Adam Introduction to the Verses of the Cymbals

edited December 1969 in Hymns Discussion
Hello all,

http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/48

I have never ever heard the fourth verse said at any of the churches here in Canada. It isn't even printed in any of the newer books that I've seen - the only print version is in the large, Arabic "Service of the Deacons". Why did we stop saying it?

Pray for me,
Michael Boutros

Comments

  • i dont know why some churches dont say it, but i know the reason it was meant to be there.

    i learned from copticheritage.org that this 4th verse is said so that after the introduction to the verses of the cymbals is finished the head deacon or cantor would choose the next appropriate verse at his own discretion.

    so it would go

    1st verse (Amouni Marenousht) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
    2nd verse (Anon kha nilaoc) - said by chorus
    3rd verse (Ouon O helpis) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
    4th Verse (ouon o Metcemnoc) - Said by chorus

    then the next verse could be led by the cantor for example if they were in a rush the cantor would skip to the conclusion then finished by the chorus

    most hymns are an even number of verses and others could be broken up into pieces like ya kol al sefoof.

  • [quote author=Crazy4Christ1 link=topic=12037.msg142977#msg142977 date=1313037932]
    i dont know why some churches dont say it, but i know the reason it was meant to be there.

    i learned from copticheritage.org that this 4th verse is said so that after the introduction to the verses of the cymbals is finished the head deacon or cantor would choose the next appropriate verse at his own discretion.

    so it would go

    1st verse (Amouni Marenousht) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
    2nd verse (Anon kha nilaoc) - said by chorus
    3rd verse (Ouon O helpis) - Said by Cantor or head deacon
    4th Verse (ouon o Metcemnoc) - Said by chorus

    then the next verse could be led by the cantor for example if they were in a rush the cantor would skip to the conclusion then finished by the chorus

    does that mean it's optional?
  • Yes it is optional, most our hymns (or at least sections of them) are optional and can be very flexible for times sake like the doxologys, or the acts responses, the hitens.
  • Dear Crazy4Christ,
    That is really a strange practice. I never heard about this before. Ouon ouhelpic is a "suffix" if you like added to some hymns (especially difnar (= antiphonarium) Adam intro - which happens to have the same verses) but not to the verses of cymbals so that the lead cantor chooses what verse at his discretion. That is really what I call a stretch. There is no rule in the church to say that the lead group choose verses while the following group recites the already learnt ones. I can't even understand what I am saying, but yes, let's not invent...
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • that is the reason i got from copticheritage.org. no inventions

    http://www.copticheritage.org/classes/vespers_and_matins_prayers
  • [quote author=Crazy4Christ1 link=topic=12037.msg143010#msg143010 date=1313075142]
    that is the reason i got from copticheritage.org. no inventions


    you're funny.....

    [quote author=Michael Boutros link=topic=12037.msg142970#msg142970 date=1313035509]
    Hello all,

    http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/48

    I have never ever heard the fourth verse said at any of the churches here in Canada. It isn't even printed in any of the newer books that I've seen - the only print version is in the large, Arabic "Service of the Deacons". Why did we stop saying it?

    Pray for me,
    Michael Boutros

    the part was "dropped" from being publish in newer books (as it is said in arabic--"saqatat"). the part is there to be said--no options....only people's lack of knowledge stops this part from being said.

    I verses of cymbals and the difnar are parallel to each other--can't say they are exactly the same.....but from other hymns and rites in other hymns, it appears that they go hand in hand.....which explains why you can find this part in the difnar--which was not reprinted as much, only a couple of editions where not much people cared to take out a paragraph.
  • Does anyone know of a recording by a reliable cantor who chants this verse?
  • [quote author=JG link=topic=12037.msg143024#msg143024 date=1313095517]
    Does anyone know of a recording by a reliable cantor who chants this verse?

    Cantor Ibrahim Ayad....
  • Anyone of the older generation of cantors? Cantor Farag or Faheem for example?
  • Dear Mina,
    Hold on a minute, so you are saying it is actually not an invention chanting this fourth verse? OK, why is it not written in any of the older books then? What I mean is no single book mentions it (can it be ommissions "saqatat" in ALL the books?)
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • [quote author=ophadece link=topic=12037.msg143030#msg143030 date=1313097382]
    Dear Mina,
    Hold on a minute, so you are saying it is actually not an invention chanting this fourth verse? OK, why is it not written in any of the older books then? What I mean is no single book mentions it (can it be ommissions "saqatat" in ALL the books?)
    Oujai qen `P[C


    who said it wasn't written in books. I have an psalmody that have the part in it....maybe when i go home i'll post the publisher. but despite that, it is found in the difnar.
  • Yes Mina, I know it is found in the difnar, but as Adam intro to verses of cymbals, I am not so sure... give me the reference when you go home please
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • What's weird is that in

    http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Hymns/Annual/Verses_of_Cymbals_and_Doxologies/Ibrahim_Ayad/Part_1/01.Adam_intro_for_verses_of_cymbals.931.mp3

    he pronounces it paikocmoc rather than what is written pikocmoc. Which is correct? I'm only asking because I've heard that the older recordings were known to have some mistakes.
  • http://www.copticheritage.org/classes/vespers_and_matins_prayers

    in the first class of the annual verses of cymbals around 16:08 the teacher explains why some say pi and some say pai

    In short
    Pai means this world
    Pi means the world

    also at 13:30 he says why we say this verse
  • [quote author=kmeka001 link=topic=12037.msg143034#msg143034 date=1313102463]
    What's weird is that in

    http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Hymns/Annual/Verses_of_Cymbals_and_Doxologies/Ibrahim_Ayad/Part_1/01.Adam_intro_for_verses_of_cymbals.931.mp3

    he pronounces it paikocmoc rather than what is written pikocmoc. Which is correct? I'm only asking because I've heard that the older recordings were known to have some mistakes.

