I was away for a couple days, so I am just getting back to this now...
>> ro·ḟetar, ní·labrathar.
>> labrathar, ní·fetar.
>However, you used the 1sg of "ro·fitir". With the 3sg, it will be
The ro·ḟetar was a clear error on my part. Sorry about that.
>The one thing that I am worried about is a purely practical thing:
>"gonas" has a very distinct ending which announces its relativity 10m
>against the wind, so a construction like the one in AuM is easily
>In the relative verbs "ro·ḟitir" and "labrathar", the formal marker
>of relativity is much less prominent and the syntax of these
>sentences therefore probably much harder to decode. I wonder if
>sentences of the type "gonas géntair" are attested which involve
>relative verbs with less overt relative marking.
I wonder if this argument is valid or not. There is no way to know, but
ro·ḟitir is clearly relative, so it seems that the meaning _should_ have
been clear to native speakers. Still, however, the syntax with relative in
initial position is uncommon. The opposite order would accomplish the same
thing (ní·labrathar ro·ḟitir, etc.) and it has the advantage of being more
common. Tomás Ó Cathasaigh has a nice article on these relatives with
zero-antecedent in Celtica 21 (downloadable for free at
All the best,