Coptic and Egyptian

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 8, 2010 at 07:51

Our dear iam is not very focused and his "Arab race' has a wonderful term for his likes

wa minkum nastafeed

Look it up our dear iam

I wrote:

You fell in the trap and it does not surpise meAnd here is your lesson for today in the case of Egypt the Egyptians their language was

1. Egyptian

2. The alphabet used over a period of 3000 years was as follows

A. Hieroglyphics

B. Hieratic

C. Demotic

D. Coptic

# Thise are not ALPHABETICALS.

Tsk....tsk....tsk...alphabeticlas? You need to work on your English

>Nor des it have any connection with Arabs or Arabic.

Mr ignorant the Egyptian language has no connection with the Arabs and even the Coptic script that has 20% loan words from Greek is still Egyptian

Oh but again you have no clue why we call the language in Egypt now: EA right? Because what should we call it? And there is no doubt that the spoken EA has much in common with the Egyptian language that predates Islam (there are lots of loan words from Coptic/Egyptian in today's EA and grammatical constructions of EA are very different from classical Arabic and are similar to the grammmar of the Egyptian language)

Take the case of another country in the Middle East which is very similar to the Egyptian civilization and that is Iran (Hint: I do not want to hear about Ahamdinajad or Musa wa Ibrahim). The Arabs also invaded Iran but the linguistic outcome was different. The Iranians now use the Arabic alphabet but they stll speak their language but with a 20% loan words from Arabic. So what should we call it? Iranian or Iranian Arabic? The people of Iran decided to call it Iranian and in the case of Egypt no one admits that EA is a reality because Arabic is a lingua sacra and EA is a profane language now do you get it?Let me guess you answer will be Musa wa Ibrahim right?

>The Arab race,

Stop it this is ugly

>by your own links, says the Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7 C.

It is not my own links it is reality and real history

> I am not denying there are ancient Egyptian writings, even seen on the Pyramids - I am rejecting this has any connection with Arabs or Arabic writings.

>Mr ignorant do you really know what is EA and what is really Egyptian? You did not undrestand a single word of what I wrote right?

Hello: EA's starting point was POST 642CE and as excepted it has much in common with the language of Egypt now do you get it?

And then Coptic was introduced in the late 3rd century CE so this would mean in your bizarre world that the Copts did not exist in Egypt from time immemorial in Egypt and as a matter of fact a Copt would not be able to read his own language in one of the older alphabets now do you get it?

># No, your conclusion is way out.

Stop it you are really ignorant because if you were correct the source of solving the heiroglphs would have been the Copts now do you get it?

>There was a Coptic language,

Hello: Threr was Egyptian language written in Greek letters with 6 added consonants and later on called (after 642CE): The Coptic language but now you know that this language is the Egyptian language written in Greek letters with six more consonants

>even when there was no Coptic alphabetical writings. The Coptic language is varied from Arabic,

Drivel

>is older than the Arabic,

In your bizarre world Coptic is a language and it emerged in the 3rd century CE which gives it the same age as your bogus Arabic which emerged 400CE or is it 300CE and only allahu a3lam

>and this people were in Egypt before the Arab race emerged -

Stop your ugly "Arab race" shame on you

> their land and rights were stolen, as was the case with Palestine. Your own links affirm this.

What links?

As a matter of fact some ignorant Muslims in Egypt claim that Copts must be the decendants of the Greek settlers in Egypt because Coptic used Greek letters! Did you get it?

># No, this is also incorrect.

We know that

>The Greeks are not Arabian,

Drivel and it is "The Greeks are not Arabs" you need to work on your English

> the Coptics are.

More drivel

>We cannot take the statements of Arab Muslims as credible because we see a host of falsehoods displayed there as historical fact - and no Muslims stand up and rejects them.

You are not very focused are you and you know what? You are not any different trust me

Do you know what this means? It means that a language can be written in different alphabets but it is the same language and in the case of Arabic it also did not drop from the sky and it also has a history behind it now do you get it mr demagogue?

># All things have a history else they cannot exist. The dates are the only factor we are disputing. The actual emergence of Arabic writings is 400 CE - regardless of its history.

Hypocrite

>The first emergence of Arabs as an identifiable race is 500 BCE - regardless taht all Arabians are Arabians.

Hypocrite

>The lands now occupied as islamic soil - are in fact stolen Islamic soil, and this is varied from Israel's history. Jerusalem and Hebron were stolen by Arab Muslims in the 7th Century, and these were the property of the Jews, not of the Arab Muslims. The Jews have never stolen anyone's land in all their 4000 year history - while the Arabs did the reverse.

Slogans and more slogans

And here is History 101 so here is a one line text that is supposed to have been uttered by Jesus and here is the text in Syriac

Eli Eli lama sabachtani

And in Arabic it would be

Elahi Elahi lema sabaqtani

Suppose such text existed some 2000 years ago in the above forms we have. A poor historian will tell us that such text is an English language text and therefore there was neither Arabic no Syriac back then but a good historian will tell us

1. The first text is in Western Syriac and is written using Latin alphabet

2. The second text contains the same words as the first text but it is in Arabic language and it is written in Latin alphabet!

Now do you get it?

># No sir, I did not get it.

You did not get it because you are not very focused

You did not receive your education in a Western country right? ...

>There is no Arabic in the NT.

What does this have to do with what I have just told you? And do you really know what the word "suppose" really means? Let me guess you have no cl;ue right?

>Any resemblence only means the Arabic is an admix of older writings: the Arabic writings first emerged 600 years after the NT.

You did not understand a single word right?

>The Arabic spells AVraham the latin way - but the Latin does not spell ABraham as Ibrahim!

Oh no not the B and V again and not Musa wa Ibrahim

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".