And do you prefer keeping coptic as part of the liturgy or would you like to see all coptic replaced with English (this question goes for everyone else too, not just dzheremi. Just replace "coptic" with whatever native language your parish uses)?
It's a problem with no easy solution. Personally, I prefer that the language of the worshipers (presuming that there is one predominant language) be used in the Liturgy. But I fear the loss of the traditional liturgical languages that inevitably results when we focus on the vernacular. Already, the numbers of our people for whom Coptic or Syriac or classical Armenian or whatever is comprehensible (beyond a few "stock phrases") are slim. If there is no effort to preserve knowledge of these languages, we lose a lot of our heritage. I'm not arguing that the Church is the custodian of a particular ethnic culture as a primary focus, but our traditions were formed in these languages, and so they keep us connected with our past and help us understand our present worship and way of life so we can pass them along to future generations faithfully. It shouldn't be a requirement of church membership to learn a language, but I think we owe it to ourselves and to posterity to maintain it in some way.
And there are often certain practical benefits to preserving these languages in worship. Our Armenian brethren have already mentioned the benefit of classical Armenian as a common language for worship in communities divided along linguistic lines. It's ironic that they've done this, while other denominations, like the RC's, have gone to the vernacular even in places with a lot of diversity: one Mass in Latin would probably be easier to manage than incorporating eight or nine languages piecemeal in some large parish in California, but Latin's out for them, and Armenian's in for us. But there are other reasons for maintaining the classical languages.
Syriac music, for instance, is metrical (disclaimer: I don't know musical terminology, so I will try to describe what I mean). It's not like other traditions of ecclesiastical music where you can play with the melodies to fit the text (e.g., "typewriter chant", which was how some of my brethren and I referred to the music executed during some services at seminary). The melody has a tight structure, and the words in Syriac fit that perfectly. When you translate into another language, you run into a problem: how do you translate the whole text accurately in good English (or whatever language) and sing it? Frequently, the compromise is made on the text because that's easier to deal with than composing a whole new Octoechos. And so you'll either use awkward syntax/grammar to fit the music, or you'll just leave certain phrases or ideas out of the text, impoverishing the prayer. I've done enough liturgical translation from Syriac to English to appreciate the minefield. I've also compared existing Malayalam translations to the Syriac enough to know that, while in English we try to fit in all thoughts however awkwardly, they chose to just leave out stuff. The results are singable, but hardly satisfactory if you know better. Keeping Syriac would solve those problems, but then you have to settle for not knowing what's going on or buying a grammar and enrolling in a class. Perhaps a new Octoechos is the ultimate solution, but that's an even bigger headache at present.
And, because translation is always interpretation, sometimes certain translations are preferable to others. For example, after "Holy things are for the holy", the English translation currently in wide use has, as the people's confessional response, "None is holy except the one holy Father, the one holy Son, and the one Holy Spirit, Amen." But in Malayalam, it seems (to me anyway) to pack more of a punch; were you to render it into English, it'd be something like "Other than the one holy Father, the one holy Son, and the one holy Spirit, there is no one at all who is holy, Amen." I prefer the latter in Malayalam for its punch, even if you can obviously play with the English, because the English becomes a bit verbose, but it's not so in Malayalam. You can do that sort of thing all over the Liturgy with regard to translations, but often the Syriac packs its own punch, and it's hard to render adequately.
In my experiences in Coptic parishes, I've always appreciated the use of Coptic if English wasn't being used for a very simple reason. Much of what's chanted in Coptic is basically Greek, which I've studied, and so I can join in easily. And what's not Greek is written in Coptic, which resembles Greek enough that I'm ever so slowly picking it up. Arabic is for another day.
It's a complex issue, and basically a pastoral one, so there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. But personally I'd prefer to keep the old languages in some way; we already do it with things like "Amen" and "Alleluia", so it's not without precedent, but on the contrary shows that we can make them a part of our life.