> > E2:
> > + in neoch ba hintaisfenta leis de doberidh glunsnaithe filidechte
> > fai, + nosgribtha aice he a chailc libair.
> > E1:
> > + docuir-sium glonsnaithi filed fuithib + doscrib-sum iat a lecaib +
> > i taiblib + rocuired(?)-seic i cairt liubair
> a neoch ba hintaisfénda leiss de
> do·b*eirthe glans*naithe filedachta foí
> do·scribed-sium íat i leccaib + i tablaib +
> ro·c*uired-si i cairte libur
> 'intaisfénda' is either the participle of 'do-aisféna' (later
> 'taisfén'), prefixed by 'in-'; or, the genitive of it's verbal noun.
I chose the first possibility, following DIL I 196.21 where it is translated as "worthy to be expounded". Note that this word has "-tae" at the end, not the adjectival suffix "-
> GOI gives 'leiss' with the double 's' as the correct OI form.
Well, as can be seen from our frequent discussion of this question in the EN-thread, there isn't really any rule when to write "ss" and when "s". When doing an edition of a
text like ours here, I'd just take into the normalised version what is found in the MS without bothering to much about any consistency.
> I thought that 'doberidh' was a passive form of do·beir in this phrase
> and 'glunsnaithe filidechte' are the object.
"g.f." is indeed the object, but I understand "doberidh" as "do·beired", i.e. 3rd sg. imperfect active "he used to give".
However, 'foí' is the
> accusitive form of the conjugated preposition, does this mean that
> 'foí' is the direct object?
No, this means that the pronominal part of "foí" ("it, him") is equal to an accusative, or, in other words: "fo" "under" can both take the dative and the accusative. Followed by
the dative it means "under (= location)" (e.g. "I am under the table"), followed by the accusative it means "under (= direction)" (e.g. "I crawl under the table"). It's the latter
one here. But note also that outside of classical OIr. the semantic distinction between preposition + dative and prepoistion + accusative was largely abandoned.
> According to GOI 'íat' replaced 'é' during
> the 9th century, so I think it's sufficiently old to retain here.
Yes it is. But note that "íat" is here a pronominal object. This is completely un-OIr. where you would express the same thing with an infixed pronoun. The language is
clearly Middle Irish here.
> I'm reading 'rocuired(?)-seic' as,
> ro + infixed pronoun 'a' + leniting relative verb + emphasizing
> particle '-si'
Well, you could see an infixed pronoun here, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Since the pronoun has been expressed before, it can still be understood without
having to be expressed on the surface. Note that a relative verb is not necessary here, since there is no relative clause. "ro·cuired" may just be a modern preterite passive
form. "-seic" is indeed best understood as the emphasising particle, although it's unclear how "-eic" came about.
> I stuck with 'cairt' from E1, "parchment". 'cailc' from E2 is what
> they used to whiten the parchment or vellum. "Write on the white"
> sounds to me like something they constantly told the apprentice
> scribes in school.
I'd also stick with "cairt", but I would read the two words as one, i.e. as a compound "cairtlibuir" "parchment books".The alternative would be "cailclibuir" "chalk books".
Was chalk really used to whiten parchment? I never heard about this practice before.