a Cryptophoneme, in contrast to Aleph. .... Ayin nonetheless plays an important role in Coptic phonology....itself has not entirely disappeared but has survived in some way, being transformed into the phonological aleph."
In other words, there is no eyin letter or sound in Coptic phonology proper but something like an ayin phoneme was incorporated into the Coptic cyrptophoneme Aleph (Hamza in Arabic). But this conclusion is not universally accepted among Coptic linguists.
What is important to the conversation here is that Ancient Egyptian may have ayin but it doesn't cross over into Demotic or Coptic, as certain phonemes do not pass between dialects of Coptic or non-genetic language families like Coptic and Greek.
This brings me back to my question to imikhail which he avoided. What is meant by sound value? It can't mean phonological inventory as he seems to imply.
Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true.
Fluency in Arabic is a must for someone to discern the real differences between certain sounds among the various Arabic sounds.
I did not avoid the discussion of the ayn that Copts use nawadays. Rather, I chose not to debate something you have no knowledge of or experience in. Unless you are fluent in Arabic and are familiar with different accents, our discussion is fruitless. Your lack of knowledge certainly shows through your last post since you claim that my position is not true and you need someone to verify what we are talking about.
In any case, if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn. Their ayn comes from the back of their moutwith the tounge lowered while saying it. The Egyptian ayn, on the other hand, is much lighter and sounds more like an aathat is pronounced witne the tongue flat.
I apologize for not explaining the pronunciation in technical terms as this is not my area of expertise.
The main contention here is that Greco Bohairic invented sounds that are not part of the Egyptian sounds and thus till today cannot be pronounced. The great error that Aryan fell into was his assumption that since the Coptic alphabet uses the Greek alphabet then, the sounds must be the same. This is a great fallacy that we the Copts are suffering from.
I am so sorry for my late reply; quite busy these days.
You said:
"Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true."
No, it is pronounced as /da'et/ not /do't/ which is another word without the alef in Arabic. Here I used "'" as to indicate a glottal stop (or a hamza in Arabic). However in Gulf Arabic it is /ᵟakat/ without the "'" glottal stop, or hamza.
Oujai qen `P[C
Additionally, can you or someone else confirm if ذاقت is pronounced /do't/ in Cairene Arabic and /za 'kat/ in Modern Standard Arabic? I don't deny my Arabic is weak but I believe this above statement is true and imikhail claims it is not true.
the word "ذاقت" is pronounced "da-et" and saying 'she tasted', a past tense. "do't" refers to "ذقت" which means 'I tasted' or 'you tested' since there is not much tashkeel that can specify.
imikhail,
I never claimed absolute proficiency in Arabic. But I know enough Arabic and general linguistics to engage in an intellectual discussion. Deflecting the argument, avoiding questions and pointing out my inadequacies does not negate the framework of my argument. Since others have confirmed my evidence of Arabic phonology, it all the more shows how you were attacking me with comments like "When we are corned, we attack" and "I chose not to debate something you have no knowledge of or experience in. Unless you are fluent in Arabic and are familiar with different accents, our discussion is fruitless" instead of addressing the argument.
Your comments, "In any case, if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn. Their ayn comes from the back of their moutwith the tounge lowered while saying it. The Egyptian ayn, on the other hand, is much lighter and sounds more like an aathat is pronounced witne the tongue flat." and "Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and letter "thal" because this sound is not in Coptic.", reinforce my claim that phonological inventories do not cross over to accents. If "sound value" did maintain through accents then the Egyptian ayin would sound like the Arab Gulf ayin; the Egyptian zal and kaf would sound like the Arab Gulf respective letters. I am basing this on the assumption that "sound value" means phonological inventory. I asked you to confirm this assumption and you did not respond.
Additionally, having different phonological inventories does not stop natural langauges for borrowing and modifying loan words and loan sounds to fit into the donor phonological inventory. In other words, just because Egyptians cannot pronounce the light z and the letter "thal" because it is not in their phonological inventory, doesn't mean Modern Standard Arabic in Egypt does not use the heavy z sound and letter thal. Just listen to any Egyptian TV news journalist. They do use zal and thal. Yet Egyptian Arabic, as a language, figured out a way to use Modern Standard Arabic in conjuction with colloquail Arabic: diglossia. Egyptians didn't say Modern Standard Arabic forced invented sounds on Egyptians so we reject it. If you reject Greco Bohairic on the basis of a foreign and invented phonological inventory, then you must reject Modern Standard Arabic in Egypt also.
Egyptian Arabic:
do't is the past of the verb " yedou' " meaning to taste which is for a male singular.
da'et is the past of the verb " tedou' " meaning to taste which is for a female singular.
Standard Arabic:
The "d" changes to "th" with the sound of "this", "the", "with". Also, the "e" changes to "a" and the "'" changes to "qu" as in "quaf" as follows:
thoqut is the past of the verb " yathouqu " meaning to taste which is for a male singular.
thaquat is the past of the verb " tathouqu " meaning to taste which is for a female singular.
Hope the difference is clear for you now.
My argument still stands that your illiteracy of Arabic makes you make claims that are not true and thus flawed conclusions.
Egyptian Arabic is the product of Coptic and therefore the sound "th" as in "this" cannot be pronounced by the Egyptians because it did not exist in Coptic.
I will not respond to the rest of your post because it is erroneous and is built on no knowledge of the Arabic language and the difference between Egyptian and Standard Arabic.
