David Stifter wrote:
> > .i. reíd im etáil mad gudi [midgesta]
> The MS is rather to be read
> .i. reíd i~etáil [m]ad gudi nodgesta.
Thanks! You have access to the Best/Bergin/O'Brien diplomatic
edition, right? I can see where the 'o' is broken now, but only
> > I guess the biggest problem in this passage centers on "rothet"
> > and the explanation that follows it.
> Semantically the translation "warm, hot" fits well, but there are
> formal problems: the text is Old Irish, and at that stage the word
> for "hot" was té or disyllabic with hiatus tee in the nominative
> singular (which we need here).The variants with final t are either
> other cases (which make no sense here), or appear in compounds with
> té as first member.
All true. But what about the possibility that one of the later scribes
supplied the -t, understanding "te" as "hot" and simply spelling the
word after the current fashion, or under the influence of an oblique
case form, or even of the final -t of the next, parallel adjective,
"rochtot"? We know, as a general proposition, that the spelling (and
lexicon and grammar) of Irish texts was regularly "updated" in
transmission, besides being subject to other vagaries.