On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:02:23 +0800, Neil McLeod scríbas:
>sirtt rigH CONnACHT ar cul rigRAd nad fRIthcomartt
>fRI seancHUS crich fRI fasACH fir fRI fiscHomarc
The copious alliteration in this passage is obvious.
I tried to impose dictionary spellings. It was difficult to
literally translate these lines.
Sert rígh Connacht ar cúl rígrad nad frithchomart
fri senchus crích fri fásach fír fri fischomarc.
He assigned the King of Connacht behind families of kings that did not
offend against (the) tradition of territories, against a true maxim,
against a signal cried out in battle.
I thought 'sirtt' was 3rd singular preterite of 'sernaid' ("arrays,
disposes, ranges, orders, composes, conceives, ordains, prescribes,
appoints, propounds...intransitive stands arrayed, disposes itself") See
DIL S 193.35. 'Rig' should be either accusative/genitive/dative singular
or nominative/genitive plural or a dual form. I thought it was singular
because the King of Leinster and Munster were singular in the previous
lines. That is why I put it into the accusative in the translation. But
it could also be nominative plural, in which case I would translate it
something like "the Kings of Connacht were assigned behind..."
I suspect that 'Connacht' is strictly speaking a genitive plural
literally 'the people of Connacht, the Connachtmen'.
'ar cúl' is a common phrase in Modern Irish and see DIL C 611.24 where
it translates "at the back of, behind". I expect it to be followed by the
genitive case. 'Rígrad' is an a stem feminine translating as "kings,
chiefs, princes...also a line (family) of kings". I thought it was in the
genitive plural here.
'nad' could either be 3rd singular indicative negative relative of the
copula, or a negative verbal particle. Because 'fRIthcomartt' looks like
a verb, I thought it was the latter.
I found "nad-frith-chom-art 'who has not offended' Milan" on page 514
(b) of GOI under the discussion of the preposition "frith, against." I
could not think of a better way to translate it.
I thought the verb was 'comart' which looks like a 3rd singular t-
preterite of 'con-oirg' ("strikes together, smites, crushes, kills"). See
DIL C 454.86 and 455.2 for what looks like examples of this preterite
form. 'Comart' is also given as the verbal noun of con-oirg.
I have to leave for work and will post the rest of the commentary late
this afternoon. Corrections and comments are welcome. Liz Gabay