> I must admit that although "weakening of wisdom" or "tempering of
> acuity" rings a bell with me in the context of ires, cretem, crábud
> etc., I have no hope of remembering more clearly (anyone out there
> know?) and I fail to get a completely satisfactory reading of the
> paragraph as a whole with that interpretation.
> So could you tell me how you are reading the part from the
> "combination flame" onwards?
I would translate it: "he will equally burn right and un-right
through the severiyt of his devotion and on account of his small
> I take it it is this flame which does
> the loscud of dliged and indliged, but do you read it as burning
> "dliged" "le duiri a crabaid" and "indliged" separately "ar laged a
> ecno", or do you take it as burning both "dliged 7 indliged" by the
> ardour of ... piety and dearth of ... wisdom? (I'll get to those ...
> It occurs to me also that the two differing prepositions "le" and "ar"
"ar" is apparently the preposition normally used with both "lagat"
and "lacad" (DIL L 22.43 and one example in L15.15).
> could do with a bit more teasing out and that we need not presume "a"
> (... above) to refer in both cases to the person discussed in the
> paragraph (or indeed the flame) - "indliged" may be burned by the
> flame on the basis of how little ecna indliged itself contains "ar
> laged a ecno".
That "a" cannot refer to "lassair" emerges from the lenition in "a
chrábuid". Since "lassair" is feminine, its possessive pronoun
shouldn't lenite. As to your main suggestion, I can't rule it out on
grammatical grounds. But we shouldn't forget that BaBr contains
prophecies about various church men and their individual properties,
their strengths and weaknesses. These men are the focus of the
paragraphs, so a priori pronouns in the paragraphs should assumed to
refer to the focus of the discourse.
> Well, now that I've given a possible reading with "laiget" which isn't
> even uncomplimentary, perhaps your challenge should be to propose one
> for "lagad"!! :-)
Well, a rather simple one: Our "muinemnach" will be a "lassair
cummascdae", i.e "a mixed flame". His actions will be both beneficial
and maleficial, but eventually we will burn, i.e. utterly confuse
("cumascdae") right ("dliged") and wrong ("indliged"), on the one
hand because he will overdo his devotion, on the other hand because
will be finally loose his mind.
> The reading requires "dliged" to be associated with "le duiri a
> craibaid" and "indliged" separately with " ar laged a ecno",
I do not think so at all. "dliged 7 indliged" "right and wrong" form
a contrastive pair which, taken as a unit, refers to the totallity of
human actions. The two terms cannot be separated. Something similar
can be said about "dúire a chrabuid" "severity of his devotion" and
"laiget/lacad a ecnai" "smallness/weakening of his wisdom": One has
positive connotations, the other one negative, but together they
again represent a totallity, two side of a coin. Actually, I think,
"weakening of wisdom" and "smallness of wisdom" hardly mean very