    i am aware of that. the books say pikozmos.....i tend to stick to that. the recordings say pai kozmos......in general, either is fine.
  • Grammatically speaking it has to be paikocmoc vai, and that is just another example of people not knowing Coptic but just singing it - ya 3ammy howa 7ad fahem 7aga?
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • My thanks to Mina and ophadece for your inputs regarding the Adam doxologies tune.
  • [quote author=ophadece link=topic=12037.msg143068#msg143068 date=1313143646]
    Grammatically speaking it has to be paikocmoc vai, and that is just another example of people not knowing Coptic but just singing it - ya 3ammy howa 7ad fahem 7aga?
    Oujai qen `P[C



    I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct.

    pai is the "near masculine demonstrative article " (not pronoun). vai is the "near masculine demonstrative pronoun."

    It's like if you say: "I saw this bridge" compared to "I saw this."

    In the first phrase, "this" comes before bridge so is the article (pai, tai or nai depending on whether the object is masculine, feminine or plural).

    In the second phrase the word "this" is replacing the noun, so is a pronoun. In English there is no difference between the  near demonstrative article and pronoun (both of which are "this"), but in Coptic there is (the near demonstrative pronouns are vai, ;ai or nai for masculine, feminine and plural objects.)

    So paikocmoc is absolutely fine and simply means "this world."

    paiavot vai is a special construct: if you translated it literally it would be "this chalice this" which makes no sense. Instead, this has the sense of adding emphasis to the word "this" so it actually means "this very chalice." In my textbook it does not make it clear whether this construction can only work with avot or can be used with any word as you used it with kocmoc. I'd appreciate it if someone could clear that up for me.
  • [quote author=JG link=topic=12037.msg143096#msg143096 date=1313171061]
    [quote author=ophadece link=topic=12037.msg143068#msg143068 date=1313143646]
    Grammatically speaking it has to be paikocmoc vai, and that is just another example of people not knowing Coptic but just singing it - ya 3ammy howa 7ad fahem 7aga?
    Oujai qen `P[C



    I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct.

    pai is the "near masculine demonstrative article " (not pronoun). vai is the "near masculine demonstrative pronoun."

    It's like if you say: "I saw this bridge" compared to "I saw this."

    In the first phrase, "this" comes before bridge so is the article (pai, tai or nai depending on whether the object is masculine, feminine or plural).

    In the second phrase the word "this" is replacing the noun, so is a pronoun. In English there is no difference between the  near demonstrative article and pronoun (both of which are "this"), but in Coptic there is (the near demonstrative pronouns are vai, ;ai or nai for masculine, feminine and plural objects.)

    So paikocmoc is absolutely fine and simply means "this world."

    paiavot vai is a special construct: if you translated it literally it would be "this chalice this" which makes no sense. Instead, this has the sense of adding emphasis to the word "this" so it actually means "this very chalice." In my textbook it does not make it clear whether this construction can only work with avot or can be used with any word as you used it with kocmoc. I'd appreciate it if someone could clear that up for me.


    We use the same construct in the Thanksgiving prayer "this day = bai ahoo bai"
  • Thanks for clearing that up imikhail. So in summary:

    paikocmoc = "this world"

    paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)


  • [quote author=JG link=topic=12037.msg143102#msg143102 date=1313174696]
    Thanks for clearing that up imikhail. So in summary:

    paikocmoc = "this world"

    paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)



    That is not entirely right.

    This is part of the language. Throughout the liturgical prayers this construct is used.
  • [quote author=imikhail link=topic=12037.msg143105#msg143105 date=1313175576]
    [quote author=JG link=topic=12037.msg143102#msg143102 date=1313174696]
    Thanks for clearing that up imikhail. So in summary:

    paikocmoc = "this world"

    paikocmoc vai = "this very world" (which would be a bit nonsensical unless you were discussing other planets.)



    That is not entirely right.

    This is part of the language. Throughout the liturgical prayers this construct is used.


    I never said that the construct isn't used...

    What did I say that was not correct?
  • JG, you are wrong. In Coptic the construct is always paikocmoc vai - tai`trapeza ;ai - paiavot vai - paiehoou vai - naiselet nai (as far as I remember meaning these two wed). It doesn't have anything to do with how it is translated, and indeed your translation is not correct either...
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • If there is a noun after bai then the other bai has to be used as ophadece indicated.

    If there is an adjective after bai then there there is no need for the other bai.

    So in the example of this thread "bai kosmos" the other bai has to be used.

  • Exactly as imikhail said...
    contrast these afenten sa ehryi etaiounou ;ai and maren]ho hopwc `ntefareh eron qen paiehoou e;ouab vai
    With vai pe piehoou eta P[C ;amiof and ;ai te Ieroucalym tpolic `mpennou]
    Oujai qen `P[C
  • [quote author=ophadece link=topic=12037.msg143108#msg143108 date=1313176190]
    JG, you are wrong. In Coptic the construct is always paikocmoc vai - tai`trapeza ;ai - paiavot vai - paiehoou vai - naiselet nai (as far as I remember meaning these two wed). It doesn't have anything to do with how it is translated, and indeed your translation is not correct either...
    Oujai qen `P[C



    All of my information is from So you want to learn Coptic by Sameh Younan. Feel free to go and check.
  • Dear JG,
    Someone told me about this book before, and I guess I once scrolled it down in a .pdf format. There are many mistakes, let alone stretching the Greco-Bohairic as he sees fit. My advice, get a better book to read.
    Oujai qen `P[C
Sign In or Register to comment.