Throughout the 19th and 20th century there have been various waves attempting revival of Coptic language. There are certain characteristics of revival that seem to propagate through various waves. A) The assumption that fixing the language would help revive it. B) Spreading the language is more important than learning it.
A. Fixing Coptic language
- Standardisation of pronunciation (whether Greco-Bohairic, or other variants) seem to be viewed as one of the hurdles against revival. The whole issue turned to be a bitter fight over the authenticity of the pronunciation. Neither Greco-Bohairic nor Old Bohairic really managed to revive the language
- Writing: revival attempts used Coptic written in Arabic letters to simplify learning, or proposed replacing Coptic letters with Latin ones to simplify the learning neither really worked. The same applies to punctuation, capitalisation, cursive script etc.
- Neologisms: many revivalists are so keen on inventing words, occasionally to replace existing words, or chopping word endings etc. to simplify the language
- Inventing new expressions, and using grammar that matches the person's native language
- Producing simplified texts, or trying to use minimal vocabulary or minimal set of tenses
- Adopting linguistic purism and purging Greek loanwords
- Exaggeration of the influence of Coptic loanwords and expressions in Egyptian Arabic
B. Attitude
- Being keen on teaching before learning
- Focusing on evangelising about Coptic language
- Being focused on a victim narrative and an emotional approach to the history of Coptic language
- Blaming the community or any other external agency for the death of Coptic language and inability to revive it
- Focusing mainly on phonetics, grammar books, and books of the 20th century rather than the wealth of Coptic literature
The issues showed that Coptic language is not the issue, and that the issue of 'revival' is a romantic idea, that harbours externalisation of locus of control, victim narrative, and propaganda over real learning of the language and enjoying the depth of Coptic language.
An alternative approach is to stop crying over the death of Coptic language and the lost manuscripts, with respect to attitude. It might be helpful if each learner of Coptic language focuses on themselves, improve their learning, and concentrate on their personal learning journey. Instead of trying to spread learning Coptic language. A learner may benefit from reading Coptic literature, philosophy written in Coptic language, Coptic non-literary texts, Coptic epistolography, Coptic Gnostic texts, and liturgical texts and enjoying the available wealth of Coptic texts.
Once one is freed from the fantasies of revival, to enjoying available Coptic texts, and learning available words, rather than inventing words, and becoming proficient in learning Coptic language rather than re-inventing the language, there will be beauty and depth waiting for the reader.
Maybe learning the language and reading the Coptic literature, is much more valuable than evangelising about the language and fussing about the death Coptic language. I wonder if the obsession with 'revival' is standing between the learner and Coptic language.
