Atkinson — On Prof. Rossi's South-Coptic Texts. 73 



■words, it is beyond all question or doubt, that together they do not 

 mean, "what doest tbou " ! 



First, nim could not be accusative ; 



Secondly, f is the proclitic form ; 



Thirdly, ntk is the copula form. 



And that such a version could be imagined and printed in Turin, in 

 the splendid museum of Egyptian lore, in the haunts of Peyron, and 

 by a Professor of Egyptology ! 



"What doest thou", would be expressed in Coptic by ekf w 

 ntok , but here the words are : 



nim rntk, " what is thy name " ? 



As this form rnt-k, "thy name", seems such a terrible stumbling- 

 block, I shall exhibit here a couple of examples of the use of the 

 word. 



The very phrase occurs in Gen. xxxii. 27 nim rntk, rt to ovofxd 

 <rovi(rTLv; Prov. xxi. 24 ploimos rant-f, Xot/xos KaXetrat, " pest is 

 his name''^ ; though the commoner form before the suffix is rin, of. 

 Isai. xvii. 19 and Prof. Rossi's own text, I^^^ 67 y 5, 68 a 12 &c. 



So, even his e chi sei, " and who art thou", is not a right rendering 

 for ntk w-w, "thou art a what", "what is thy trade"? Nor 

 does ti ricordero le tue rapine, express [27^ 11] tinaeine ejok 

 nnekmntlestes, but "I will Iring upon thee [the punishment of] 

 thy robberies." And again [277 14] his translation of auo etbe 

 pikehob on je shime, " as for this other thing called 'woman' &c.", 

 is very poorly rendered by per altra parte &c. And again [27 y 20] 

 his version, io cotiservero &c., destroys the force of the Coptic eihareh, 

 which knits this clause to the preceding, "inasmuch as I am 

 keeping my body &c." And perhaps we might have had a note on 

 hermetarion [28^ 16] ; or there might have been some indication 

 of the language from which comes the word kasis [28 /3 z], though 

 there is a considerable note on the word, which it explains as "an 

 instrument of torture in form of a metal cap or helmet which was 

 placed red hot on the head of those condemned to martyrdom" &c. 

 But if the Latin cassis had been mentioned, we should have perhaps 

 not needed the note. 



122. Why should Prof. Rossi have conjured up such a dreadful 

 form as af[ne]u erof [29 y 19], which he evidently deems to be a 

 possible /SoM^A-Coptic mode of expressing, "he came to him"!! It 

 should have been ai-nau erof, "he saw him". 



