> >> "ocus beir cúail condaid latt. At·táu-sa blíadain lláin
> >> oc[c]a aithigid co cúail chondaid formo muin cach dia tart
> >> éisi, ocus as·ruburt [is / as] i ngalur ro·bá-su.
> "occa" ?
Yes, "occa". Since Liz already made the right decision, I didn't comment on it.
> > Theoretically both "is" and "as" are possible. Since the MS
> > has "is" (IIRC), we can stick to it
> OK. The MS actually has "iss", which is relevant to the "ss"
> question below.
Could the double "ss" be due to a confusion of the scribe of "is i ngalur" and "is sí..."?
> I think the only place we have consistently written "ss" is
> in the frequent word "ass", which is very rarely written "as"
> in the MSS. And we have normalized to "leiss" throughout,
> except in "leis-sium". On the other hand we have "chois",
> "grés", "fris", "ais", "isin", "cosin" -- but then again we
> have "nessam" more than once, and "cossin" in paragraph 14!
I think I read somewhere (maybe in GOI) that single "s" is more consistently used after long vowels, e.g. "grés". But I
can't say if the evidence really bears this out.
> So far, we're doing a good job of being just as inconsistent
> as the scribes. Can we reasonably switch to "ss" in every
> instance of VsV or Vs#? Or can we switch to "s" everywhere,
> including "as"? If we demand complete consistency, I think
> we have to go with single "s" rather than "ss" everywhere.
I think I said it before, but I don't think that we should try to apply a single rule regarding "s" vs. "ss" across the board.
This would create something extremely artificial. What we perhaps could rather try is to be consistent in the spelling of
> > I strongly vote for normalising to "M[o/ó]rrígain".
> OK, and I vote for the short "o" option.
> >> íarum boin a maicc-sium céin
> >> [m]boí[e]-sium ina chotlud, conda·rodart in Donn Cúailnge
> >> tair hi Cúailngi.
> > I'd say: "in dubio pro manuscripto".
> "cein bui-sium", so "céin boí-sium", right?
Yes, unless somebody finds good arguments against it.
> > We cannot possibly leave "·tairthenn" in an idealised OIr. text.
> But didn't we retain MI verb forms in earlier paragraphs?
Yes, we did. Can't remember exactly where. But I think it was a form where it was exceedingly difficult to construct an
OIr. form. In this instance here it is not difficult.
> > Here I strongly vote for the emendation to class. OIr.
> > "dos·(n)-airret"
> OK. But is it "her" or "them" he overtook? Meyer says "them" and
> Carey says "her". Our choice on the (n).
Well, this must be another instance for a flip of our friend coin. :-) What we could do is write "dos·airret" which retains
the ambiguity. Although - for etymological reasons - at some very early stage "·n-" must have belonged to the 3rd sg
fem. and aspiration to the 3rd pl., the two of them became confused early on and there is, AFAIK, no consistency as to
the mutational effects of the two infixed pronouns.