> >53. "Bîaid dano in cenn 24) óir forsin colomuin îarndai i Clûain
> >Iraird .i. gnûis luchardæ 25) for colomain cestaig 26) fri re .ix.
> >mblîadna fo trî 27) co n-ecno, 28) co n-óighi, co rîagail." "Is
> >trôcor Dîa", ol Bricîn.
> >24) E: int en no in cend
> >25) E: lucharda
> I thought ‘îarndai’ was the adjective ‘íarndae’ which means “iron, made
> of iron” and could have a masculine accusative form of ‘íarndae’
> according to the paradigms on Strachan p. 18.
After the feminine dative/accusative "colomuin" we will need the
appropriate ending on the adjective as well, i.e. "íarndai".
> I thought ‘cestaig’ was the adjective “cestach..troublous”, but I
> couldn’t explain the ‘–aig’ ending. Looking at the paradigms on
> Thurneysen p. 223, it seemed to me that the accusative and dative
> singular of this adjective would be ‘cestach’.
Yes, but since "colomain" is again a fem. dat./acc., the adjective
will also need a slender ending. "cestaig" is perfectly correct. The
question is only if we read a dative or accusative after "for". The
non-lenition both in the first occurrence of "forsin colomuin" and in
"for colomuin cestaig" rather points in the direction of accusative,
although lenition may simply not be indicated. Anyway, I'd go with
the MS reading.
> ‘Fri re’ breaks the pattern and I couldn’t explain the use of two
> prepositions in a row here. But ‘fri’ could be the preposition (“in
> expressions of time..to denote period during which something continues
> or takes place...fixing a limit within which something takes place..of
> point of time” (DIL F 415.17. It takes the accusative. Then ‘re’
> could be the accusative of ‘ré’ (“a space, interval..a period, lapse
> of time”).
Unless we don't assume a mistake by the author/scribe, I think this
is the best suggestion.
> I see several examples of ‘ré’ written without the fada in
> the dictionary.
The fada is never consistently used in Irish MSS.
> I thought ‘co n-óighi’ was difficult to normalize. I thought it was
> probably the abstract use of ‘óg’ as a substantive.
No, actually "ógae, later: óige" is the abstract noun of "óg"; this
is what we have here.