Atkinson — On a South-Coptic Text of M. Bouriant. 243 



On the same page we have me ak-swon-t rendered ne me 

 reconnais tu pas ; but it is the perfect tense ; see also No. [8]. 



Again [148, lo] saje etennajow is not parler comme nous Vavons 

 fait, but, as we shall say ; for it is the future tense. 



But it would be quite unnecessary to spend time over a review, 

 if it were merely a question of tenses. When however the laxity 

 of tense-rendering is extended to looseness of sense-rendering, then 

 criticism is not out of place. In the version : ' alors giCil ri)a fas 

 encore servi les mets suffisants a ses convives,'' for hotan ef santohm 

 nnrome nfti nau nteukhria kalos [149, i], 'when he invites 

 the men that he may give them their need KaXws', we feel that the 

 translation is not good enough. 



34. And on reading the contimiation : mais quand ceux-ci ont ete bien 

 traites, ils s^empressent autour de leur hote et le comllent de louanges, we 

 feel that version has descended into perversion, for the text says : 

 ^ they go away from him, praising him', esaupot ebolhitootf 

 [149, 2]. 



35. How are we to take what he gives as the version of [149, y], 

 la stupidite a laquelle le diahle V avail soumis? peflibe nta pdi- 

 abolos efjoeis erof nhetf. Here ef-joeis is quite impossible, 

 and the sentence means " his madness through which the devil ruled 

 over him ", rj oeis. 



36. Perhaps one would not err in judging that M. Bouriant was not 

 a distinguished Hellenist : I have often had to wonder what he takes 

 to be the function of the Greek /xiy ; he hardly ever renders it rightly. 

 Ex. gr. [150, 6] me nanoi nhwo enai tex-w,je ne suis pas meilleur 

 que tous ces autres. Is fiij then a categorical negative ? 



This is no isolated case : it occurs constantly throughout his book. 

 M. Bouriant has not learnt the fundamental principle with reference 

 to the Coptic usage of the Greek negative particle /x-r], viz. that 

 firj CANNOT be used in Coptic in the simple negative sense. 



233,11, me ntar-poss nthe mpeikewa, ''hast thou gone 

 mad like this other one", where he renders, ne sois pas folic comme 

 ee V. 



[Here M. Bouriant must have absolutely taken the ^e//^ci!!ii regent 

 of 2 sg. fern, ntare, to be the conjunctive nte, for otherwise he 

 could not have even imagined an imperative here !] 



Compare his treatment of this particle in the following : — 

 147, II, me akswont, "hast thou recognized me?" ne me recon- 

 nais-tu pas f 



s z 



