Our Coptic language > Old pronunciation vs new debate
Sheen
Andrew:
Hi Ophadece:
Your Cypriot friend would be a good source to judge. On the surface, there are similarities without a doubt. I found the following article useful. It is a study about Greek pronunciation in the Koine period, which is the transitory period from Classical to Modern Greek.
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation/
According to this article, “It appears that the ancient voiced stops β, γ had already gone soft by the first century.” But in GB, γ is never pronounced with a y sound as in Modern Greek. We’ve already noticed that φ, θ, and χ probably were not pronounced as in Modern Greek. The situation with β is interesting because it is not always pronounced with a B sound as in Classical Greek. Even in what is called OB, it is frequently pronounced like w, which seems to be an attempt to pronounce the Modern v.
In Spanish language, s is pronounced like English s. But in Spain, s is pronounced like th. It is said that one Spanish queen couldn’t pronounce s properly, and the rest of the population followed suit. Is this what OB is trying to do? ;)
Regards,
Andrew
[/size][/color][/color][/font][/size][/size][/color][/font]
ophadece:
Hi Andrew
I am not sure I understand your question. What is Old Bohairic trying to do in terms of pronunciation of the waida?
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡ̀ϭⲥ
Canis Majoris:
I don't believe the Coptic spoken during the late Roman Empire had a "sheen sound", as common errors would be prevalent: for example, ρωμαιοc would sometimes be erroneously copied as ρωμεοc, indicating that the ai and e had the same sound. Nowhere do you find mistakes between the sounds of "ϣ" and "χ".
Χερούβ, or Cherub in English may sound like Cherub, but in Ancient Latin and Greek they sounded as "K", as did the Hebrew כְּרוּב, "keruv".
Kemetic Egyptian pronunciations changed after years of Arabic occupation. Keep in mind most of our Coptic litterature is copied from the time of the Roman Empire- nearly 1500 years ago. I doubt an Egyptian speaker from 200 A.d. and another from 1600 A.d. could understand each other.
Andrew:
Hi Ophadece and Kanis:
Excellent points. So, the question is: Are we trying to recover the 200 AD pronunciation or the 1600 AD pronunciation? Is it possible that this exactly the difference between GB and OB, which seem to be neither Greek nor Old, respectively?
As I recall, most of the evidence for OB comes from transliterating Arabic into Coptic. If this is true, then OB is trying to recover 1600 AD pronunciation and should be called AB.
This brings us back a full circle to the beginning of this thread.
Regards,
Andrew
Canis Majoris:
The old pronunciation is based on the most recent form of the 1600's spoken Kemetic language- what you call "AB". After Egyptian died as a living language in the 1700's, the Orthodox church didn't have a uniform pronunciation. In the 1800's, the church decided that Modern Greek is the correct way to pronounce the ancient texts, hoping to create better kinship with the Greek Orthodox Christians. Modern Greek pronunciation is now the preferred pronunciation of the Church. For example, instead of AB(OB) Kame "Χημι", the church pronounces it as GB "Khimi".
Most Arabic Egyptians don't speak Modern Greek nor have studied it. Their pronunciation of Coptic Egyptian is subject to their native Arabic and how they perceive language differences in Modern Greek.
Bohairic Egyptian spelling mistakes indicate a different pronunciation to both AB or GB and share the same mistakes that exist in Ancient Greek of Egypt of the time. Myself, I can read and write hieroglyphs; proper Classical pronunciation becomes more apparent, such as in the Coptic word πε(is) "pe" 𓅯𓄿𓏭. In Ptolemaic/Roman Hieroglyphs it is phonetically "pai" or "pay", and has the same spelling as παι(this) 𓅯𓄿𓏭 and φαι(this man) 𓅯𓄿𓏭.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version