OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:44:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization  (Read 354 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,380



« on: June 21, 2013, 01:48:54 PM »

Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization
by Michael Collins Dunn
Middle East Institute

excerpt:

When Coptic Pope Shenouda III died earlier this year, a commenter raised an interesting question: why does Aramaic still survive as a spoken language, however scattered, while Coptic is reduced to only a liturgical language? The Copts are by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East, and their language, which is merely the last form of Egyptian, has an unbroken lineage of some 4500 or more years. Yet it has been several centuries since anyone learned Coptic at their mother's knee; it is today a religious and scholarly, not a native, spoken tongue. Why did Aramaic survive (if hanging by a thread) as a spoken tongue while Coptic did not?

Part I:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs.html

Part II:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_12.html

Part III:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_21.html
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2013, 03:18:08 PM »

Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization
by Michael Collins Dunn
Middle East Institute

excerpt:

When Coptic Pope Shenouda III died earlier this year, a commenter raised an interesting question: why does Aramaic still survive as a spoken language, however scattered, while Coptic is reduced to only a liturgical language? The Copts are by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East, and their language, which is merely the last form of Egyptian, has an unbroken lineage of some 4500 or more years. Yet it has been several centuries since anyone learned Coptic at their mother's knee; it is today a religious and scholarly, not a native, spoken tongue. Why did Aramaic survive (if hanging by a thread) as a spoken tongue while Coptic did not?

Part I:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs.html

Part II:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_12.html

Part III:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_21.html
I hope to get to this, but in the meantime, I'd venture to guess that Coptic failed to cultivate its own literary medium for a higher medium, and remained, in the main, a language of illiterates.  Unfortunately, in general, their grasp of Standard Arabic isn't so great either.

Btw, a comparison might be drawn between Anglo-Saxon surviving the Norman French, while Irish did not survive (outside the Gaeltracht) the Anglo-Saxons.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,432


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2013, 03:24:39 PM »

My understanding is that both the Coptic and Irish languages became dead languages after periods of intense, almost genocidal, persecution.  I think Coptic died out as a spoken language during the time of the Mamlukes who almost wiped them out (someone correct me if I'm wrong.)  Irish stopped being a spoken language in most parts of Ireland after the Potato Famine.  I know the Syriac speaking Christians have faced horrific persecution themselves, but I wonder if they had events that are comparable to the two events I just mentioned.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2013, 03:49:34 PM »

My understanding is that both the Coptic and Irish languages became dead languages after periods of intense, almost genocidal, persecution.  I think Coptic died out as a spoken language during the time of the Mamlukes who almost wiped them out (someone correct me if I'm wrong.)  Irish stopped being a spoken language in most parts of Ireland after the Potato Famine.  I know the Syriac speaking Christians have faced horrific persecution themselves, but I wonder if they had events that are comparable to the two events I just mentioned.
Sure. Timurlan for one.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Brigidsboy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian
Posts: 339



« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2013, 03:56:03 PM »

My understanding is that both the Coptic and Irish languages became dead languages after periods of intense, almost genocidal, persecution.  I think Coptic died out as a spoken language during the time of the Mamlukes who almost wiped them out (someone correct me if I'm wrong.)  Irish stopped being a spoken language in most parts of Ireland after the Potato Famine.  I know the Syriac speaking Christians have faced horrific persecution themselves, but I wonder if they had events that are comparable to the two events I just mentioned.

The Syriac/Assyrian people were victims of the Ottoman Genocide of 1915 and lost a very high percentage of their population. Still, both Syriac dialects survive but are considered endangered languages.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,422


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 05:57:41 PM »

my friends' grandmother told my friend when she was little how she remembered people from the village having their tongues cut out for speaking coptic.
Logged
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 06:19:25 PM »

Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization
by Michael Collins Dunn
Middle East Institute

excerpt:

When Coptic Pope Shenouda III died earlier this year, a commenter raised an interesting question: why does Aramaic still survive as a spoken language, however scattered, while Coptic is reduced to only a liturgical language? The Copts are by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East, and their language, which is merely the last form of Egyptian, has an unbroken lineage of some 4500 or more years. Yet it has been several centuries since anyone learned Coptic at their mother's knee; it is today a religious and scholarly, not a native, spoken tongue. Why did Aramaic survive (if hanging by a thread) as a spoken tongue while Coptic did not?

