> <<Elliott: ré .ixxx. mblíadna>>
> Messe: I think you made a typo when you copied the Roman numeral,
> Elliott. It's .lxxx. (80) in David's original post. We have been
> writing these numerals out, so I used 'ochtmogait' (as in
> paragraph 10),
> which I thought was the dative singular of the dental stem ochtmoga.
> 'Re' (which I left unchanged as it's apparently a common form
> of the
> preposition) takes the dative case (DIL R 21.6-7) and causes
> eclipsis so I
> prefixed 'n-' to 'ochtmogait.'
Ah, yes I did make a mistake with the numeral. And I was using a later
form of the preposition, which does take a fada. I suppose <re> is better.
> Elliott: << Línfaid Macha mórmaínib.
> 4) Macha: I guess a shortening of a place name of the verb X Macha
> (Emain Macha?).
> I changed <Machai> to <Macha> since, in DIL there is no such
> <Machai>but Macha is
> noted as a place name, meaning "field", etc.
> 5) mórmaínib: dative plural of <mórmaín> a compound of <mór>
> "great" and
> <maín> "gift, benefit">>
> Messe: But look at DIL M 12.25, which says "ads (my note: accusative
> dative singular) ro bennach P...in Machai...don Machai".
I didn't look hard enough obviously, I guess Machai stays :)
> Elliott: <<Forda·ebla chaingnib 7 cáinib
> forda·ebla: this was a little tough to find, but, I
> happened upon
> which referred me to <for·ail> which quoted this sentence.
> It'sthe future
> of <for·ail> "nourish", with an infixed pronoun: "he will
> presumably referring to "Ireland".>>
> Messe: The char
acter in the middle of 'Forda·ebla' comes
> out as
> gibberish when I viewed the archive.
> Here's the entry from DIL F 305.82. It's right below the other
> questionable entry for '?foraigsi' which we looked at earlier.
Oops, it's a raised dot, my raised dots get murdered sometimes, I came to the
same conclusion as you, it's a form of <for-ail> with an infixed pronoun.
Thanks for looking at my contribution and fixing it up a bit! :)