Palm Sunday Mo7ayar

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone has the text to the first stanza of the mo7ayar for Palm Sunday, the stanza right before "fet-hemsi." Cantor Ibrahim records it in his recording on this site. It is starts with "Apenchois." It is #39 in this link:

Thank you.


  • image
    ...i wrote it..but you have to know that it is NOT GENUINE..
  • @minasafwat,
    How can one use prefix a before banshois and then add it again before the verb as in afsha. That's wrong..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • The sad thing is that this is not unique to Palm Sunday. I am now hearing recordings of many different mohayar texts from different seasons that change Pachois Isos into Apenchois because they associate the beginning of the mohayar tune with the Great Lent text. Only the Great Lent text is grammatically accurate. But cantors use the Great Lent text as a mnemonic tool to remember the tune and forget that it is grammatically wrong to change the phrase Pachois Isos into Apenchois. 

    This wouldn't happen if we all leaned basic Coptic.
  • edited February 2016
    i know this since about 6 years from now..the one who posted this question asked me to write what cantor Ibrahim has i wrote it..i was informed that cantor Ibrahin and bishop Demitrius of Malawi have added this verse..and was published only on the pascha book of saint Mina monastry in alexandria as bishop Demitrius is the supervisor of the printing matter there..but grammatically for the first moment we may see that it is wrong..but when we read much in the coptic literature we find that when the sentence elongates between the subject and the verb the perfix may be added again.. in the doxology of matin (-a- pistoy nofy adswdb enda da partania -a-fshanaf)..and when you read more you will find more..  

    this is true..but is not a basis to start the mohayers with( pachios)..there are some exceptions to be added here:
    1-the one of palm sunday starts originally with (fee et hemci)..
    2- the one of the annunciation starts originally with (amwini annav arieshfeery)...

    +another point is that the mohayer of the great lent itself starts with (pachois) not (a penchois) we find in the manuscript of Eldar Elbatriakia (1160 of saints)...

    +another point is that all mohayers that start with (pachois) are originally taken from the thursday psali..

    +the last point is that not all churches of Egypt have known the transformation between (efnav em pi esmoo) and the calssical mohayer we use today..some historical churches in upper Egypt especially in luxour and Quena that had a hymn heritage are still chant (efnav) since about 900 year till now..

  • @minasafwat,
    No this is blatantly wrong. There is no such a thing as the longer the phrase cancels the usage of the first article.. no, not at all. I will go back to the matins doxology but there is no shame in saying it is wrong too, and correcting it. We will find fallacious scripts all the time, due to several reasons. That doesn't make it acceptable to replicate.
    Secondly please don't take my comments as though I was blaming you for anything. I am aware you were just copying mere text.
    Thirdly, it's interesting that even the Lenten mohayer starts with bashois. How is that! The rest of the verse will then make no sense..
  • Ophadece is correct. They are both grammatically wrong. It is understandable why it is done this way in Matins doxology. The last word of the line, parthenia, ends with the letter "a" and the beginning of the next word should be "shenaf", not "afshenaf". It's easy to see how one can mix up the last "a" of parthenia and attach it to "afshenaf". But regardless, it is incorrect.

    Secondly, in the Lent mohayar, without the initial "a" in "Apenchois", the resulting text would conceivably mean "Our Lord Jesus Christ, fast for us", not "Our Lord Jesus Christ fasted for us". One issue though. In order to say "Our Lord Jesus Christ fast for us", it would be "Penchois Isos Pikhristos arinystevin..." not "ernystevin". Either way, it is still grammatically incorrect to remove the "a" in "Apenchois" without modifying the verb "ernystevin". Hopefully, Minasafwat can send us copies of the Eldar Elbatriakia manuscript to see the Lent mohayar.

    I agree with minasafwat that the original mohayar was Efnav empiesmo. But I think that was for annual seasons. Festive seasons borrowed verses from it but they developed into something else (as we have seen in the Nayrouz mohayar).
  • edited February 2016
    .anway.if there is mixing between the a of (parthenia) and the a of (afshenaf)..why adding the subject (f) ...????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    -please!..if you do not have the exact manuscripts at least try to return to the book of Anba Samuel..
    -this what is written in eldar elbatriarchia manuscript..from the book of anba Samuel (and it is grammatically correct)

    -(efnav) is not the topic to discuss here... and it is not confined to annual seasons..

  • Mina, you wrote
    "if there is mixing between the a of (parthenia) and the a of (afshenaf)..why adding the subject (f) ...????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    The most likely answer is because the original text did not have "A pistoinofi etsotp....afshenaf" but it had "Pistoinofi etsotp...afshenaf". In this case, everything is grammatically correct. Somehow, an "A" was added and it stuck. The additional "A" changes the grammar. Otherwise, if "A pistoinofi" was the original text, then someone added "af" to "shenaf" incorrectly. (This is possible as I have seen some manuscripts with lots of additions and changes.)

