Do you know how to ask “How old are you?” and respond with “I am X years old” in natural, idiomatic Coptic? In this post, we’ll find out with the help of examples from literature. We’ll also talk about the grammar behind these expressions.

If you’d prefer to get straight to the answer, go to the summary.

Introduction

Languages have diverse ways of talking about age.

In French and informal Egyptian Arabic, for example, you “have” a certain number of years: J’ai 12 ans and أنا عندي ١٢ سنة, which both literally mean “I have 12 years”. In contrast, English uses the verb “to be”: I am 12 years old. These are just a few among the many idiomatic ways languages express age.

Given this variety, it’s crucial to look at how age is naturally expressed in Coptic, rather than directly translating from your native language. For instance, an Egyptian Arabic speaker might be tempted to use a possessive construction like *ⲟⲩⲟⲛⲧⲏⲓ X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ (literally, “I have X years”), as a direct calque from Arabic. While this is an understandable mistake, it is not idiomatic Coptic.

In fact, as we will see, in Coptic you “are in” a certain year of life.

An illustration from Coptic literature

Direct questions and answers about age are rare in surviving Coptic texts. However, a notable Bohairic example appears in the Martyrdom of Apa Lacaron (ϯⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲓⲁ̀ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲡⲓⲁ̀ⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲙ̀ⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲡⲭ︤ⲥ︥ ⲁ̀ⲡⲁ ⲗⲁⲕⲁⲣⲱⲛ) preserved in a 9th century manuscript (Vat. copt. 68).

In this account, Arianus, the governor of Antinoë, travels to Asyut to oversee the sacrifices to the Roman gods. Upon hearing of Lacaron, a soldier who professes Christianity, he interrogates him:

ⲡⲉϫⲉⲡⲓϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ«ⲉⲕⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ?»

The governor said to him: “How old are you?”

ⲁϥⲉⲣⲟⲩⲱ̀ ⲛ̀ϫⲉⲁ̀ⲡⲁ ⲗⲁⲕⲁⲣⲱⲛ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ«ϯⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛⲓ︦ⲇ︦ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲙ̀ⲫⲟⲟⲩ.»

Lacaron replied, he said to him: “I am 14 years old today.”

— Martyrdom of Apa Lacaron (Vat. copt. 68 f. 1v)

This passage offers a valuable example where the question and response about age are clearly expressed in direct discourse, making it a useful reference for learning about this expression in conversation.

It is worth noting that our focus here is expressing someone’s current age. The grammar for talking about becoming, turning, or reaching a certain age is different. ¹

ϯⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛ-X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ — “I am X years (old)”

Let’s first analyse the response from the Martyrdom of Apa Lacaron.

Grammatically, this is a durative sentence with a first-person singular personal subject prefix (ϯ-) followed by a predicate. The essential role of a durative sentence is to express present tense ongoing action or state, which is why it is used to express current age. ² This particular structure, and indeed the entire expression, has been used in Egyptian since at least the Demotic stage of the language (from c. 650 BC) and probably much earlier. ³

The core of the predicate is the prepositional phrase: ϧⲉⲛⲓ︦ⲇ︦ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ, which literally translates to “in 14 years”; we will come back to ⲭⲏ later. As in this case, it is common for the Coptic durative sentence to have a prepositional phrase or adverb for its predicate in order to express a position in space, and by extension, also time and manner. ⁴ Consider these examples:

ϥⲙ̀ⲙⲁⲩ (var. ϥⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ) ⲛ̀ϫⲉⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ

Peter is there

— Acts 9:38 (Horner, 1905: IV, 242)

ⲁ̀ⲛⲟⲕⲙⲉⲛⲅⲁⲣ ⲛ̀ϯⲛⲉⲙⲱⲧⲉⲛⲁⲛ ϧⲉⲛⲡⲓⲥⲱⲙⲁ ϯⲛⲉⲙⲱⲧⲉⲛⲇⲉ ϧⲉⲛⲡⲓⲡ︤ⲛ︦ⲁ︥

Though I am not with you in the flesh, I am with you in the Spirit

— 1 Corinthians 5:3 (Horner, 1905: III, 138, 140)

