> >a) "Canas tuthcho?" or Ailill 7 Medb frie Neru, "ocus
> > cait hi rabaduis o duchuduis uainn?"
> >a1) ... tudhchais? ... araba oduchad(ais)uaindi?
> "Can as tuidched?" ol Ailill ocus Medb fri Nerae, "ocus cáit hi raba
> ó dechud uainn?"
Basically very good. But I would write "hi·rraba" since it is a prepositional relative clause "in which thou hast been" dependent on "cáit". "as tuidched" and "ó dechud" are a
bit more difficult and need closer inspection:
> The big problems for me in this sentence were the verbs.
> tuthcho" is quoted in DIL D 379.50, where it is identified as a 2d
> singular perfect form of 'do·tét'. I made a guess that the prototonic
> form of the verbs would be needed in all three places in this
> sentence, since all three verbs were immediately preceded by
No, this is not correct with the last verb. "ó" is in this case not the preposition "ó" "from", but the etymologically and formally identical temporal conjunction "since, after". It
is followed by the deuterotonic form of compound verbs (DIL O 78.24), and indeed "duchuduis" and "duchad(ais)" are deuterotonic verbal forms, albeit MidIr. ones. This can
be deduced from the shape of the first preverb "du", a variant of pretonic "do" < *di/de. If the verb were prototonic, this preverb ought to appear as "·de(chud)" with "e". The
OIr. 2nd sg. augmented preterite of "téit" is "do·cuad". The lenition seen on "·chuduis" must be a MidIr. feature, demonstrating the analogical spread of leniting relative
clauses (which get more and more frequent in the course of Irish language history). I would write: "ó do·cuad".
> The endings with 'is' in
> 'rabaduis/duchuduis/tudhchais/duchad(ais)' look like Modern Irish 2d
> singular past endings.
As for "can as tuidched", I am not absolutely sure if we could leave it like you wrote it, or if "as" shouldn't rather be treated as a relative preposition "out of which". In favour
of this idea I may cite Laws iv 168.1 (DIL C 65.29) "canas a ngabar" which must be read as "can asa·ngabar" (= relative preposition "as" + relative particle "a" followed by
nasalisation). Consequently we would have to write: "can as[a]·tuidched". The "a" which I put between brackets must not necessarily be written, because relative "a"
between "s" and a stop, especially a dental, could be dropped (we discussed this phenomenon some time ago on this list).
> My guess is we'll finish this around October 1st. Anybody want to
> start a betting pool?
Your much too pessimistic! I bet on the much earlier middle of July.