    The text you provided in the photo proves my point concerning the Lent mohayar. The text is exactly like the Thursday Psali. Since it starts with "Pachas Isos Pikhristos", the next word is grammatically correct because it has "vhetaf" in front of "ernystevin". Without the "vhetaf", it is wrong. Apparently, somewhere along the development of this hymn, someone changed "Pachois" to "A Penchois" and removed "vhetaf" (which is grammatically correct).  The problem here is that other seasonal mohayar hymns change "Pachas" into "A Penchois" without removing the "vhetav" part, which makes it incorrect. 

    Now regarding your question on Evnau empismoo, the hymn is found in many manuscripts as "annual". The Ethiopian Church uses it in all their liturgies. The fact that we have a second mohayar for Lent and Kiakh and Pentecost shows that Evnau empismo was not seen as a seasonal hymn but an annual one. There would be no need to have additional mohayar hymns if Evnau empismo was supposed to be said throughout the year. 

    And I will not get angry if you don't agree with my comments or explanations. 
  • edited February 2016
    - for the verse of matin doxology..your explanations have altered according to the question,,,and i do not have things to add more here..

    -regarding efnav....between the period (900 : 1500) there was only (efnav)...and it was said during kiahk and great lent and resurrection..
    -after 1500 onward ..they have invented the classical mohayers we know now..that is exactly why i said that some historical churches with hymns heritage in upper Egypt did not know this transformation

    -the first proof that efnav was said in all feasts and great lent and kiahk..(from Mosbah elzolmah):

    -the second proof is that it was also said in resurrection (before inventing the classical mohayer starting with pachoic) from mosabh elzolmah:

    - i have done a good research(i think) regarding (efnav) in about60 pages but unfortunately it is in arabic
  • Actually minasafwat is correct about the a ..... af phenomenon. It is very common in the bohairic pentateuch. It is not grammatically incorrect.
  • Dear @baempi,
    It is grammatically incorrect..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • Dear ophadece,

    It is not. The pentateuch is full of dozens of examples. Not only with past tense but also with 3rd future ere. .... efe...

    Since I have read it and seen it, I would encourage you to read it before making incorrect assertions.

    I think the pentateuch authors know more coptic than anyone alive now and I don't think that you are correct over them.

    I'd encourage remnkimi to do a search and present the details if he has time. :) Unfortunately I don't.

  • Dear @baempi,
    I am not making any assertions. These are fixed grammatical rules and there are no exceptions. Unfortunately this is not my teaching. If it were, I might have been more flexible. ALSO note that there have been numerous occasions of inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in copying things down especially with the dwindling of the numbers of authentic Coptic speakers..
  • Dear ophadece,

    Perhaps you can explain why it is covered in Arial shisha halevys book also. Do you know more than him also?
  • @bamepi,

    I checked the first few chapters of Genesis. I couldn't find any examples of "a ... af". I did find plenty of examples of "A Vnou]" + verb (without any prefixes). If there are examples, I don't see it my version of Bohairic Genesis. This is not to say it doesn't happen. It only means that I don't see it my version.

    I also looked through Ariel Shish Halevy's Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. I couldn't find his discussion on the use of the preterite with a separate (non-conjugated) perfect verb converter. Can you give me a reference page and I can look into it more?

  • Dear @baempi,
    I can see my argument is not washing with you and to you it's just a mere argument. I respect that and I have nothing more to add..
  • Sure I'll get some references. Probably in the next week or two as my work schedule is very extensive at the time.
  • Ok in my 5 minute search I found dozens of examples in leviticus of the 3rd future with the same construct as I mentioned above with ere "nominal clause" ef'e. Please read from the first chapter. There's atleast 5 examples in this chapter alone.

    I can assure you this construct occurs with the past or preterite as well. When I have a chance I'll get references for that also.
  • Dear @baempi,
    How is the 3rd future construct or any other future form the same as what we have been discussing? Am I missing something?
  • Dear remnkimi and ophadece please refer to page 126 and 127 of Arial shisha halevys book to see his explanation of its use with the preterite. construct.
  • In regards to the Mohayyar of Palm Sunday, I will contact Muallem Ibrahim tomorrow and ask him exactly what the reason is for its addition

    In regards to abenshois or bashois, the only one that should be abenshois is Great Lent. Everything else should be bashois. Fr. Shenouda also agrees that its either a or af. Cant have both

