Elliott Lash wrote:
>> You have in fact transcribed the next two stanzas ...
> Ah, I was looking out for a full paragraph symbol. I see in the text
> after Cormac there are two dots. I guess this is meant to be the
> 'paragraph' symbol.
Pretty much so. The two dots indicate the end of the stanza. The
'paragraph symbol' (§) is used only when a paragraph ends in the middle
of a line, to alert the reader to the fact that what follows on that
same line isn't to be read until the line below has been completed. The
word 'Cormac' occurs so close to the end of the line that there isn't
any need for that 'space saving' device on this occasion. (The '§' means
'go down and then come back up again" - which might explain its S-like
>> Note also that there is a mark of lenition over the 'g' of 'sluag'
>> (so 'sluagh').
> I initially took that as a mark over the 'a' that extended rightwards
> over 'g' - like a fada I guess.
Yes, it is hard to tell where that line stops, but it looks like there
is a lenition mark at the end of it to me. (By the way, the line itself
is just an extended upstroke forming the first line of the letter 'a').
> How come you didn't transcribe the letters: i-d (i + suspension + d)
> right underneath 'airdrig'? Or have you and I haven't paid attention
It is an n-stroke, not a suspension stroke: 'ind'. I did mention it in
my post: "The word 'airdrig', then, comes immediately after 'n-Eamna
ind' (at the end of the line below it)."
So in BB line (b) is:
re sluagh nEamna ind airdrig
>> Do chosnom Temra cen tairbeirt
>> re sluag n-Emna n-airdric
>> & nirb ingarga i n-airbeirt
>> iar n-indarba Cormaic.
> This looks fine to me - but why does Genitive Singular of 'Emain'
It doesn't. So the next question is, what is causing the nasalisation?
Does 'airdirc' describe accusative 'sluag' rather than genitive 'Emain'?
But I don't think it would have nasalisation then either (though I am
not 100% sure). And note the form in BB. Do we in fact have an elided
preposition 'i'? Or does the 'n' in fact derive from a definite article?
It is a bit of problem. :) Maybe someone else will have a solution.
> Okay, here's the translation:
> To contend for Tara without subduing
'Subduing' sounds transitive in the English, which would be odd given
the idea was to subdue the Ulstermen. I think the senseis intransitive
here 'without subsiding, without letting up, without flagging, without
stint' - something like that.
> Against the host of famous Emain (I couldn't find the spelling 'ordraic')
Under 'airdirc' in DIL you will find the forms 'ordhruic', 'orrdhairc',
> and it was not unfierce in valour
Perhaps rather 'and he (= Tadc) was not unfierce'. I am glad you went
with 'unfierce'. I went the same way; as perhaps did Todd in another
context (DIL I 257.29) - though DIL seems to disbelieve it and go for
‘very fierce’, taking the prefix as the intensive (DIL I 199.22) rather
than the negative (DIL I 199.20)
> after Cormac's expulsion.
Yes, I don't have anything else to add to your translation (which may
only meant that we have made the same mistakes!). I am still worried
about the 'ind' (BB) / 'n' (Lec) in line (b), though.