>> "Do·dechuid éim," ol in ben, "a Cúailngi[u] íarna [dáir/
>> táin] [tair] don Dunn Chúailng[i/e].
> DIL offers evidence both for a masculine/neuter and feminine inflection
> of Cúailnge. MAybe we can approach the problem from a different angle:
> What is more frequent, placenames in "-e" that are masculine/neuter
> or feminine?
I'll look around and canvass the placename glossaries attached to
various edited texts.
>> Eirc ass trá [a/i/in] fecht-so,"
> We had some pieces of evidence that neuter "a fecht-so" was possible
> in OIr. So I think we should take "a".
Tá go maith.
>> a[i]r it airslaicthi síde hÉrenn do grés imm s*amain."
> DIL writes that "air" is frequent only in the Milan Glosses,
> "ar" predominates elsewhere.
"Ar" it is, then.
>> 15. Do·tét Nerae dochum a muintire. "Can as[a]·tuidched?"
>> ol Ailill ocus Medb fri Nerae, "ocus c[']áit hi·rraba ó
>> [do·cuad / do·cood / do·coad] úainn?"
> The "-a·" in "as[a]·tuideched" is not necessary, an "a" in that
> position could be dropped in OIr. So we may retain the MS reading
> "cáit" "where" is traditionally written without the apostrophe.
> We might follow the tradition here, unless we want to introduce
> a new spelling into normalised OIr., that is more explicit about
> the etymology of the interrogative pronoun.
Let's stick with "cáit".
> The oldest form of "thou hast gone" was "do·coad" (identical with
> the 1st sg.) or "do·coad". I'd chose the former, because it is more
> in line with the class. OIr. conventions of rendering schwa.
Tá go maith.
>> "co sétaib ocus moínib móraib, co n-imb[i]ud bruitt
> The variant with the palatalised "mb" is the one which is found
> in the glosses.
>> éim," ol Ailill. Biit and trá co cenn mblíadnae.
> A short glance into DIL tells me that forms with "cc" prevail where
> it stands at the end of the word, whereas single "c" is more often
> found when it is in the interior of the word.
That seems to go along with a general scribal reluctance to encumber
a written word with "too many" consonants. The quotation you gave
us the other day from GOI seems to bear this out:
§136. ...Normally scribes refrain from doubling both consonants in
an unlenited group, as in cosscc "correction" Wb. 9a23; instead they,
they geminate now the one or the other. Examples: béssti "beasts"
Wb. 31b21; dussceulat (du·scéulat) "they experience" Ml. 83b8...
> Nevertheless we could chose "cc", simply for the reason that the
> headword in DIL is "ro·icc" with double c, and we could try to keep
> the root of the verb consistent throughout the paradigm.
That would make it a bit easier for the student, so let's go with
>> Téit Nerae íarum tr[e/i]s[s] laa ría Samuin
>> co·tucc a [h-]immirgi asint s*íd.
> Later, esp. in the narrative literature, we find "tres(s)". Since
> our text is narrative, we might chose "tres(s)", even if for no other
> reason than to take the easier form.
> As for "a [h-]immirgi", is there anything supporting the reading of
> "a" as the feminine possessive pronoun? If not, we should just emend
> the "h" away.
Meyer chose to read it as feminine: "and brought her drove out of
the sid". Carey did the opposite: "he brought his cattle out of
the 'síd'". In paragraph 12, Nerae's wife tells him "Ingair trá
do bú indiu." ("Now tend *your* cattle today.") Here she seems
to acknowledge that he is the owner. But in the next breath she
tells him that she has given one of the cows to their son, which
suggests that she also owned them. I would tend to favor "his drove"
above, since "his" usually trumps "her" in cases of uncertainty,
esp. for a medieval tale. But on the other hand, this is all
taking place in the síd, where different rules may apply. What
do you think, Liz? Others?
>> ainm a maicc-sium, ad·aig a tri géimenn[a] ass[,] in tairbín[e/iu].
> I think it should be "ad·aig ... ass in tairbíne". DIL A 29.71 has a
> few other phrases which feature "ad·aig" + adverbial "ass" in the
> meaning "giving forth a shout". As for the ending of "géimenn[a]", we
> could emend
> away the "-a", since we are normalising to idealised OIr.
If we take "in tairbíne" to be the subject which has been moved
to the end of the sentence ("he gave forth three shouts, the bull-
calf"), would it make sense to punctuate with a comma, or even
introduce an ".i." at that point?
ad·aig a tri géimenn ass, in tairbíne.
ad·aig a tri géimenn ass .i. in tairbíne.