276 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



enough] ? And -why je viendrai for tinapot? And why nous 

 irons coucher for nta-nkotk, which he must absolutely have read 

 ntan - kotk 1 pi., and then rendered as z, future ! 



144. Here again is a sentence in which the real meaning of the 

 writer is distorted by the translator's endeavour to round o:ff his 

 period before he had suflS.ciently considered the grammatical struc- 

 ture : '■'■ Mon desir est de vous parler assez stir ce sujet, mais je crois 

 que la mesure est suffisante pour chacun et que le poids sufit pour chaque 

 chose'''' . 



That seems nicely balanced : the two final clauses are co-ordinate 

 and identical, then ? Do they represent a general, abstract proposition, 

 or do they refer to the particular concrete case ? 



The Coptic text is misrepresented [239, x] : neiwos men pe eje 

 prose nets etbe nai, alia timeeue je a psi sope nsa sa nim, 

 auo wsi petsoop hn hob nim. The translator has completely 

 ignored the distinction between the perfect a . . . sope, and the 

 present etsoop: "I wanted indeed to say 'the sufficient' to you 

 about these things, but I think that the measure has taken place on 

 every side [= is completely filled up], and further a measure does exist 

 in everything". 



145. His text at [239, 8] is quite wrong: me mn tetnei mmau 

 ewom, which should be me mntetn ei, 'have ye not a house &c.'; 

 and his translation of both tense and preposition is wrong on the next 

 line, ne chercliez pas un lieu pour V accomplissenient de vos desirs pervers 

 dans la sainte chapelle du saint; for the Coptic has mpekcn, and 

 nsa, " thou hast not found a place .... except the martyr's chapel" ; 

 nor is dit en d''autres circonstanees a correct rendering of afjoos 

 nhenkowe, "he said it to other persons ^^ ; nor do the words of 

 240, 2 refer to a banquet better than any previous banquet, as would 

 be inferred from his version, tel que nous ne nous sommes jamais rassasies 

 a un pareil festin, but to a banquet, at which the viands are so excel- 

 lent that tve have not yet got satiated therewith, tai te the ete 

 mpensi sa tenw; see No. 13. 



146. And the next clause is a complete misconception, par Id 

 fentends les liens que tu as recus pour le Christ et que j' abandonne d 

 regret. This latter clause is quite unmeaning, and bears no relation 

 to the Coptic words, [240,2] esaimeeue ebol etbe nentaksopw 

 etbe peXS, sairhba taka toot ebol, "when I think on all 

 that thou hast suffered for Christ, I am perplexed and have to give 

 up (the calculation) ". If M. Bouriant should object that the sop-w 

 refers to the feasts the martyr has received, still fhba is not rightly 



