Some time ago, I was listening to a lecture which describes one problem of theological factions within the Coptic Church on the understanding of the Holy Spirit. This lecture was on the letters of St. Athanasius to Serapion.
He describes the history of a philological scholar of the Coptic language, Dr. Rahib Atalla, who noticed in the Coptic translation of the New Testament, there were two articles (like "a" or "the") used in front of "Pnevma" (Spirit). "ooPnevma" and "piPnevma" (a spirit and The Spirit respectively), and that in some areas of the Bible, sometimes it was written that we receive "ooPnevma" rather than "piPnevma", which then lead to interesting theological interpretations. On one part, you have the "oopnevmians" who believe what we receive in baptism is not the Holy Spirit in His whole hypostasis, but a gift or grace of the Spirit, whereas "pipnevmians" (or more accurately the anti-oopnevmians) believe that no such distinction existed in the Greek translation of the New Testament, and thus it is the whole hypostasis, whether "oo" or "pi".
I was wondering if someone here has more knowledge of the background can comment more on this. Do think both sides are too extreme? One side may make it seem we don't really receive the Holy Spirit residing in us as it does in Christ's humanity, while another side make it seem we partake of the Holy Spirit in essence. Just wanted to hear maybe some of our Coptic scholars here that might know of this problem in the Church?