  • Btw, M Mikhail records the one for lent as: Pashois Eisos Pikhrestor, ernisteven....
  • @baempi,
    Unfortunately I don't have that book, but if you are right then such a Jewish linguist is mistaken..
    Well said.. thank you
    Cantor Mikhail is wrong then..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • @ophadece,
    :-) that's really fine. I don't expect cantors to be teachers of the language. 
  • Thanks @minatasgeel.. that's indeed the case unfortunately..
  • ehhh, it's not fortune...its' really how things work in life. we don't have to be the experts in everything. there is an arabic saying that says: eddi el3eesh le-khabazino--give the bread to its bakers. Each person has a set of skills or knowledge they are best at speaking about.
  • @minatasgeel,
    Here we should agree to disagree. There is no excuse for people to pray without understanding. Those cantors have a greater burden in being role examples to the rest of the church. I have lived 28 years in Egypt and I attended some of Cantor Ibrahim's teaching sessions and I am aware of what he says about himself, and I believe we all know. It's therefore not a great surprise that the hierarchy of the church is pushing the Coptic out of the Coptic church.
  • I do not know that man, nor have I ever met him, but have only studied his book but I don't think his religion should impact anything.

    To my knowledge he has dedicated years if not decades of his life as a coptologist, and is in fact one of the only coptology scholars to specialize in Bohairic and not just Sahidic.

    But regardless of him, there are many biblical references, some of which he cites. But the biblical authors are incorrect too?

  • Dear @baempi,
    Please refer me to those Biblical references he links. Or even give me a snapshot of those two pages to be able to comment. I actually perused the first four chapters of the BOOK of Leviticus and couldn't find anything you were referring to earlier.
    BTW my mention of him being Jewish was double-edged, first to point out I have researched him, and second that he isn't Egyptian. Second point is only weak but we do know that there are weak Egyptian Coptologists, but that's beside the point. I wasn't referring to his religion, so I apologise for your misunderstanding..
  • Baempi is right. Sort of. 

    It is not grammatically wrong (as I assumed) that we can have a + subject + verb with personal morph. There are many example (just not in Leviticus 1 as Baempi said). Here are a few:
    1. Gen 25:33: A Ycau de af] `nnimetsorp `mmici `ebol `nIakwb. "Esau sold his birth rite to Jacob." 
    2. Gen 33:17: Aftac;o `nje Ycau ... `eCyeir ouoh a Iakwb afhwl `enickyny. "Esau returned Seir. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth."
    3. Lev 8:21: Ouoh a Mwucyc afini `mpiwili turf. "And Moses burned the whole ram"
    4. Luke 5:21: A negrammateuc de n=m nevariccaioc auar,i mmokmek. "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question". This example is in Sahidic Coptic, not Bohairic, but it still shows the same grammatical form.

    Bently Layton states this is an example of an "extraposition of the subject with its own extrapolated base" for the non-durative conjugation. In other words, this grammatical form is used on non-durative verbs (verbs that do not have duration like hit, explode, arrive. Also called momentary or punctual verbs). This particular grammatical tense is outside the main clause (which is why it is called extraposition) but it also has its own personal morph.

    Shish-Halevy states this form (he calls it "discontinuous Theme-agens" which means discontinuous grammatical agent) gives narrative information in a grammatical form. He states "This construction seems to be used in the final part of a narrative development superordinatively (that is it includes superior order in the narrative) for the outcome, point or condensed fuming up of the foregoing chain of events." So our grammatical form is telling us that author wants to sum up the narrative. 

    In the context of our discussion, let's examine if this form is appropriately placed.
    1. For the Lent mohayar, it doesn't apply. The text in question is A Pen[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc ernycteuin, not A Pen[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc afernycteuin. So our grammatical form is not even being used. In addition, as Minasafwat pointed out, our original text has Pa[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc vyetafernycteuin. Apparently M. Mikhail incorrectly recorded the hymn (He omitted vyetav) and one would assume that another cantor shortened the text to make the tune easier to sing. Regardless, the Lent mohayar doesn't apply. 

    But what about other mohayar hymns? Can we start the Palm Sunday mohayar with A Pen[oic Iycouc Pi,rictoc kata `vry] `mpai`ehoou ause `eqoun `eIeroucalym... (Our Lord Jesus Christ, similar to that day, entered Jerusalem...)? The answer (I think) is no. Even though ause is a non-durative verb (i.e., In a moment, Christ entered or arrived in Jerusalem), there is no conclusion or outcome or summing up of the narrative because this is the first verse of the text. Therefore, this particular grammatical form does not apply to any of the mohayyar hymns. 

    2. For the morning doxology, A pi`c;oinoufi etcwtp `nte tepar;enia afsenaf `e`pswi.., does it apply? I don't think so. afsenaf `e`pswi or ascend is a durative verb because normally something takes a duration of time to finish ascending. But does it take time for one's virginity incense to ascend or does it happen in a moment? I don't know. The context also doesn't help. Like before, this is the first verse of this part and not a summary or an outcome of previous context. Maybe there is another reason why the grammatical form may apply other than context and non-durative verbs. I couldn't find any good reason described in Layton's or Shisha-Halevy's textbooks. 
Sign In or Register to comment.