>>> (a) Craoibh fhailme do fhâs
>>> (b) ô n-Athlamhan Aodh
>>> (c) sen nûa anonn a fhrémh
>>> (d) ûa do C[h]unn an craoibh
>> 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!
The problem with reading dative for nominative 'craoibh' in the final
line is that it spoils the rhyme. We need a broad final consonant. The
confusion of dative for nominative could explain the spelling in the
copying stage, but the poet must originally at least have intended the
original form with the broad 'bh'. (I suspect that the poem we have here
is the autograph copy - but there was presumably a drafting stage before
it got entered into the book.)
So, for the sake of rhyme I think we have to read 'an c[h]rao(i)bh' in
the final line. As you can see, I take your point about the lenition
after the article. The first word in the stanza we should just read as
>> Ceist: could the "do" in (d) actually be "di" in the MS?
> 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.
The letter 'o' was normally formed with two strokes. The first starts at
about 11 o'clock with a thick line (which would look like it had a serif
if the circle weren't completed) and goes around clockwise to about
6'oclock. Then the circle is usually completed with a second stroke
(going counter-clockwise). In the 'do' compendium, however, that second
stroke is missing.