On 20/4/05 11:09, "David Stifter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
> following "Macha").
O, I agree that the "doubled" level is to be understood there, it is merely
a question of whether it is "hidden" beneath a "normal adjective" on the
It really only becomes a question at the translation stage when a choice
might be made about how to translate text, subtext and wordplays into a
I'm not sure how you are using "ingenuous" there but in case it might then
be disingenuous of me to hide it, I personally think this writer could be
self-reverential enough to even have "emhnach" self-referentially for his
own "double meaning" (which then becomes three/fourfold!).
And in case it might mean artless, I could also see him (in a paragraph
which I read as referring to practices of penitence or castigation)
composing "muinemhnach" to mean the highly developed trapezius muscles or
latissimi dorsi on either side of the upper back of one reknowned for
performing the cross-vigil over long periods of time.
Now obviously I wouldn't take all of those to the OI bank with equal
confidence. Isn't this the trouble with eamhnú - once it goes past one
doubling, its exponential!
The above and the question of translating text and subtext reminds me of a
"maxim" coined by a contemporary of mine as a student - make it an "ábhar
fonóta" in case it might become an "ábhar fonóide". Seems ripe rhyming and
metrical material for forming into a quatrain Dennis?