On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:25:03 +0100, David Stifter scríbas:
>26. "Pîaid dano an tôebf*oda Tigi Telli re .xl. blîadna. Lînfaidh
>muilidiu 1) 7 sesrechai 7 echa 2) 7 lestrai 7 cuchtracha." "Is
>trôcairi Dîa in sin", ol Pricîn.
>1) E: muilli
>2) E: athai
Here’s what I got:
“Biaid dano in taebf*ota Tige Telli re cethorchait blíadnae. Línfaid
muilliu ocus sesracha ocus echa ocus lestrai ocus cuchtracha.” “Is
trócaire Dé in sin”, ol Bricín.
Then there will be the tall one of Teg Telle before (for?) forty
years. He will fill mills and barrels and horses and vessels and
kitchens.” “That is God’s mercy”, said Bricín.
We saw ‘tôebf*oda’ before in paragraph 11. Here’s what I wrote then: “I
thought 'tôebfodai' was a compound of 'taeb' (side) and 'fota' (long)
which is given in DIL T 16.1 and defined as an adjective "long-sided,
tall." In 16.2 there is an example of the word used as a
substantive "toebfota Temrach long-sided one of Tara."
I have been changing ‘an’ to ‘in’ all along. ‘An’ is the Modern
spelling of the singular article.
There are two possibilities in the onomasticon, which look like they
may refer to the same place.
1.tech taille; T. Tailli, in p. Durrow, King's Co., Ui.;T. Tailli maicc
Segeni, Cs., B. lvi.; v. T. Telle:
2.tech telli; Telle of, Ll. 352, Lb. 21;T. Telle nr Durrow, F., Fg., C.,
Ct.; i termann Durmaighe, Lis. 40 b; in Westm., Md., Fir. 714; Comgall of
T. Teille; nr Rahan, Zcp. iii. 33, but much nearer Durrow; Tihelly, nr and
in p. Durrow, King's Co., Fia., Mi., Cri.; in E. Meath, Fg. (it is nr it).
See number 24 for comments on ‘cethorchait.’ I thought ‘Lînfaidh’ was
the 3rd singular future of ‘línaid’ (fills) and I thought the ‘dh’
reflected the lateness of the text.
I thought ‘muilidiu/ muilli’ was the accusative plural of ‘muillend’
which has several spelling variations in DIL. It’s an o-stem masculine.
DIL M 185.1 says “Middle Irish np. Muille ...hence occasionally ns.
Muillend; np. Muilne.” If the nominative plural is ‘muille’ I’d expect an
accusative plural something like ‘muilliu’ which is close to source H.
‘Sesrachai’ was unclear. The best candidate I found was “sesra.. a
measure of capacity...reservoirs, vats, barrels?” (DIL S 197.38) I didn’t
see an accusative plural for ‘sesracha’ in the entry or a declensional
class, but I imagine that ‘sesracha’ could be an accusative plural of
this word if it were declined as a guttural.
I thought ‘echa’ was a variant spelling of the accusative plural
of ‘ech’ (horse.) This form is given as a variant in DIL E 27.23-26,
along with ‘eocho, eocha, echu’.
I suppose ‘athai’ in source E could be the accusative singular
of ‘aithe’ (“act of requital, requital, recompense, payment”) but I
couldn’t make any sense out of that.
The dictionary has a separate entry for ‘lestrae’ defined as “vessels
for holding liquids” which is given as a ia(bar) feminine noun. I would
expect an accusative plural of ‘lestrai’ from the paradigms.
The singular noun ‘lestar’ has a very similar meaning and is given as
an o-stem neuter (later masculine).
I thought ‘cuchtracha’ was the accusative plural of the guttural k-stem
feminine ‘cuchtair’ (DIL C 582.38). The dictionary says it is probably
from Latin ‘coctura’. My little Latin dictionary doesn’t have ‘coctura’
but it has ‘coquus’ and ‘coqua’ “a cook”.
I thought ‘ Is trôcairi Dîa in sin’ could either be ‘Is trócaire Dé in
sin’ (that is the mercy of God) or ‘Is trócar Día in sin’ ('that is a
merciful God' or maybe 'God is merciful then'). I’m not sure which one is
I am working on updating the translation. Liz Gabay