Hi David, and List,
> You are certainly right that "laa" is the preponderant variant
> already in WŁrzburg (although there is one instance of acc.
> "lae" there in 15c25).
Since "lŠ/laa/lae" is neuter, that instance of acc. "lae" is
ipso facto evidence for nom. sg. "lae", too, right?
> But on the other hand, if we allow the neutralisation of "e"
> and "a" in our normalised text in this word, we might just as
> well allow it elsewhere, too.
By the same token, if we admit the earlier OI -ae in "Nerae",
"cimbedae", "lŠechdachtae", we ought to accord "lae" the same
treatment, right? OK. We'll use -(a)e across the board, and
I will change previous instances of "laa".
BTW, both "laa" and "lae" are disyllabic, right, like modern
Scottish Gaelic "latha"? What do you think of Thurneysen's
suggestion (GOI ß284.3) that OI "lŠa/laa/lae" is a short form