Regardless, using the 3rd person male and female singular present form doesn't negate my argument. Egyptian Arabic introduces the "hemza" phoneme in its inventory for the Arabic letter kaf (which is different than the Modern Standard Arabic phonological inventory) because the gluttalinzed k sound is foreign to Egyptians. The same is true for the zal letter. The "light z" phoneme is foreign to Egyptians and they introduce the /d/ phoneme for the zal letter. This is why Doxa Patri is pronounced by many Egyptians as /doks apat ri/ not /zoks apat ri/.
If my claims are not true and flawed, why did you come up with the same conclusion when you said, "if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn."? You are agreeing with my conclusion that phonological inventories do not cross into genetically related linguistic varieties.
I asked for "I tasted" which is the first person singular past tense. In Egyptian Arabic, it is /do't/. I didn't ask for the male and female 3rd personal singular present tense forms. You keep giving me the 3rd person singular form and I made my argument with the first person singular form.
Regardless, using the 3rd person male and female singular present form doesn't negate my argument. Egyptian Arabic introduces the "hemza" phoneme in its inventory for the Arabic letter kaf (which is different than the Modern Standard Arabic phonological inventory) because the gluttalinzed k sound is foreign to Egyptians. The same is true for the zal letter. The "light z" phoneme is foreign to Egyptians and they introduce the /d/ phoneme for the zal letter. This is why Doxa Patri is pronounced by many Egyptians as /doks apat ri/ not /zoks apat ri/.
If my claims are not true and flawed, why did you come up with the same conclusion when you said, "if you compare the sound of the Egyptian ayn to the Arab gulf states, you will notice that their a in is much stronger ayn."? You are agreeing with my conclusion that phonological inventories do not cross into genetically related linguistic varieties.
Now we are getting somewhere. When you mix languages and one becomes dominant like the case of Arabic in Egypt, the Arabic introduced becomes a different product than the the one introduced. This is natural development.
We cannot apply this to what Aryan Afandy invented and is called Greco Bohairic is a variety of Coptic since he arbitrarily introduced sounds that cannot be uttered by the Copts.
Coptic does not have the sounds:
"th" as in thorn
"th" as in "this"
"v" as in "victory"
"p" as in "partly"'
All the artificial stops that he introduced to the language
Changing the sounds of some of the letters is not natural development.
You seem to still be confused.. the Arabic word you quoted is pronounced like /thaqat/ in formal Arabic, and as /da'at/ in Egyptian; the word you chose means "she tasted" hence imikhail's response.. however, I tasted is pronounced as /thoqtu/ in formal Arabic and as /do't/ in Egyptian
Oujai
however, I tasted is pronounced as /thoqtu/ in formal Arabic and as /do't/ in Egyptian
Oujai
No I'm not confused. This last line is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. I am talking about the first person singular past tense of the verb "I tasted", not the third person singular female "she tasted" in both Modern Standard Arabic and Colloquial Egyptian Arabic.
Now we are getting somewhere. When you mix languages and one becomes dominant like the case of Arabic in Egypt, the Arabic introduced becomes a different product than the the one introduced. This is natural development.
Technically, this is called diglossia. Yes it is natural. One of the four classical examples given by Charles Ferguson is MSA and colloquial Arabic. I fail to see how this is different than Modern Standard Arabic. MSA introduced "th", "zal", "kaf", and many other phonemes that are foreign to Egyptians that cannot be uttered by Copts and Egyptians in general. The only difference between Coptic and Arabic is that MSA doesn't have "v" and "p", while GB does. On the other hand, reconstructed OB introduced phonemes that are not foreign to Egyptians. This is an entirely different subject that doesn't need to be discussed at this point. The point I have been trying to make is that foreign phonemes have been incorporated into donor phonological inventories and languages. This is what MSA did in Egypt. This is what GB did and this is found in many natural languages.
There is no difference in the sounds between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic in terms of sounds. The thal is still thal "thoqt" is still "thoqt", ...etc
Just like English, there is no difference in the letter sounds between classical English and modern English; the "d" is still d, the "f" is still f, ...etc
I believe your problem is you are mixing between Egyptian Arabic and Standard Arabic. There is no "do't" in standard Arabic; it only exists in the Eqyptian Arabic.
However, when Egyptians (educated) use standard Arabic they would say "thoqut" not "do't"; only when they are reading. Standard Arabic is not a spoken language in Egypt in contrast to the Arab gulf states. That is why the gulf states use the Standard Arabic sounds while Egyptians do not.
I hope this clears the confusion.
Because we have been rehashing the same arguments and since most people have no real interest in linguistics, I am done debating. I fear my debates on the Coptic language are causing others to leave the site. I pray I have not offended anyone.
Your debate has to be based on real knowledge of what Egyptians speak nowadays and how does it compare to other states speaking the same language.
Coptic influenced Arabic in Egypt in a great way to the extent that more than7000 Coptic words are still in use (some are arabized but the root is Coptic).
When constructing Coptic we have to use what the Egyptians speak, wrote Coptic in Arabic and vice versa.
The result of what Aryan did was a disaster to the Coptic language and the Coptic heritage. There are some words that if pronounced using Aryan's method would sound ridiculous and offensive.
Oujai
Remenkimi, you gave the wrong word in Arabic in the beginning if you never alluded to the third person singular verb.
For my own sanity, please show me where I gave the wrong word. In reply #39, I inquired about the first person singular past tense "I tasted" which in Arabic is ذافت which I got from Google translate. If this is wrong, please correct. If I gave the wrong word in another post, please show me where. I don't know how or where the confusion about the third person singular past tense came from.
And for clarification, I never said /do't/ is in Standard Arabic. I never said Modern Standard Arabic is used in everyday conversation in Egypt as it is in the other Arab countries. I never argued about the differences in Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic. Everything I did argue about seems to have gone by the wayside.