This brings us to ⲭⲏ, which, etymologically, is the stative form of the infinitive ⲭⲱ, a verb with a broad range of meanings, including “to put,” “to permit,” and “to leave.” However, in durative sentences like the one we are discussing, ⲭⲏ does not carry any of these meanings. Instead, it functions as a dummy predicate inserted specifically before a prepositional (or adverbial) phrase, which is the true predicate. ⁵

This use of ⲭⲏ as a dummy predicate is a Bohairic innovation — it is rare in other dialects and is entirely absent from Demotic and earlier stages of Egyptian. Even in Bohairic, it is not obligatory before a prepositional (or adverbial) predicate, as demonstrated by the examples above. Here is another example, which explicitly expresses age — Jesus has raised a girl from the dead and she starts walking: ⁶

ⲛⲁⲥϧⲉⲛⲓ︦ⲃ︦ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓⲡⲉ

for she was 12 years old.

— Mark 5:42 (Horner 1898: I, 340)

Nevertheless, in many other cases, ⲭⲏ does occur:

ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ϩⲱϥ ⲛⲁϥⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛⲗ︦ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲛⲉⲙⲋ︦ ⲛⲁⲃⲟⲧ

John also was 30 years and 6 months old

— Panegyric of John the Baptist (Vat. copt. 62 f. 122v; de Vis, 1922: 17)

Because ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “year” is a grammatically feminine noun, any number quantifying it — where this exists — must be in the feminine form. In this case, the number fourteen has no distinct feminine form so the only available form is used, i.e. the numeral ⲓ︦ⲇ︦, which represents ⲙⲉⲧϥⲧⲱⲟⲩ. In contrast, a number that does have a feminine form, such as twenty would be expressed ϯⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛⲕ︦ϯ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ, where ⲕ︦ϯ is the feminine numeral representing the feminine ϫⲟⲩⲟϯ “twenty” (distinct from the masculine forms ⲕ︦ and ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ). ⁷

Finally, while English often uses phrases like “X years of age” or “X years old,” the expressions we’ve seen so far simply use X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “X years”. ⁸ However, a possible parallel to these English expressions does exist in Coptic, as we can see from the Investiture of the Archangel Michael. In this text, Jesus tells his disciple John that John the Baptist was beheaded on day 2 of the month Thoth:

ⲉϥϩⲛⲗ︦ⲇ︦ ⲛⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ ⲛⲉϩⲓ

… while he was 34 years of age

— Investiture of the Archangel Michael §10 (Müller, 1962: 31, l. 12)

Here in the Fayyumic, we find X ⲛⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ ⲛⲉϩⲓ. The parallel text in Sahidic similarly uses X ⲛ̄ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϩⲉ. Both can be translated “X years of age/(length) of life”. ⁹ There is no direct parallel known in Bohairic, though the corresponding Bohairic word ⲁ̀ϩⲓ is attested. If used the same way in Bohairic, it would probably be rendered as X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁ̀ϩⲓ. Crucially, however, this specific phrasing is most probably appropriate where someone’s age is conceived as a point in time, as opposed to expressing current age in response to the question “How old are you?”. ¹⁰

ⲁⲕⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ? — “How old are you?”

The question from the Martyrdom of Apa Lacaron follows a structure similar to the response “I am X years old”, with two key differences:

First, instead of X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “X years” in the predicate we have ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ. The word ⲟⲩⲏⲣ is an interrogative for quantity: “how many/much?” In this case, it literally means “how many of/in years?”

