> >> I don't know where the 'om' in (a1) came from. I can't make it fit
> >> in.
> om = ám (mod. ámh) ???
DIL O 141.4 has "omm" "indeed, verily". Maybe that's it?
> > ... the "d" in this case is not the same "d" that is added to
> > "má" before indicative verbs, but it is - I think - the infixed
> > neuter pronoun. I'd write "má nod·f*il ní..." But also note that the
> > possessor is not expressed in this sentence. Ailill doesn't actually
> > say "if YOU have anything".
> Why couldn't this "manotdfuil/manadfuil" represent "má not·f*il"
> with the infixed 2nd sg. pronoun? The base form of the idiom is
> "no-t·tá = to-you is = you have". But ·fil rather than ·tá is
> the form of the substantive verb that normally follows "má" in OI (at
> least according to DIL M 2.49, if I read it correctly).
Possible... Although, what DIL cites there, strictly speaking only applies to the use of "fil" for "at·tá" in the meaning "to
be present, to be in a state". If I haven't overlooked anything, none of the examples cited there contain possessive
constructions. The question is, which rule prevails: The one that "·fil" is used for "(at)·tá" in the 3rd sg. after "má", or the
other one that "·fil" may not be used with datival infixed pronouns? It could well be that the author of EN was uncertain
himself and confused the two constructions. So this still leaves both possibilities open:
má nod·f*il ní "if there is anything"
má not·f*il ní "if thou hast anything"
BTW, the spelling "manadfuil" in a1) doesn't tell us anything, but it is at least remarkable that a) has "manotdfuil". A
combination "td" doesn't normally occur, and that we have it here may indicate that the scribe encountered somehting
in his exemplar which he couldn't make sense of and then "corrected" it in some way he saw fit. But what it tells us
about the exemplar, I don't know :-)