On 29 Oct 2014 at 3:13, Liz Gabay wrote:
> Rotib(s)et im sodain tairr ille a clerich, or Guaire, for in
> cholcaig, acht ni segond acht duid ma robrisi(c?) a nuigh ro dermadad
> isin chathair.
After "im sodain", there is a full stop.
I would not separate "forin" into two words, but this is a matter of
> Notes - looks like an 's' was written in lighter ink, above the 'b'
> in 'rotibet'
Yes, the original scribe forgot it and had to be corrected.
> There is a character added above the 'i' in 'robrisi' but it is
> unclear. Maybe a 'c'? ,'nn' ?
It doesn't look like a "c" to me. Maybe a curly "m", plus an "n" on
top of it? None of this makes sense. I would probably expect a 2sg
here "you have broken", but this should be "ro·brisis".
> There is also an 'a' under the characters between
> 'segond' and 'acht'.
I think what this indicates is that we don't have to read "segond
acht", but rather one word "ségondacht".