Second, because this is a question (i.e. an interrogative) and not a statement (i.e. a declarative), the durative sentence requires a focalising conversion to signal that the focus of the sentence is on the interrogative ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ. ¹¹ The manuscript of the Martyrdom of Apa Lacaron uses ⲉⲕ- for this focalised durative conjugation in the second person singular masculine. This is a common variant spelling in Bohairic texts, especially those translated or copied in the monasteries of Scetis. ¹² The ‘standard’ form is ⲁⲕ-.

We find another rare example of an inquiry about age in the Investiture of the Archangel Michael, where the Fayyumic version unambiguously employs the expected focalising conversion: ¹³

ⲡⲁ⳪︦, ⲡⲉϩⲁⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲁϩⲏⲣⲱⲧⲏⲥ ϥⲓ ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲏ ⲛⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲁϥϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗⲓ ⲛⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ

My Lord, the day that Herod beheaded John, how old was he?

— Investiture of the Archangel Michael §10 (Müller, 1962: 29, l. 23-5)

Finally, given the scarcity of examples of such questions, it is worth highlighting a biblical passage in Bohairic that uses an elaborate expression to inquire about age:

ⲡⲉϫⲉⲫⲁⲣⲁⲱ̀ⲇⲉ ⲛ̀ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ϫⲉ«ⲟⲩⲏⲣ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲓⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲉ̀ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲕⲱⲛϧ?»

Pharaoh said to Jacob: “How many are the years (of the) days of your life?”

— Genesis 47:8 (Peters, 1985: 129)

The Coptic translation closely mirrors the wording of Greek of the Septuagint, which, in turn, is a direct calque of the original Hebrew text. ¹⁴ Therefore, despite being spoken by Pharaoh, this expression reflects a Hebrew (via Greek) rather than an idiomatic Egyptian mode of expression.

Summary

To recap, we’ve explored how to ask “How old are you?” and how to answer “I am X years old” in idiomatic Coptic. As shown in Bohairic, Sahidic and Fayyumic texts, in Coptic you “are in” a certain year of life. This mode of expression reflects a Coptic understanding of age as a specific point in “space-time,” a conceptualisation that has remained since at least Demotic (from c. 650 BC) and likely as far back as Late Egyptian (from c. 1350 BC).

The question “How old are you?” varies based on who is being addressed:

The response, regardless of the speaker’s gender, follows the format:

Remember that X represents a number, and if the number has a distinct feminine form, that form must be used to agree with the feminine noun ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “year”.

Finally, the dummy predicate ⲭⲏ is (probably) optional in both the question and response.

Featured image

The featured image is a painting by Nina de Garis Davies depicting stonemasons squaring a block from a scene in the Tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100) at Sheikh Abu el-Qurna at Thebes (Metropolitan Museum, New York, 31.6.19).

The tomb dates from around 1450 BC, during the reign of Thutmose III of the New Kingdom. The added speech bubbles, in Bohairic, imagine a conversation between the artisans at work. At the time Rekhmire’s tomb was being built, the Late Egyptian stage of the (written) language was imminent (from c. 1350 BC) but its characteristic grammar was likely already reflected in the spoken vernacular, which includes the same grammatical structure for expressing age that was later inherited by Demotic and Coptic.

References

• Beylage, P., 2018. Middle Egyptian. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns.
• Brenton, L.C.L., 2018. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
• De Vis, H. (ed. and tr.), 1922. Homélies coptes de la Vaticane, vol. 1. Hauniae: Gyldendal.
• Förster, H., 2006. Transitus Mariae. Beiträge zur koptischen Überlieferung mit einer Edition von P. Vindob. K 7589, Cambridge Add 1876 8 und Paris BN Copte 12917 ff. 28 und 29 (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge 14: Neutestamentliche Apokryphen 2). Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Horner, G., 1898–1905. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairic, 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Layton, B., 2011. A Coptic Grammar: With Chrestomathy and Glossary. Sahidic Dialect (Porta Linguarum Orientalium). 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
• Loprieno, A., Müller, M., and Uljas, S., 2017. Non-Verbal Predication in Ancient Egyptian. Berlin: De Gruyter-Mouton.
• Müller, C.D.G., 1962. Die Bücher der Einsetzung der Erzengel Michael und Gabriel (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 31/Scriptores Coptici 225). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
• Müller, M., 2021. Grammatik des Bohairischen. Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag.
• Peters, M.K.H., 1985. A critical edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch: Vol. 1, Genesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
• Shisha-Halevy, A., 2007. Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. Leuven: Peeters.

