(2) Coptic shares another feature of many languages other than English, in distinguishing between singular and plural usages of the word 'you' and its derivatives. (This seems to be quite a sensible and useful feature, unlike (1)). Again, one of the major reasons for retaining this feature, even though it introduces a further degree of awkwardness, is that a difference between the singular and plural senses of 'you', 'your', etc., may indicate a break in the Coptic text not otherwise apparent.
(3) Coptic has no true passive voice (although it does have some essentially-passive verbs). Where we would say "He was begotten", the Coptic says "They begot him", the passive voice being assumed if the word 'they' lacks a referent. Obviously, this introduces an element of ambiguity, since the choice between the active meaning and the passive one depends on the presence or absence of a referent for 'they'. In these cases, I have always used the active voice, on the grounds that (1) if pieces of Thomas are moved around, a seemingly-missing referent may be supplied (or an existing one removed), and (2) translating in the active voice more nearly captures the ambiguous flavor of the original, anyway. -MWG, rev 02/13/97