It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
dg920 said:After speaking with Muallem Ibrahim, it seems that this decision is missing a few points. Turns out that all the cantors and linguists are meeting and they will go through the hymns and set how everything should be pronounced. That opens up for even more interesting dialogue.
After speaking with Muallem Ibrahim, it seems that this decision is missing a few points. Turns out that all the cantors and linguists are meeting and they will go through the hymns and set how everything should be pronounced. That opens up for even more interesting dialogue.
I personally don't think the decision is attacking OB only at this point, but also anyone who is trying to change GB to try to adhere to more natural rules such as changing the b's to p's and the etchy to ch, and sarex to sarx, and thameyyof to thamiof, etc...
ophadece said:Ekhrestos anesty,dear all,I am so glad that this website gives us an opportunity to debate things logically and scientifically, so may I ask everyone to stop using the abbreviation OB?oujai khan ebshois
Ekhrestos anesty,dear all,I am so glad that this website gives us an opportunity to debate things logically and scientifically, so may I ask everyone to stop using the abbreviation OB?oujai khan ebshois
I actually agree with you on the terminology of OB. Even the terminology for GB is not adequate. But how do we distinguish the two phonetic inventories of Bohairic Coptic? What terminologies do you suggest?
Of course, we should not revert to the prejorative terminology of the 70's and 80's, where GB was Coptic and OB was Saeedi. Saeedi is NOT Sahidic. These anti-OB people didn't know that a Sahidic dialect existed. They called OB saeedi because they thought only uneducated country folk would speak Coptic that way.
The article on Wiki is so inaccurate, it doesn't even deserve a response. Given it's poor understanding of Coptic, I wouldn't use it as a reference or source to identify OB in this manner.
Personally, I think the only accurate, descriptive, non-judgemental terminology we should use is follows:
What we often call GB should be called Reformed Coptic Phonology (RCP). What we call OB, should be called Pre-reformed Coptic Phonology (PRCP). Notice, I don't call either of them a language or dialect in themselves. They are only phonological inventories. The only deficiency in this terminology is that neither phonological inventory is homogeneous in themselves. Thus, we can have GB as Moftah taught which would be different from the GB taught today (it is slightly re-reformed). Similarly, we have OB as described by Fr Shenouda, and we have pre-Fr Shenouda OB idiosyncracies from an undetermined time period that differ. Thus we will need to subdivide PRCP and RCP, but I don't know how. Maybe RCP-1860 can be understood as Moftah's version, while RCP-21 can be understood as Reformed Coptic Phonology, 21th century. In the same manner, PRCP-1975 can be understood as Fr Shenouda's schema, while PRCP-19 can be understood as Pre-reformed Coptic Phonology, Prior to 19th century.
It should be noted that accent is different than phonology. Two people can have different English accents, but they are still pronouncing English correctly. For example, one says TO mato, the other says to MAto. Accents deal with intonation and stress. Phonology deals with articulation. For example, if one pronounces the word "the" as ZA, he has misarticulated the "th" phenome. If you violate phonology, you are not speaking English correctly. Thus, when someone speaks GB incorrectly, they are violating phonology (and this may be why this decision was made).
What do you all think of us using RCP and PRCP instead of OB and GB on tasbeha.org?