Footnotes

1. In brief, expressing age as a moment in time — e.g. “When I reached 12 years old, I went to a new school” — requires the non-durative sentence. This structure is used because the action is not rooted in the present. It uses the versatile grammatical element ⲉⲣ-, which when followed by a number or quantifier phrase, can signify: (1) “spend X (time period)”; “reach X (age)”; or (3) “amount to X (number)”. For example, ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉ̀ⲧⲁϥⲉⲣⲓ︦ⲃ︦ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲁⲩϣⲉ ⲛⲱⲟⲩ ⲉ̀ⲡⲓϣⲁⲓ ⲕⲁⲧⲁϯⲕⲁϩⲥ “And when he became 12 years old, they went to the feast according to the custom.” (Luke 2:42). For further comments, see Shisha-Halevy (2007, 286-7). ↩︎
2. In theory, the nominal sentence might also be an appropriate way to express age since it expresses essential characteristics of the subject in present tense, e.g. ⲁ̀ⲛⲟⲕⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲓ “I am a man/person”. However, in practice Coptic does not express age using the nominal sentence. ↩︎
3. There are numerous parallel Demotic expressions, which employ the first present (known as the durative in Coptic grammars): ỉw.f ẖn-rnp.t 72 “He is/was 72 years old” from a mummy label (Loprieno et al, 2017: 243). In all likelihood, the same expression was used in Late Egyptian (from c. 1350 BC) but no examples survive (Loprieno et al, 2017: 243, n. 99). Earlier Egyptian (before 1350 BC), however, expressed age differently using a genitive construction: ỉw.f m nḏs n rnp.t 110 “He was a commoner of 110 years (of age)” and s n rnp.t 73 “a man of 73 years (of age)” (Beylage, 2018: 54, 306). ↩︎
4. Durative sentences can have four different types of predicate: (1) infinitive verb (ϯⲥⲁϫⲓ “I speak, am speaking”); (2) stative (ϯⲟⲩⲟϫ “I am well”); (3) prepositional or adverbial phrase (ϯⲛⲉⲙⲱⲧⲉⲛ “I am with you (pl.)”); (4) future auxiliary ⲛⲁ- plus infinitive verb (ϯⲛⲁⲥⲁϫⲓ “I will/am going to speak”). The terminology used here is that of Bentley Layton. ↩︎
5. Müller (2021: §2.5) and Loprieno et al (2017: 63) describe ⲭⲏ as a dummy predicate. Shisha-Halevy (2007: 288-9) takes a different view: “ⲭⲏ is not a mere Copula, i.e. nexus significant, but an overt signal of marked stativity and focussed situationality”. ↩︎
6. There are only a few examples of the use of ⲭⲏ in non-Bohairic dialects [Sahidic and Fayyumic: ⲕⲏ; Akhmimic: ⲕ(ⲉ)ⲓ)] (Loprieno et al, 2017: 63-4). Notably, for the Bohairic Pentateuch based on MS BnF copte 1, the corpus that Shisha-Halevy (2007, 290) studied, absence of ⲭⲏ is usual in age specification. In palaeo-Bohairic (B4), it is also rare (Shisha-Halevy, 2007: 289). In Demotic, it seems to be completely absent, e.g. ỉwf ẖn-rnp.t 72 “He is/was 72 years old” from a mummy label (Loprieno et al, 2017: 243). Essentially, the question of whether the presence or absence of ⲭⲏ is meaningful in the Bohairic durative sentence warrants more research. ↩︎
7. The classical forms of the numbers in Bohairic and whether or not they had feminine forms is uncertain and deserves a further dedicated study. The forms given for twenty I have provisionally reconstructed. The main reason for this uncertainty is that Bohairic almost exclusively employed the Greek practice of using numerals to represent numbers (ⲁ︦, ⲃ︦/ⲃ︦ϯ, ⲅ︦/ⲅ︦ϯ, etc.). Consequently, the earliest attestations we have of Bohairic numbers written out are rather late — from scalae (Arabic-Coptic glossaries) in the medieval period. This is at a time when spoken Coptic