English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 1699, translating from Greek a text by Maxim the Peloponnesian, Antim Ivireanul uses a word that, at first glance, coincides with a neologism attested in Romanian no sooner than the end of the 19th century, as a French loan: copt, –ă, ‘Locuitor [...] al Egiptului, descinzând din vechile secte creștine ale Euticheenilor’ [Inhabitant (...) of Egypt, descending from the ancient Chris- tian sects of the Euticheens]. In order to answer the question in the title, the author had to conduct a semantic analysis of the corresponding word in the Greek source-text, i.e. κoπται (and also its etymology), since, for the period when Maxim the Peloponnesian writes, the Greek lexicography indicates only the existence of the ancient form κoπτης (pl. κoπται), derivative of the verb κoπ(τω) –της ‘to cut, to strike’. The study leads towards an affirmative answer, and might also cast a new light on the language dynamics of the post-byzantine era.

Considering CL 1699, is there enough evidence to correct the attestation of copt, –ă (1887, DLR)?