Hi Charles, hi list,
> Is é fáth arná búaid Suibne Geilt do dul fri geltacht
> .i. forfacaib do scélaib + do laídib oc airfitiud cáich
> ó sin i lleith.
> "This is the reason why Crazy Suibne going mad is not the special
> quality, i.e., it left stories and lays to entertain everyone from
> then till now."
> 'forfacaib' is the preterite 3rd person singular of 'fo-ácaib' =
> "leave". With a sense of leaving behind instructions or a record or
"for·facaib" is indeed cited in DIL as MidIr. 3rd sg. perfect of "fo·acaib". But still I wouldn't emend it here for two reasons: 1. Although "for" and "ar" become confused in
MidIr. (the f of "for" being lenited), this confusion only applies to the prepositions, but doesn't extend to the corresponding preverbs in compound verbs. Therefore I find it
unlikely that "arar" contains "for" in some way. 2. The transitive verb "fo·acaib" needs a direct object in the accusative case which is missing if we emend to "for·facaib". To
my knowledge, a partitive construction like "do (= di) scélaib" "of tales" cannot be used as the immediate object of a verb, but it needs a noun or a pronoun of which it is
I have a different suggestion. Let's look again at the MSS:
E2: [...] .i. arar facaib do sgelaib + do laidib ac oirfid caich o sin i le
E1: [...] acht ar facaib do + scelaib + do laidib dia eis i neirind;
We have "arar" in E2 and "ar" in E1. As I said in my first posting, "arar" seems corrupt to me, but sense can be made out of "ar" in E1, which would also account for the
"missing" pronoun on which the partitive construction is dependent. "ar" can be analysed as consisting of the relative particle "a" "that which" (followed by nasalisation of
the immediately following element + a leniting relative clause) + the augment (perfective particle) "ro". In late Old Irish we could construct the complex as "a rro·f*acaib"
"that which he (has) left". Since the "f" should be lenited and the stressed part of the verb begins with a vowel, the apocopated form "r" of "ro" could be accounted for by
elision of the unstressed "o" before the following vowel. In E2 "ar" for whatever reason was doubled; maybe the scribe thought it contained the relative preposition "ara"
(which is present in "arná"). Does anybody have a different solution for the sentence?
> 'cáich' is in the genitive refering back to the verbal noun 'airfitiud'.
Yes, that's correct.
I don't think that your normalisation of "i le" is the right one. The secondary preposition "i lleth", which has a vast number of meanings (see DIL L 127.85), either demands a
noun in the genitive or a possessive pronoun as dependent phrase, neither of which is found in the MS. It's better to read "i le" as "ille" "hither", which frequently appears
together with "ó s*in" in the phrase "since then, down to the present time" (DIL 63.84).
My suggestion for normalisation is:
Is é fáth arná búaid Suibne Geilt do dul fri geltacht .i. arr·f*acaib do scélaib + do laídib oc airfitiud cháich ó s*in ille.
"This is the reason why Mad Suibne going mad is not a special quality (of the battle), i.e., that (is rather the special quality) what he has left of tales and songs to entertain
everyone since then down to the present day."