>>> (a) Craoibh fhailme do fhâs
>>> (b) ô n-Athlamhan Aodh
>>> (c) sen nûa anonn a fhrémh
>>> (d) ûa do C[h]unn an craoibh
>>> A branch of a palm tree grew
>>> from Aedh Athlamhan,
>>> from the ancient up to the new, [he was] its root;
>>> [Cormac] the grandson to Conn [was] the branch.
> I don't think the opening word could be a plural anyway; that would be
> 'craobha' in both Old Irish and Modern Irish wouldn't it? The word seems
> to have been consistently feminine. Or do you have examples of it as a
> masc. o-stem?
Oh, you're right! "Craobhacha", or "craobhan" in Scottish Gaelic
(where "craobh" means not branch but "tree", by the way).
> A further advantage in reading a feminine singular noun here at the
> beginning of the stanza is that it explains the lenition of the
> following 'f'.
I think that's what got me thinking it was a plural form. Plurals
with slender endings also lenite.
> Perhaps we should print the opening word as 'craobh' and print the
> closing word as 'crao(i)bh'?
Dunno. I don't immediately see that it could be anything but
nominative in either location. Which brings up the question
of lenition following the article. Should the second instance
be normalized to "an chrao(i)bh" ? There is a long tradition
of fem. acc./datives forms usurping the nominative, so maybe
that's why the poet wrote "craoibh" -- if in fact he did.
Too bad he didn't use better ink!
>> Ceist: could the "do" in (d) actually be "di" in the MS?
> Both of the examples of 'do' in this stanza look like the 'do'
> compendium to me (the first with a horizontal 'ascender', the second
> with a vertical one). The final stroke is probably too brief and too
> rounded at the bottom to be an 'i'.
I asked because the stroke that might have gone back round to
the left to form the 'o' looked instead as if it ended in a
serif at the top. I was just wondering if there were any
precedent for such a nota.
> (There is a table of 369 'nuid' at page 572 of Irisleabhar na Gaedhilge
> for Meitheamh 1904. The 'do' compendium is no. 107.)