> The passage at CIH 1859.6f is printed (at pp 4 and 6) and translated
> (at pp 5 and 7) in volume iv of the Ancient Laws of Ireland (AL).
Oh yes, of course, I overlooked the most obvious one... Well, thank you, Neil, for giving us the translation from AL.
Here are some questions, though:
> "Ninne, son of Matech, [one] of the Feini, went northwards into the
> country of the Uladh with three horsemen to visit friends,
The OIr. text has triur marcach, which would literally translate as "with three horsemen" alright. But a few lines later the
text goes "the two who were with Ninne", indicating that apart from Ninne there were only two men. So I wonder if the
"triur" "three men" refers to the riders including Ninne, not excluding him as trasnlated in AL.
> Then the two who were with Ninne replied: it does not make our
> claim greater that we have unharnessed our horses here;
Is the word translated as "claim" here actually dán "gift etc."? I can't find a reference to such a legal meaning in DIL, so
I decided for the meaning "occupation, function, business" at DIL D 76.7.
> they shall not be [left] there for that reason.
So the editors of AL understood the sentence as
ní·biat and ém aire
with ·biad as found in the MSS being a later spelling for OIr. ·biat, and with aire being the conjugated preposition ar "on
account of". Another possibility would be to read:
ní·biad anad ém aire
"let there not be a staying (here) for that reason"
> and he awarded a fine for unlawful expulsion
> upon the person who drove the horses out of the land,
The editors of AL apparently translated ecor as "expulsion" here, but this is odd, since according to DIL E 51.56 the
word has exactly the opposite meaning, namely "in Laws a putting in, esp. of putting or bringing into a territory the
symbols of taking possession, making entry". Or did they think that ecor/écor was the verbal noun of an unattested
verb *as·cuirethar "to throw out"?
> and an equivalent of what was driven off it,
The passive here is a free translation, as "cartas" the form in question is the 3rd sg. rel. active preterite, so rather: "of
what he drove off".
> and he gave them lands in proportion to their family."
So they understood "di t[h]elluch" as referring to 1tellach (DIL T 140.72) "family, sept", not to 2tellach (DIL T 141.9)
"making an entry upon and taking possession of land". But in a story whose legal relevancy is to accidental entry upon
land, I guess it would be more natural to assume that the second word would be intended in the first place.