ON ETHNOLOGY. 
281 
vanced than the Egyptian, this language points necessarily to a more ancient 
Asiatic formation, since extinct in its native country, just as the Icelandic 
points to the old Norse of Scandinavia. 
The Egyptian language U also interesting, as illustrative generally of an¬ 
other phenomenon, which we traccil tlirough more modern Ibrinations; I 
mean the nature of the secondary Egyptian formation exhibited by the 
Coptic. In order to obtain a clear view of this formation, we roust first 
deduct all the words taken from the Greek. As to this admixture, we meet 
with an entirely new* phenomenon: the Coptic has not only adopted single 
nouns and verbs, living roots, but also particles, especially conjunctions in 
the proper sense, such a* the Greek liXXa, but. TbU forms no exception to 
rule above deduced from that striking phenomenon in the Romanic and 
bfrmanic languages, that foreign particles arc as little apt to expel native 
lines as in general foreign gramnialical forius to supplant the native ; for the 
Egyptian language never had discrimuiatiiig particles. In translations there¬ 
fore from the Greek, the Copts were obliged to adopt the Greek conjunc- 
hoM, for the same reason for which they look the word Ami*, tuition ; for, 
owing to provincialism. Pliaraohs, and priests, the idea of a nation had never 
been developed even into a w'ord among the Egyptian race. 
The other secondary formations are also in entire conformity with those by 
which the modern tongues of Southern Europe, as well as of Germany and 
Scandinavia, were produced. We have niurkod some of these phenomena 
already iu the first volume of ‘ Kgypt;' such as the change of the appended 
feminine sign of the old Egyptian t, (the remnant of tn, the original pronoun 
of the second person, preservLd in nn-tn, thou,) into u fnnalc article t or ti, 
£• g. r-»m, the mother, instead of mii-t. To this class belong also the forma¬ 
tions of the definite and indefinite articles in Coptic. TJie firet {pi or pe, 
toasc,; if* or te, fcm.: ni, n, neii, pi.) is an evident remnant of the pronominal 
formations, exactly os the Greek article and the masculine and feniinine ter¬ 
mination in the two first declensions arc. The indefinite article («) in the 
singular is, like the German ami Uomanic, mi abbreviation of the numeral for 
m (ua) ; the plural (Auw) has its full substantial root in ancient Egyptian. 
The plural of a noun substantive has u tenuinution only by exception ; but 
instead of the u of the ancient language we find dlficrent decompositions of 
^is long vowel, together with other forms, not at all «iiscernible in the ancient 
language. One of them is the prolongation of the vowel of the root; an in¬ 
ward formation, so frequent in the Semitic, and analogous to the German 
Umlaut in Fafcr, the plural of I 'atfr. Thus n/ior means a dog; n/idr, dogs; 
oho, a treasure ; a/iuor, treasures; bdk, a servant; ehioik, servants. A com¬ 
plete pseudo-declension is fornictl by prepositions connected with pronominal 
wots, thus:— 
Norn, hiffc, or ;« or n 
Gen. jtte „ „ 
Oat. ,, ,, ,, 
Acc. „ „ „ 
Abl, „ ,, ,, ^ . 
In a similar mechanical mode the deficiency of forms in the ancient Egyptian 
for the comparative and superlative degree is supplied, and the derivative 
pronouns are formed. The most striking change in these formations is the 
Coptic phrase p.ek.si, v aov uids (corresponding to the old Egyptian pai.k.si)-, 
but the Coptic has lost the simpler ancient form of si. h, wics anv. The same 
principle pervades the Coptic conjugation, h differs from the Egyptian as 
much in the loss of some very suu|ilu ancient modes for indicating the in¬ 
flexion of the verb, as in the employment of a great number of auxiliary 
