Thanks David - Nessan is clearly being indicated in the Latin story as Ailbe's subordinate - a relationship which parallels the authority of the kingship of Cashel over the Ui Fidgeinte (as witnessed in texts like Cert ríg Caisil and Lebor na Cert). This verse - with its various imperatives and with the implication in your translation that Nessan has taken offerings which should be offered be up to ??? Ailbe ??? (identified throughout Irish sources as bishop while Nessan is a mere deacon) seems to mirror this. Thanks a million,   happy new term! 
Cathy 
________________________________________
From: Old-Irish-L [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of David Stifter [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 January 2012 10:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OLD-IRISH-L] Nessan and Ailbe - help!

On 12 Jan 2012 at 22:06, Dennis King wrote:

> > Danae Dee nis frithchoirthi  selba forru niscorthi
> > attoberthar na gabae sech nit muide nud chele
> >
> I assume that we're looking at the same ·coirthi (= ·corthae, etc.) in
> both finite verbs, a 3rd sg. passive past subjunctive.  The 3rd pl.
> infixed pronoun "-s-" (= them) is attached to both following the
> negative particle.

If this were OIr., no infixed pronoun should be present in a 3pl.
Taking into account that the final vowel may stand for mere schwa,
the forn could rather be 2nd sg. past subj. "you should not reject
them", with a resumptive pronoun referring to the noun that
immediately precedes the verb.

> The verb "attoberthar" looks like the 3rd sg. passive present
> subjunctive of "as·beir" with an infixed 3rd pl. pronoun -ta-, thus
> something like "one ought to say them".  Perhaps, with reference to
> the gifts, "one ought to acknowledge them".

I rather think of "ad·opair" (to offer, sacrifice)..
Or could it be a very odd spelling for "a ndo·berthar" = "that which
is given (i.e. to you)"

> The following "na gabae" could be the 2nd sg. present subjunctive of
> "gaibid" preceded by the negative particle "ná", which normally goes
> with the imperative, not the jussive subjunctive... but what the
> heck?  Anyway, possibly "you should not take".

Or "na" could stand for "no·": "it ought to be offered up (that
which) you may take/get"

> sech = other than, more than, beyond, rather than
>
> I'm going to skip "nit muide" since I don't recognize "muide".

There is a noun "muide" "vessel", but that doesn't fit. I was
wondering if it could be a comparative + "de", i.e. "mó(i)te" in
normal spelling.

> The final "nud chele" might be the negative leniting relative particle
> "nad" with "cele", the 2nd sg. present subjunctive of "ce(i)lid =
> conceals", perhaps "that you ought not conceal".

Or again "no·" with an expletive neuter infixed pronoun which can
work as a kind of relative marker in MIr.

sech nit muide nud chele = "beyond (= in addition to) which, you are
not the greater from what you conceal".

David

#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################