> >> "Bîaid dino an muinemnach Macha. Bid moch a maton, 5) bid foda a
> >> nóin. Bid tôeb lethfás les 6), bis lidi 7) lethfúar, bid lassair 8)
> >> cumuscdai, bid cuma loiscfius dliged 7 indliged la dûiri 9) a
> >> chrâbuid 7 ar laged 10) a ecno." 11) "Is trôcaire Dê", ol Bricîn.
> It raises a virtually contradictory point in regard to the translation
> however, as I'm not sure if -emhnach on a textual level needs to carry
> the weight of "double". Would the date of the text preclude that
> being a straight up adjectival ending (analogous with the abstract
> ending -emnus)?
I find your suggestion ingenuous and, looking upon the text from that
point of view, I think it is possible that "-emnach" need not be more
than an adjectival ending. But as you pointed out, a number of
contrastive "doublings" ensue, so that, if I had to make a choice, my
balance would still tip in favour of understanding "muinemnach" as
"double-necked" (nevertheless giving a splendid word-play with the
> I notice "lidi"/"ligi" has dropped out of the edited text in a typo.
Yes, and I forgot to insert it in the final version of the edited
> The reading which I take for "leis" (uncovered, bare, protruding etc)
> is usually in a fairly final position. I am interested, therefore, by
> the comma but not au fait enough with what you're doing to know if
> this is a Meyer/ZCP thing or if it is in the MS(S).
I don't have a copy of the MSS, so I can't tell if there is any
period marking in there. But I suspect strongly that it is actually
> If there is solid basis for the comma, would yourself or David think
> that "bis", rather than being a relative form, may be corrupt, for
> another "bid"? Although shared by both MSS?
I had thought about that and, to tell the truth, I would be more
happy with a "bid" here than with a "bis" which interrrupts the flow
of the prophecy. But its presence in both MSS has kept me from
voicing doubt about its (original) reality.
> (It comes directly after
> another short monosyllable ending in -s.)
This may indeed be a good motivation for a scribal error.