Kami or Kimi?

[Admin]

I came across this manuscript
https://danacbe.com/downloads/Copte_53__btv1b10087108h.pdf
It's supposedly from the year 1807 or earlier.
First part cover the pronunciation and it more or less match OB except for the word Egypt. the Author pronounce it Kimi  not kami so I wanted to hear your opinion.
The description of the manuscript is in Latin

53. — Codex bombycinus, qui fuit olim cl. v. Asselin. Eo conti- 
 nentur : 1°) Grammatica linguæ copticæ; 2°) Lexicon coptico- 
 arabicum, auctore Semnudeo, ut videtur, idem quodedidit Ath. Kir- 
 cher; duplex est : vocabulis nempe secundum rerum et dein 
 secundum litterarum alpliabeti ordinem dispositis. — (A. D. 1807 ; 
 179 ff.; 32X 22.) 

AI based translation:

This text is actually written in Latin (with some French abbreviations), commonly used in 19th-century European library catalogs to describe historical manuscripts.>53. — Cotton-paper codex [manuscript], which formerly belonged to the distinguished man Mr. Asselin. Contained within it are:
1°) A grammar of the Coptic language;
2°) A Coptic-Arabic lexicon, authored by Abu al-Barakat (Semnudeus), as it seems, the same one published by Athanasius Kircher; it is two-part: with words arranged first according to subject matter, and then according to the order of the letters of the alphabet.
— (A.D. 1807; 179 leaves [pages]; 32 × 22 cm.)

[bashandy]

Thank you admin for posting this manuscript. The older name of Egypt was kmt, in addition to many other names. ⲭⲏⲙⲓ referred predominantly to the central part of Old Cairo aka ⲃⲁⲃⲩⲗⲱⲛ ⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ hence in Apophthegmata Patrum ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉϣⲓⲏⲧ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ϩⲉⲛⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲉ̇ⲃⲟⲗϩⲛⲕⲏⲙⲉ  one would find people coming from Egypt [1]. It seems to have also been used to refer to Egypt for outsiders.

The pronunciation of the Coptic hada (eta), is a complex one. It is postulated by JP Allen and Loprieno that it sounded like ⲭⲏⲙⲓ [ˈkʰeːmə], this is difficult to write in Arabic letter with three vowels. However, in later stages of Bohairic, H seem to have metamorphosed into two phonemes which Fr Shenouda Maher refers to them with an overdot ⲏ̇ sounding like [ə] or /æ/ as in man or an underdot ⲏ̣ sounding like /iː/ as in deep.

These changes do not necessarily happen uniformly across Egypt so variants of the pronounciation of hada (eta) are bound to occur across Egypt. whether the writer meant ⲭⲏⲙⲓ to sound like [ˈkʰeːmə] or [ˈkʰiːmi] or even [ˈkʰæːmə] but thought an aleph would give it a different shade, which is the difficulty with writing names like Mary, or words like Hairy so whether it would be aleph or yaa both would not represent the sound accurately.


References
1. Apopthegmata Patrum 069  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525020594/f67.item.r=copte.langEN

[Admin]

Thanks for the detailed reply and the reference!
If I understood you correctly then you're saying it doesn't matter whether we pronounce it a or y because

• Its original pronunciation is neither
• Different regions may have pronounced it either a or y
• when the writer wrote it as arabic ya2, we are not really sure how exactly he meant it should be pronounced.

You make good points  but if it's equally likely or equally wrong or its location dependent to pronounce it "a" or "y", why can't we stick with y to match with Church's pronunciation and the manuscript's literal pronunciation?

Do we know of other Bohairic manuscripts that pronounce it "kami" ?

[bashandy]

Thank you for your feedback. In response to your summary. In essence it paints an accurate picture, however, there are a few caveats.
1. The older one gets into the phonetics and phonology of Coptic language, the harder one knows exactly how a word or a letter sounded. So, this is hypothetical rather than factual. It does not invalidate it though, but, one would be open to the conversation regarding such pronunciation possible variants. For 2 & 3, I have nothing to comment.

With respect to your question why can't we stick with y to match with Church's pronunciation and the manuscript's literal pronunciation?

Linguistics is a descriptive field rather than prescriptive. In a sense, the field would offer information about language, but it does not recommend abiding by it or not. This is a question of values, priorities etc.

Some people would value what they believe to be the most authentic the best documented in each case, even if this makes them unpopular and creates animosities, or results in schisms in the field. For them, truth is the ultimate value so, if more manuscripts point out that ⲭⲏⲙⲓ sounded like Kami or Kame they would abide by that.

