Elliot & Liz wrote:
> >22. "Bîaid dono an clothamrae 20) Clûana Eoís 21) re .lxxx. blîadna.
> >Línfaid Machai mórmâinib. Sûstfaid slighiudai 22) Êrenn graigip sceo
> >cairptib [23)], fordoeblai chaingnib 7 cânib." "Is trôcaire môr", ol
> >23) E: charbtib [this note is only found in the footnote, not in the
> >text; another indication that Meyer indeed made a few plunders]
> David, do you really mean "plunders" (something he stole from
> someone else) or "blunders" (errors) ?
Ah yes, of course :-) Since my mothertongue doesn't make any distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants, such "blunders" can sometimes result...
> "Biaid dano in clothamrae Clúana Eoís
We should write "Éois". The final "i" is only orthographically indicating palatalisation and therefore cannot bear a fada.
> I thought 'clothamrae' was a kenning for a person, as in the other
> paragraphs, so I translated it 'one of marvelous fame.'
Yes. BaBr abounds in what you call "kennings" here, but what in grammatical jargon are usually called possessive adjectival compounds or bahuvrihis. These typically
have the structure "X(noun)-Y(adjective)" (e.g. "clothamrae": X = "fame", Y = "marvelous"; "clúimderg": X = "hair, fur", Y = "red") and are translated as "having X in a Y-
quality" = "having Y X" or "being Y-X-ed".
> '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.' Also, the dative doesn't nasalize
> a following word so I left the beginning of 'blîadna' alone.
You did the right thing, but we should take note that the author or scribe of our text was not always very consistent grammatically. For example, we have a number of
cases where "mblíadna" is nasalised even after the dat. pl. "fichtib". All this indicates that the author/scribe of the text himself was rather unsure when to apply nasalisation.
> change the ending to match the genitive plural in Strachan's paradigms
> p. 7, but I'm not sure that's correct.
It is, but I have began to wonder whether there is any use in our practice to introduce correct OIr. endings into the words of BaBr. The text is thoroughly MidIr where all end
vowels would have collapsed into schwa. Maybe in the end it would be more consistent with the text to normalise all end vowels to schwa instead to the OIr. system. But
since we started with the latter and have been doing so with some consequence so far, we better continue with it.
> Messe: But look at DIL M 12.25, which says "ads (my note: accusative
> dative singular) ro bennach P...in Machai...don Machai". Since I
> thought Machai was the direct object of 'Línfaid' here, I didn't
> change it.
This is again a matter of whether normalising to OIr. or MidIr.
> I also noticed a preposition missing in front of
> 'mórmâinib'. The entry for 'línaid' says "with prep. 'di' fills
> with" (DIL L 157.69). That made sense here so I inserted the
> preposition 'di.'
This is basically correct from a prose point of view, but we have an example of poetic diction here where prepositions before datives can always be left away.
> Messe: I agree that 'sligeda' is a likely spelling of the accusative
> dental-stem plural of 'slige' and I did see the form in DIL S 272.78.
> Unfortunately, it's unclear what case is intended in the phrase the
> dictionary gives us "secht ndoruis isin bruidin 7 secht sligeda
> trethe" (my translation: seven doors in the hostel and seven ways
> through it".
In this quote from SMMD "sligeda" is nom. pl.
> Again, I thought a preposition was missing in front of 'graigip' and
> here I thought it might be 'ar' which has a dative meaning of "by
> virtue of, by means of, through" (DIL A 368.19).
Again the same as above. The preposition has been deliberately omitted.
> 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's
> the future of <for·ail> "nourish",
That's correct. Note that formally "for·ebla" could also be the future of "for·aig".
> with an infixed pronoun: "he will nourish it", presumably referring to "Ireland".
The infixed pronoun is either 3rd sg. fem. (e.g. Ireland), or 3rd. pl. Since the talk was about the plural "sligeda" in the immediately preceding passage, I think it's better to
read the infixed pronoun as plural, too. Or,, as a feminine pronoun, it could refer to "Macha".
> Again, I thought a preposition was missing in front of 'chaingnib'
> and I thought 'ar' would fit here. It also would explain the lenition
> on 'chaingnib.'
See above. The lenition on "chaingnib" is remarkable, I have no explanation for it.