Atkinson — On Prof. Eossi's South- Coptic Texts. 27 



3. The third verse has a mistake of translation : for he renders 

 it " chi eleva alta la sua casa, va in cerca di dolore^' ; the Coptic 

 word is "wosf , which does not mean dohre, but " ruin", and is used 

 to express the LXX a-wTpi/S-^v. The word is of constant occurrence, as 

 the exact representative of o-wtpl/Su), crvvrpLfx/xa, &c., cf. Job, ix. 17 ; 

 xxix. 17; xxxi. 22; xxxviii. 11, 15; Prov. ix. 24; xx. 30; Eccl. 

 xii. 6 ; Isai. xiii. 6 ; xxviii. 12 ; Ezek. xxvii. 34 ; xxix. 17 ; in every 

 one of which it is used to translate this Greek verb or its derivatives. 



4. In the next chapter, xviii. 8, we come upon a conjecture which 

 exhibits in the most vivid manner the want of grammatical knowledge 

 which shines through his edition of these "texts." It ought not to 

 be such a hidden mystery that the varied fonns of the Coptic verb are 

 not to be applied at random. But the laxity of rendering which has 

 been the bane and the reproach of translations from Old Egyptian, 

 where definite knowledge is often not to be had, must not be allowed 

 to penetrate into versions from its descendant, the Coptic language, 

 which in its minute and subtle distinctions, leaves small room for 

 doubt as to its meaning, and no justification whatever for looseness 

 in rendering. 



If there be one certainly ascertained law in Coptic grammar, it is 

 the law that the forms of the verb have a definite use and application. 

 Among these verbs occurs hko with its brother -form hkaeit ; the 

 latter expresses a very diferent idea from the former, for hko means 

 " to be getting hungry", but hkaeit is a sort of participial form, and 

 means " Ja'«^ hungry ". It is plain therefore that hkaeit, which 

 means "being now in a hungry state", ought not to be used in the 

 future ; and as a matter of fact, there is no more categorical imperative 

 in any language than the law which peremptorily forbids its use as 

 a future. Prof, Rossi has broken the rule, and has edited : 



tepsyhhe de niicabbet I'anvma dei pusilli 



nahli[aeit] sard affamata. 



That is utterly impossible to Coptic structure : he should have con- 

 jectured the other form, hko. 



Here then are four serious errors in his first page of a text which 

 is extant in another edition, and which has the original LXX to keep 

 an editor from rushing off the rails. 



5. Here is another conjecture, xx. 10 : 



wnoc iisi luii wkwi peso grande e piccolo 



a[ud s]ei pc snte e misicre doppie 



henakatharton ue sono immorali. 



