On 19/4/05 05:59, "Liz Gabay" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:24:38 +0200, David Stifter scríbas:
>> "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.
>> 5) E: matan
>> 6) E: leis
>> 7) E: ligi
>> 8) E: lasur
>> 9) E: duire
>> 10) E: laged
>> 11) E: ecna
> “Biaid dano in muinemnach Macha. Bid moch a matan, bid fota a nóin. Bid
> taeb lethfás leis, bes lethfúar, bid lasar chummascdae, bid cummae
> loiscfes dliged ocus indliged la dúiri a chrábuid ocus ar lagad a
> ecna.” “Is trócaire Dé”, ol Bricín.
> “Then there will be the double-backed one of Macha. His matins will be
> early, his nones will be long. A bare side will be his (he will own a
> bare side), which will be a half-cold lying down. He will be a jumbled
> flame, he will be a destroying which will burn (both) reason and unreason
> because of the hardness of his piety and the weakness of his wisdom.” “It
> is God’s mercy,” said Bricín.
> Dil has an entry “muinemnach? As epithet of a cleric or bishop; an m.
> Macha....Baile Bricin” but doesn’t provide any ideas about what the word
> means. Perhaps it is a compound of ‘muin’ (“the upper part of the back
> between the shoulders and the neck”) and ‘emnach’ (an adjective
> meaning “pertaining to a pair; double”.
The choice of the adjectival ending "-emhnach" for "Muin" would not seem to
be accidental, coming immediately before "Macha" (the person in question is
doubtless an ecclesiastic in Ard Macha).
The writer, having introduced the sense of doubling, proceeds to use pairs
and opposites - matan and nóin; leth and leth; dliged and indliged; dúire -
crábud and laged - ecna throughout the paragraph. The lasair which is a
cumasc also denotes a combination.
-emnach therefore could be layered (appropriately enough!) - one referring
to Eamhain/Ard Macha and another to the pairs and opposites in the text to
I for one am willing to credit the writer with this ability and also this
approach to his composition.
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 couldn’t make sense of ‘lidi’ but source E’s ‘ligi’ could be a
> variant of ‘lige’ (“verbal noun of ‘laigid’ act of lying down, reclining,
> sleeping....bed, couch...figurative grave, flat burial space”).
> ‘lethfúar’ looks like a compound of ‘leth’ (half, side) and ‘fúar’ (an
> adjective meaning ‘cold’).
I notice "lidi"/"ligi" has dropped out of the edited text in a typo. I
would also favour your suggested reading from E.
I have a few innocent questions about "bis" which has been (silently)
restored to "bes".
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).
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? (It comes directly after another short
monosyllable ending in -s.)
> The closest thing I could find to ‘cumuscdai’ is the
> adjective “cummascdae, -thae...participle of con-mesca and/or derivative
> of cummasc. Mixed, mingled, confused; compounded.
Cummascdae might, given the general tone of the paragraph, be translated
rather more "positively" than with "jumbled", especially if the constituents
of the cumasc may seem to be crábud and ecna.