THE TERMS IN DESRCRIBING THE TWO SETS OF BOHAIRIC COPTIC PRONUNCIATION SHOULD BE: CYRILLIC (كِيْرولَّسِي) AND PRE-CYRLLIC (قبل كِيْرولَّسِي) PRONUNCIATION

The terminology used to describe the two contested Bohairic Coptic pronunciation is bewildering. In 1858, Patriarch Cyril/Kyrillos IV (1854 – 1861) introduced a new pronunciation of some of the Coptic letters. He saw that as correction of Coptic pronunciation which existed before him, and which he thought was corrupted by the Arabian tongue. Now, this new type of pronunciation is used in almost all Coptic churches across the globe. It has been called the New Bohairic (Neo-Bohairic), Modern Bohairic; and by its opponents, Greco-Bohairic, Created Pronunciation (مختلق، مستحدث), Muftah Iryan’s Pronunciation (Iryan was the Copt who was given the role of searching for the corrected pronunciation), and sometimes as just simply Iryan’s Pronunciation. Its opponents use the terms they give it sometimes to vilify it: e.g., by using the term ‘Iryan’s Pronunciation’ they seek to degraded (Iryan is an Arabic word meaning ‘naked’); also by calling it ‘Greco-Bohairic’ they want to give the impression that Coptic has been Hellenised (as if it was the first time that Greek influenced Coptic). On the other hand, the pronunciation that existed before Cyril IV has been called Old, Original, Traditional, Emile Maher’s Pronunciation (Maher, in his doctoral dissertation in 1975 says that he had rediscovered the old pronunciation of Coptic).

There is quite a lot of bad feelings between the two camps: those who prefer the old pronunciation and those who prefer the new pronunciation, sometimes reaching high level of bitterness and acrimony. The logical way of choosing a neutral, objective terminology is to call the two sets of Coptic pronunciation, Old Bohairic Pronunciation and New Bohairic Pronunciation. But even this seems to create a problem: by saying ‘old’, what does that exactly mean? Does it mean that it existed all the time before 1858? In other words, was it the sort of pronunciation Copts in the pre-Islamic period or even before the Middle Ages prior to the Fatimid rule (969 – 1171) used? Did the mouths of our Coptic mothers in the oldest days, and those of our classical martyrs and desert fathers utter such a pronunciation? No one knows, and there is no evidence that it was. Even the proponents of the so-called ‘Old Pronunciation’ do not say so.

I was, therefore, glad to see that one of the Coptic linguists and New Bohairic Pronunciation proponents, Nabil Is’haak, proposing a new terminology: Cyrillic (النطق الكِيْرولَّسِي) and Pre-Cyrillic (النطق قبل الكِيْرولَّسِي). It is based on history and devoid of any emotional baggage. I totally support this terminology.

Below, I translate what Is’haak had to say on the subject, taken from his important book “اللغة المصرية القبطية” (The Egyptian Coptic Language), which he published in 2012:

A lot of confusion exists in the terminology used to describe the pronunciation of Bohairic Coptic, the only Coptic dialect that has survived and is in use by the Coptic Church. This confusion of terms has resulted in misunderstandings exhibited by those interested in Coptic but aren’t experts in it. The term “النطق الحديث أو المستحدث” (Modern or Created Pronunciation) – even though in itself is correct description – has resulted, due to the dissention on the right pronunciation that appeared in the last quarter of the 20^th century,[1] has led to it being misused to create the impression that it was “مصطنع” (artificial/manufactured) and so groundless. I, therefore, would prefer to call it “النطق الكِيْرولَّسِي” (Cyrillic Pronunciation), after Pope Cyril IV (1854 – 1861). This only adheres to the reality of the situation, since he was the one who established that pronunciation to standardise the sounds of Coptic.

The term “النطق القديم” (Old Pronunciation) is also in need of change, since it was not the pronunciation used in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries. Regarding it as “أَصْلي” (original) is baseless, even as some have regarded it as such. [Dr Emile Maker in his doctoral dissertation agrees], as he says the right terminology should be “النطق التقليدي” (Traditional/Conventional Pronunciation), and not Old Pronunciation. However, after he had completed his dissertation, he [started] calling it Old Pronunciation, despite saying in his dissertation that it does not represent the pronunciation of the first centuries. Therefore, to prevent any misunderstanding, and to be in line with the facts of history, I call it “النطق قبل الكِيْرولَّسِي” (Pre-Cyrillic Pronunciation) in opposition to the term “النطق الكِيْرولَّسِي” (Cyrillic Pronunciation).[2]

_________________________

[1] Is’haak means since Emil Maher’s PhD in 1975.

[2] “اللغة المصرية القبطية” (The Egyptian Coptic Language) by Nabil Is’haak (Alexandria, 2012), p. 430.