> The examples s.v. "airdech" in DIL don't show any such confusion,
> however, but rather that the word was solidly â-stem.
Quite so. However, we know at least one scribe thought the definite
article 'ind' went with it. So there is the possibility he was confused
>We can get virtually the same meaning you suggest, however, if we
> the two later scribes/redactors in treating "ind" as "in":
> "brod ane in airidig" and "brod in airigid" -- and read "broth"
> as "bruth" as you do: "is bruth in airdig sin" = that is a
> boiling heat in a cup. Or we can go one letter further, as I
> originally suggested, and read it as "is bruith in airdig sin"
> = that is a boiling/seething in a cup.
This would certainly be the safest way to go. However, I don't see the
need to change 'bruth' to 'bruith'. According to DIL 'bruth' can also be
used as a substantive to mean a 'thing which has been heated' (such as a
mass of hot metal or a measure of brewed ale). I know we say we 'boil
the kettle', but actually it is the contents of the kettle which boil.
'Bruth' here could apply to the boiling contents. It is a boiling thing
which is in the vessel - and that is why it is spilling over.
(I note also that 'airdech' might not necessarily mean simply 'cup'. DIL
gives it more generally as 'vessel' as well.)
>> The phrase would mean that things have reached an agitated climax and
>> something is about to happen. (We have the same phrase in English.)
> Well, we have "tempest in a teacup", as I mentioned before, but
> that is dismissive rather than ominous, I think. Did you have
> another phrase in mind?
Yes. "The pot is on the boil"! Maybe I just dreamt this as a phrase? To
me it means 'things are about to happen'. Cf the expressions 'things are
bubbling along nicely' and 'he's gone off the boil'. We also have the
word 'boil-over' to describe a sudden disturbance in sporting normality.
'The Gazan pot is about to boil over'.