has declined (especially in the Bohairic hinterland) and certain changes in phonology had occurred, altering spelling conventions. Fortunately, Sahidic and other dialects did regularly write the names of the numbers in full and so it is possible to reconstruct the earlier Bohairic forms from a combination of these sources. As for feminine forms of the numbers in Bohairic, it is certain that these existed for two, three, nine, ten, twenty since the numerals for these numbers explicitly marked feminine gender, incorporating into the numeral the final unstressed syllable -ϯ of the number: ⲃ︦ϯ (ⲥⲛⲟⲩϯ), ⲅ︦ϯ (ϣⲟⲙϯ), ⲑ︦ϯ (ⲯⲓϯ), ⲓ︦ϯ (ⲙⲏϯ) , ⲕ︦ϯ (ϫⲟⲩⲟϯ or ϫⲟⲩⲱϯ). In addition to these, a feminine form ⲟⲩⲓ̀ for one is known as it is often written out in full (though its number is ⲁ︦ whether masculine or feminine). It is likely that the other unit numbers (when used independently) had feminine forms as well, judging from Sahidic and other dialects as well as some late Bohairic evidence. The details of the classical forms of these latter and whether other numbers have feminine forms, as occurs in Sahidic, require further research. See Layton (2011: §67) for the situation in Sahidic. ↩︎
8. I’m using the sign X as a numerical placeholder in X ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ to avoid confusion. A possible way of expressing this in Coptic might be ⲟ︦ⲩ︦ⲏ︦ⲣ︦ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ, perhaps with an overline; however, I don’t know an exact attested usage of this in Bohairic. As we will see, ⲟⲩⲏⲣ is an interrogative pronoun meaning “how much/many?”. Interrogative pronouns in Coptic but most conspicuously ⲛⲓⲙ “who?” can be used in a non-specific non-interrogative way with an overline (i.e. ⲛ︦ⲓ︦ⲙ︦) as a sort of identity placeholder when the person or person’s name is not specified, meaning something like “so-and-so” or “such-and-such”. This is common in liturgical texts where a bishop’s name or a martyr’s name, for instance, is to be completed as appropriate for the specific day or location. For example, ⲁ̀ⲙⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲱ ⲛⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲙ̀ⲙⲁⲓⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲓ︤ⲏ︦ⲥ︥ ⲡ︤ⲭ︦ⲥ︥ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓⲟ̀ ⲛ̀ϯⲑⲉⲟ̀ⲧⲟⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙⲡⲓⲁ̀ⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲛ︦ⲓ︦ⲙ︦ ⲡⲓⲇⲓⲕⲉⲟⲥ “Come all, O God-loving people (to?) Jesus Christ (and) let us honour the Theotokos and Saint so-and-so the righteous.” (Psalmody for the Martyrs and the Feasts, BnF copte 33 f. 18r; later 16th century). For similar usage in Sahidic, see Layton (2011, §73). ↩︎
9. The Sahidic version in full: ⲁϥϩⲉⲛ̄ⲙⲁⲁ̄ⲃⲉϥⲧⲟ (read: ⲉϥ-) ⲛ̄ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϩⲉ from the Investiture of the Archangel Michael §10 (Müller, 1962: 30, l. 13 and n. 59). ↩︎
10. This expression does not exclusively refer to length of life, as might be suspected at first glance given that the context is John the Baptist’s age at death (= length of life). This is demonstrated by another Sahidic example from Transitus Mariae: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲥϫⲡⲟϥ ⲉⲥϩⲛ̄ⲁⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ ⲛ̄ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϩⲉ “And when she (sc. Mary) gave birth to him (sc. Jesus), she was about 15 years of age” (Förster, 2006: 13-4). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether using ⲁϩⲉ would be appropriate in a conversation about one’s present age. Even in this example, the context refers to Mary’s age (or length of life) at a specific point in her life and is situated after her Assumption, according to tradition, well after the time period being discussed. ↩︎
