Liz Gabay wrote:
>> ni hinand is uenitte.
>> uenitte sassad na slog
>> hitte cacur er anshod.
> ‘cacur er anshod’ looks like a variant of “cocur...consult,
> discussion...plotting...whisper, message” plus a variant of the
> preposition ‘ar’ plus “anshod..hardship, want, misery”.
That's the line that I find troublesome.
> Is not the same as come.
> Come (is) the satisfaction of throngs.
> Go (is) a message because of misery.
> Go is a word out of misery.
An edition of the line is given in DIL s.v. "anshód" without
"hitte 'ca cur er anṡod" (NB: I used a character for the dotted 's'
here, but I guess it won't appear as such on a lot of screens.)
This reading looks a lot like modern "dá chur / á chur", "ga chur" in
Scottish Gaelic, meaning "being put". Not only does that seem like a
rather late construction here, I would also prefer a noun, giving us a
balance between "sásad" and "cocur".
The preposition "er" looks like the later medieval falling together of
"ar" and "for", here meaning "against, upon, to". Possibly:
hitte cacur er anshod = "ite" is the counsel to misery.
In other words, all that the miserable get is the stern command "Go!"
It might be worth considering keeping the two Latin words in the
original, esp. since they have (I think) a lot of emotional force that
comes from their liturgical use. Or am I imagining that?