Neil McLeod wrote:
> And with this in mind, I don't think 'baicc' here can't be 'hooks'
How is a double negatuion in English resolved? So you think that
"baicc" can't be "hooks", or you think that they must be "hooks"?
Well, going by what you write further down, it must be the first
> Now, even a badly-ill Tadc could probably dispatch Fingin if he was
> under attack. And that is why Fingin first immobilises Tadc with
> 'baicc'. I think that these must be 'restraints'. Note that the
> 'baicc' are applied 'taris' (over him - Tadc) not 'tairsiu' (over them
> - the wounds).
That sounds reasonable.