11. I am using the terminology used by Bentley Layton here; traditionally, these types of focalising sentences are known as second tenses. In Coptic grammar, when an interrogative element (such as ⲟⲩ, ⲉⲑⲃⲉⲟⲩ, ⲟⲩⲏⲣ, etc.) in a question cannot (or is not) fronted (i.e. brought to the beginning of the clause to prominence it), the focalising conversion is obligatory. ↩︎
12. In manuscripts from Scetis (Wadī al-Naṭrūn, west of the Delta), the focalising conversion of the durative sentence often occurs as ⲉⲓ-, ⲉⲕ-, ⲉ̀ⲣⲉ- etc. instead of the standard ⲁⲓ-, ⲁⲕ-, ⲁ̀ⲣⲉ- etc. This spelling coincides with the form of the circumstantial conversion of the durative sentence (also ⲉⲓ-, ⲉⲕ-, ⲉ̀ⲣⲉ- etc) — sometimes leading to difficulties in interpretation. This phenomenon is frequently explained as either orthographic interference because of translation from a Sahidic original (whose focalising conversion of the durative sentence has the form ⲉⲓ-, ⲉⲕ-, ⲉⲣⲉ- etc.) or as a result of neutralisation in pronunciation of ⲁ and ⲉ in the area of Scetis; see Müller (2021: Appendix C). However, as the grammar of Bohairic texts from Scetis (also called Nitrian Bohairic) remains understudied, it is possible that this interpretation does not reflect the whole picture. ↩︎
13. It is impossible to interpret ⲁϥ- as the past conjugation (which does have the same form) since, as a non-durative sentence conjugation, it cannot take a prepositional phrase as the predicate — a function solely of the durative sentence (and its conversions). The Sahidic version of the same text presents some difficulties in interpretation: ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓ̈ⲥ, ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϩⲏⲣⲱⲇⲏⲥ ϥⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ̄ⲡⲉ ⲛⲓ̈ⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡ̄ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓ̈ⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲉϥϩⲉⲛⲟⲩⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ “My Lord, the day that Herod beheaded John the Baptist, how old was he?” (Müller, 1962: 28, l. 28-8). It appears to use the preterit conversion of the durative sentence ⲛⲉϥ- … -ⲡⲉ without the expected focalising conversion. Ordinarily, a Sahidic durative sentence with both preterit and focalising conversion would take the form ⲉ-ⲛⲉϥ-… -ⲡⲉ (Layton, 2011: §446). One possible explanation, therefore, is that this is a case of omission of initial ⲉ- before a sonorant, a not uncommon phenomenon in Coptic. ↩︎
14. The Greek Septuagint text has: πόσα ἔτη ἡμερῶν τῆς ζωῆς σου; “How many are the years of the days of thy life?” (Gen 47:8) (Brenton, 2018: 65). The response to Pharaoh is similar: ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲡⲉϫⲉⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲙ̀ⲫⲁⲣⲁⲱ̀ ϫⲉ«ⲛⲓⲉ̀ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲛⲓⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲡⲁⲱⲛϧ, ⲛⲏ ⲉ̀ϯϣⲟⲡ ⲛ̀ϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ, ⲣ̅ⲗ̅ ⲛ̀ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓⲛⲉ.» “And Jacob said to Pharaoh: “The days of the years of my life, those in which I sojourn, are 130 years.”” (Gen 47:9) (Peters, 1985: 129). ↩︎