Optimistic, I feel, given recent arguments (though it's more a feeling than
anything I could argue). Was it Jenny Rowland who argued back in the
70s that the representation of nasal mutation was a paleographical dating
criterion? - that's something I need to find out more about, but I seem to
have registered a lot of scepticism on the horizon over the last years
(Simon Rodway; Grahame Isaac; Marged Haycock, et al.). I must have got the
wrong end of the stick with Old Irish, though - I was sure that Paul Russell
argued recently (?published) that accurate dating on linguistic grounds is
fairly difficult if not impossible, given the frequency of presence in "MI"
texts of "OI" forms and vice versa (archaisms; dialects, 'berla na filed' /
'gnathberla' etc.). It's all beyond me, though, I'm afraid; I faint at the
sight of an asterisk!
2009/8/9 David Stifter <[log in to unmask]>
> On Sa, 8.08.2009, 04:11, Aled Llion wrote:
> > Thanks; a shame things aren't so easy in dating Welsh texts! :)
> This is not to say that it is easy to date Irish texts, and it is very
> difficult to assign absolute dates. The language of the annals is of some
> help in this respect. BTW, as far as I know, the Welsh entries in the Book
> of Llandaf give some kind of guiding line for the dating of Welsh. Or is
> this optimistic?
Aled Llion Jones
51 Riverdale St #1
+1 617 997 9090