> >E2: + in neoch docandis na tri sgola gach lae
> >dobig aigi-sim tre geire nindtlechta gach naidche,
> E2: a neoch for·chanatis na tri scola cach láe
> do bíth aice-sium tre gére ninntlechta cach n-aidche
> "all that they would teach of the three schools each day,
> he would have by keeness of intellect each night"
The emendation "in neoch" > "a neoch" is consistent what we did in CMR 5. It would of course also be possible to
reatin the masculine here, since the neuter was strongly on the decline in MidIr.
> 'docandis' stumped me so I replaced it with a form of 'for·cain' -
> "to teach".
The emendation is not necessary: There is a verb "do·cain" "to recite, chant" in OIr., which makes perfect sense here.
Syncope before the ending of the 3rd pl. imperfect ending "-t(a)is" is regular, so there's no need to emend to
If we were restoring an OIr. text, we would probably write "inna téora scola", but since the language here is younger,
"na tri scola" is okay.
> '·biad' is the 3rd singular conditional, while '·bíth' is the 3rd
> singular imperfect of 'attá', both seem possible alternatives to
Well, "·biad" would - I think - still be written as such in a young text like the one we are looking at. Furthermore "do·"
comes to replace "ro·" as perfective particle in Middle Irish, so that "do·bíd" makes a "perfect" 3rd sg. imperfect.
"gére" "keenness" stands in the accusative, so that the first "n" of the following word is due to the nasalising mutation.
We should rather write "tre gére n-indtlechta".
> >E1:+ cach ni docluined-sum da m.si na tri scol cach lae
> >dobid do glain mebru aice cach naidche,
> E1: cach ní do·cluined-sum dá maic-si na tri scola cach láe
> do biad do glain mebruguid aice cach n-aidche
> "each thing that he heard from the young men of the three schools
> each day he would have accurate learning of it each night"
Just as you correctly introduced lenition in "do/for·chantais" in E2, we should have a leniting relative clause in
"do·chluined". As I said above, mperfect "do·bíd" is perfect here ("he used to have").
> According to DIL;
> 'do bi do glan mebru cacha n-aidhche' = "he would have by heart
> each night"
That's correct. But I don't think that the "-u" of "mebru" stands for old "-ugud" like in the modern caighdeán spelling, but
that it is rather the plural (OIr. mebrai) of "mebair" (DIL M 74.31 ff.).
> I thought that 'm.si' might be an abbreviation for 'maic-si'.
Maybe, but the emphatic particle "-si" wouldn't make sense, and we would need the dative plural, something like "do
maccaib". Actually nobody knows what to make of this damaged passage. About 2 or 3 letters are illegible in the MS. I
would simply leave the question open.
Alright, so here's my suggestion for normalisation:
E2: ocus [a/in] neoch do·chantis na tri scola cach lae do·bíd aici-sium tre géire n-indtlechta cach n-aidche,
"and everything the three schools used to recite every day, was with him through the keeness of his intellect every
E1: ocus cach ní do·chluined-sum [da m.si] na tri scol cach lae do·bíd do glain mebra aice cach n-aidche,
"and everything he used to hear [from the boys?] of the three schools every day, used to be in plain memory with him