> >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.
> 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.
All correct. But to add a few things: The OIr. form of the word is
"muilenn" with a single "l". When a syllable was added for the
ending, e.g. dat. pl. "-(a)ib", the middle syllable had to be
syncopated, i.e. "muilnib". OIr. "ln" could then be assimilated to
"ll", i.e. "muillib". From such forms, the double "ll" could be
introduced into other parts of the paradigm as well. Now it's
interesting that we have an acc. pl. with double "ll" in E, i.e.
"muilli". H, however, has "muilidi" which apparently has an
analogical dental inflection in the plural. This is a not uncommon
phenomenon in MidIr. For our normalisation we could either choose a
more OIr. looking acc. pl. "muilliu" (going with E), or a MidIr. pl.
"muilidi" (unclear about how to properly normalise the final vowel),
going with 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.
Yes, that must be it. Again, we have here an example of the spread of
a consonant stem plural inflection in MidIr. This time, it is a
> 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.
I think Dennis's suggestion "áthai" "drying-kilns" makes far the best
> 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).
Actually, we can't possibly distinguish between the two here because
of the confusion of final unstressed vowels. "lestar" would have an
acc. pl. "lestra", "lestrae" would "lestrai". Both could be spelt
"lestrai" in a MidIr. text. Just because the attested form "lestrai"
is identical to the expected OIr. acc. pl. of "lestrae", let's assume
we have the feminine noun here.
> 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”.
Latin "coctura" is a verbal noun meaning "cooking, heating, boiling".
The k-steminflection is again a MidIr. development.
> 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 better.
You made the right choice.