> Can you comment on the variation "caingen" vs. "gním" and
> your choice here? I can see that "in gním" (= the deed)
> is semantically cleaner than "in caingen" (= the matter,
> business, affair; dispute, controversy, etc.). But the
> demonstrative particle "(h)í" (= this, that) looks like
> padding to get the needed seven syllables in the line.
> It also strikes me as a little recherché. Using "í" that
> way is not exactly common, is it?
That's correct. DIL says that í is only very rarely used after nouns without being followed by a demonstrative particle, -siu or -sin. The reason why I chose gním-í
nevertheless is that I try to follow the MSS as long as there is no important reason to suppose something else (as in the case of the probable displacement of a stanza). It
is difficult to picture how gním-í could have been a misreading for caingen or the other way round. I find Thurneysen's tentative suggestion compelling that the two variants
of the stanza are independent of each other.
As you say, gním-í has the advantage of being "semantically cleaner". In addition to this it also makes a figura etymologica with do·rigénus.
BTW, it must be noted that our two MSS actually have a line of 6 syllables:
in gním-í do·ri(g)nius
Maybe we shouldn't emend to do·rigénus as all editors did, but rather to:
in gním-í-siu do·rignius