Part I:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs.html

Part II:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_12.html

Part III:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_21.html
I hope to get to this, but in the meantime, I'd venture to guess that Coptic failed to cultivate its own literary medium for a higher medium, and remained, in the main, a language of illiterates.  Unfortunately, in general, their grasp of Standard Arabic isn't so great either.

Btw, a comparison might be drawn between Anglo-Saxon surviving the Norman French, while Irish did not survive (outside the Gaeltracht) the Anglo-Saxons.

Though at the beginning of English invasion the Irish were far more literate than the English. The Irish had folks in universities all across Europe while the English were still figuring out that bathing is good.
Logged
Santagranddad
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 988



« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 06:46:10 PM »

Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization
by Michael Collins Dunn
Middle East Institute

excerpt:

When Coptic Pope Shenouda III died earlier this year, a commenter raised an interesting question: why does Aramaic still survive as a spoken language, however scattered, while Coptic is reduced to only a liturgical language? The Copts are by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East, and their language, which is merely the last form of Egyptian, has an unbroken lineage of some 4500 or more years. Yet it has been several centuries since anyone learned Coptic at their mother's knee; it is today a religious and scholarly, not a native, spoken tongue. Why did Aramaic survive (if hanging by a thread) as a spoken tongue while Coptic did not?

Part I:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs.html

Part II:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_12.html

Part III:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_21.html
I hope to get to this, but in the meantime, I'd venture to guess that Coptic failed to cultivate its own literary medium for a higher medium, and remained, in the main, a language of illiterates.  Unfortunately, in general, their grasp of Standard Arabic isn't so great either.

Btw, a comparison might be drawn between Anglo-Saxon surviving the Norman French, while Irish did not survive (outside the Gaeltracht) the Anglo-Saxons.

Though at the beginning of English invasion the Irish were far more literate than the English. The Irish had folks in universities all across Europe while the English were still figuring out that bathing is good.

We helped bring them and the Germans to Christianity too. Gaelic in Ireland was suppressed by the vanquishing of Irish catholic leaders, clergy and the destruction of Gaelic society which prior to the reign of Elizabeth l saw incomers become more Irish than the Irish, so to speak. From the Elizabethan era on discrimination and suppression became the norm and the language was one casualty among others.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 08:59:42 PM »

Aramaic vs Coptic: Language Survival vs Fossilization
by Michael Collins Dunn
Middle East Institute

excerpt:

When Coptic Pope Shenouda III died earlier this year, a commenter raised an interesting question: why does Aramaic still survive as a spoken language, however scattered, while Coptic is reduced to only a liturgical language? The Copts are by far the largest Christian community in the Middle East, and their language, which is merely the last form of Egyptian, has an unbroken lineage of some 4500 or more years. Yet it has been several centuries since anyone learned Coptic at their mother's knee; it is today a religious and scholarly, not a native, spoken tongue. Why did Aramaic survive (if hanging by a thread) as a spoken tongue while Coptic did not?

Part I:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs.html

Part II:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_12.html

Part III:
http://mideasti.blogspot.com/2012/08/aramaic-vs-coptic-language-survival-vs_21.html
I hope to get to this, but in the meantime, I'd venture to guess that Coptic failed to cultivate its own literary medium for a higher medium, and remained, in the main, a language of illiterates.  Unfortunately, in general, their grasp of Standard Arabic isn't so great either.

Btw, a comparison might be drawn between Anglo-Saxon surviving the Norman French, while Irish did not survive (outside the Gaeltracht) the Anglo-Saxons.

Though at the beginning of English invasion the Irish were far more literate than the English. The Irish had folks in universities all across Europe while the English were still figuring out that bathing is good.
unfortunately they were far more literate in Latin, which didn't do Irish any good.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: liturgical languages 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 36 queries.