Neil McLeod wrote:
> There seem to be some peculiar forms here. I can't get the case
> forms of in 'rois', 'fedaig' and 'debaig' to make sense without
> assuming something irregular is going on. But I am hoping someone
> can explain them.
I think I have a solution. In the second line I think we should delete
the second 'r' and read:
Reading the verb as 3rd pl. imperfect subjunctive solves the problem of
the palatal endings in 'rois' and 'fedaig' (by removing the former and
allowing the latter to be the plural subject), as well as forming a
tighter one-word rhyme with 'Argetrois' in line (a). (The 'r' has
presumably crept into line b through imitation of 'Argetrois', but there
is no need for it - the rhyme can have just the 't' of the consonant
> Elliott Lash wrote:
>> robo du dothebaig
> As each line must end in a disyllable, the last 'word' has to be split
> up: 'do debaig'.
I think rather that this should be read as a compound 'do-debaig' (of
bad-conflict'). Cf Lec:
>> robo du ruideabaig
> Again the last word should have only two syllables. (Each line in this
> metre ends in a disyllable.) The final word is clearly 'deabaig'. I
> think that the preceding three minims stand for 'in' rather than 'ui'
> - note that there is no serif at the top of the third minim (which
> suggests that it is the second stroke of an 'n'). This looks like the
> definite article (or the nasalising preposition 'i n-'); which leaves
> the preceding 'r' isolated. I read the 'r' as belonging with the
> preceding 'du'; despite the reading in BB.
> robo dûr in deabaig
I think now that what we have is:
robo dû rin[d]-deabaig ('it was a place of spear-fighting')
with 'dú' as in BB, again followed by a compound with gen.sg. 'debaig'.
So here is the revised text.
Cath Argetruis is cath Conaig
ro-forbartrois (sic) fedaig
cath Âtha Crô, crû [for] sligid
robo dû do-debaig
Cath Argedrois is cath Conaig
ro-foirbeartrus (sic) feadaig
cath Âtha Crô, crû for sligid
robo dû rin[d]-deabaig