Hilaire Wood wrote:
> Henry: Atat dono da fodail forfailte o n-iumpaither in coin (leg.
> coire) sofis .i. failte deodha ד failte dæna. 'There are then two
> divisions of joy by which the caldron of Knowledge is turned, divine
> and human.'
> Breatnach: Atáat dano dí fodail for fáilti ó n-impóither i Coire
> Sofis .i. fáilte déodae ד fáilte dóendae. 'There are, then, two
> divisions of joy through which it is converted into the Cauldron of
> Knowledge, i.e. divine joy and human joy.'
The Irish and English usages are closely parallel here. The verb
"imm·sói" = "turns" changes its meaning with the addition of the
preposition: "imm·sói i" = "turns into".
The MS (not available for viewing on ISOS) apparently reads:
... oniumpaither incoinsofis ...
Henry has taken the "in-" to be the article "in", while Breatnach has
interpreted it as the preposition "i + NAS":
... turns the Coire Sois
... turns into Coire Sois
The main argument against Henry's reading that I can see is that the
three cauldrons are elsewhere in the text named without the article:
"Coire Goriath", etc. not "in Coire Goriath".
> I'm inclined to go with Liam Breatnach's interpretation
That would be almost always be the best game strategy! ;-)
> as even Henry's translation says in a previous paragraph: Is fora
> beolu ata coi(m)re [e]rma and conidnimpai(th) bron no [f]ailte.
> 'Face downwards the caldron of Motion is in him until sadness or joy
> turns it.' So it would be introducing a new concept to say that the
> caldron of Knowledge is turned by joy.
I don't quite follow your line of reasoning there.