> No, this is just part of the name "midlúachra" which parses as "mid" +
> I accidently jotted down the word 'úachrae' again after the place
> name. I cry Scribal erroer...
Wellm, it's just a good example how easily scribal errors can creep
> > 36. "Bîaid dano in bairend becc a Brî Leth 3) lînfus rîagail Rômân
> > 4) re secht fichet 5) mblîadna, imalle congêba 7 conscêra." "Is
> > trôcor", ol Bricîn.
> I thought 'bairend becc' might be a kenning similar to 'bairenn-balc'
> - 'fierce and stout' from LL 86 a 14 and 'bairenn-chorp' -
> 'stout-bodied' from LU 88 b 35 and 'bairenn-lecc/bairenn-lia' -
> 'battle-stone' from the Táin in reference to Fer Diad. [These examples
> from DIL and Meyer]
Since "bairend becc" seem to be written as two words, we simply have
a sequence of two adjectives here. If they were written together as
"bairenbecc", we might speak of them as a dvandva-compound like
> I thought 'línfus' was the 3rd singular future relative of 'línaid',
> though I would have expected 'linfas/linfes'.
A schwa between non-palatalised consonants may be written by "u",
especially in non-OIr. MSS.
> 'congéba' and 'conscéra' are the 3rd singular long 'e' futures of
> 'con-gaib' and 'con-scara', I think. I thought there might be an
> object of these verbs as infixed class 'B' pronoun, but then we would
> have 'cot-géba' etc. [I think]
> So it seems as if he will just be
> setting 'em up and knocking 'em down, as it were.
In the poetic language which the author uses, he simply omitted the
pronouns: "he will set up and he will knock down".