Some people value conformity and being in a group, so, if the church pronunciation is the most common, then they will follow through to minimise friction, and unify work in the field even at the expense of accuracy or truth.

I would not judge of fault anyone for making an active choice in the field. I guess a previous generation was more confrontational in an either/or manner, however, I think phonetics is much more diverse and complicated to put under one banner. The main issue in both camps is followers who are more royal than the King and who are ready to fight without examining the evidence.

I think what Old Bohairic pronunciation provides is a coherent attested system of pronunciation, in that sense it might be out of place to use an infrequent variant of pronunciation just because it appeared a few times. This does not make kimi invalid.

For Church's pronunciation, it is by definition the del facto used pronunciation within the church (with some variations), so if one is mainly keen to be a deacon, singing in the church, it could be a choice for them, albeit at the expense of accuracy.
I think these are two contrasting images, depicted for clarity, in reality there are overlaps between both pronunciations in ⲍ,ⲕ,ⲗ,ⲙ,ⲛ,ⲝ,ⲣ,ⲭ,ⲯ,ⲱ,ϣ,ϧ are more or less similar, and there is a spectrum between both camps.

[Admin]

so if I understood you correctly then the answer to "why its kami and not kimi" is: it depends on people's values and priorities.
so I'll rephrase my question:

Why would anyone want to pronounce it kami if both the church and documented manuscripts say its kimi?

[bashandy]

Interesting question, if one is looking for an authentic well attested pronunciation then the current church pronunciation is not part of this equation as it is well documented to be approximated to Modern Greek pronunciation, as per the thesis of Dr Emile Maher Ishak 1975, Oxford University and other sources. I'll come to the church's pronunciation later.

As for the manuscript that you have kindly presented, then yes that would count as evidence. However, on the other hand, in Coptic Dictionary by Crum 1939 ⲭⲏⲙⲓ is defined as black land. The entry for black has the following words p.109-110
ⲭⲙⲟⲙ, ⲭⲙⲁⲙ, ⲭⲁⲙⲉ, ⲕⲁⲙⲉ, ⲛⲉⲕⲁⲙⲉⲩ, ⲭⲁⲙⲉⲩ, ⲭⲁⲙⲏ, ⲕⲙⲙⲉ, ⲕⲉⲙⲓ, ⲭⲉⲙⲓ, ⲭⲁⲙⲃⲁⲗ,
These cover the verb blacken, including black eyes, black hair etc.

From names of people we have ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲓⲕⲁⲙⲉ, and the late opera tenor singer Hassan Kami.

I would presume that these offer decent evidence that it was not only kimi. I think there's more evidence towards the old Bohairic pronunciation but, it does not invalidate the evidence you provided.
With respect to the issue of the church's pronunciation, there have been attempts to use a pronunciation that's close to the church's while preserving being attested, this was the main work of Dr Kamal Farid Ishaq, but also this is considered to be controversial.
In 2012,  ⲁⲡⲁ ⲇⲏⲙⲏⲧⲣⲓⲟⲥ issued a book called the importance of preserving the church's pronunciation[1]. In this book ⲁⲡⲁ ⲇⲏⲙⲏⲧⲣⲓⲟⲥ criticised both Old Bohairic pronunciation and a middle pronunciation, which I understand that he is referring to the pronunciation proposed by Dr Kamal Farid Ishaq in his book ⲡϫⲓⲛⲧⲁⲛϧⲟ ⲛ‌ⲧⲉϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ‌ⲣⲉⲙⲛ‌ⲭⲏⲙⲓ 2020[2]. The notes highlight any differences as deviation including changes in djinkim or using ⲟⲩ as /w/ if followed by a vowel
I am content with any pronunciation so long I can understand it and I trust that the speaker has thought of their pronunciation and is following a consistent scheme.

References
1.الانبا ديميتريوس ٢٠٢٠ محاضرة عن أهمية المحافظة على اللغة القبطية الطبعة الثانية ٢٠١٣  مطبعة مطرانيه ملوي
977-5109-76-D

2. Kamal Farid Ishaq ⲡϫⲓⲛⲧⲁⲛϧⲟ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ
)الطبعة الثالثة( يوليو 2020
المؤلف: الدكتور كمال فريد إسحق
المطبعة: مطبعة سان مارك
تاريخ الطباعة : مارس 2017
رقم اإليداع: 2272 / 2017
الترقيم الدولي: 978-977