_The Coptic Language._--I read in _The Times_ of this morning the
following:
"The Coptic is an uncultivated and formal tongue, with
monosyllabic roots and _rude inflexions, totally different_ from
the neighbouring languages of Syria and Arabia, _totally
opposite_ to the copious and polished Sanscrit."
Do you think it worth while to try if some Coptic scholar among your
learned correspondents can give us some clearer account of the real
position of that tongue, historically so interesting? {377} The point is
this, Is it _inflected_, or, does it employ _affixes_, or is it
absolutely without inflections and affixes?
If the first, it cannot be "totally opposite" to the Sanscrit: if the
second, it cannot be "totally different" from Syriac and Arabic: if the
third, it cannot have "rude inflections."