On 24/06/2015 7:23 AM, Liz Gabay wrote:
> Manuscript has some damaged areas.
> "Ni(?) fir," or Bec. "Nisfilet acht vii mis dom shægul."
> "Coman 7 sacarbaicc dam co luath," or Bec.
> Iar sin didiu robeir in cler(ech) he 7 dorat comand 7 sacarbaicc do 7
> dochoid dochum nime p-t.
The reading from Silva Gadelica = Egerton 1782 shows that our scribe missed
out a vital part of the conversation due to skipping from one instance of
'dom shægul' to the next.
Here is what Silva Gadelica has at 80.23f:
ní fior or Bec : ní fil acht secht míosa dom shaegul .
Iss maith más fíor or Coulm cilli.
ní fíor ar Becc : ní fil acht secht nuaire in lái dom shaegul.
comman ocus sacarbic dom co luath .
is iar sin ro berr in cléirech é ocus do rat comman ocus sacarfic do ocus
do chuaid dochum nimi.
> The first word "ni" is very uncertain,as the manuscript is damaged in that
> area. I see 3 short vertical lines and an odd-appearing wavy horizontal line
> above and to the left of the first vertical line.
The version in Egerton 1782, and it confirms your reading. Well done!
> Hopefully the 'ae' ligature shows up correctly in 'shægul'.
It does for me.
> The 'r' in 'dorat' is smudged and uncertain.
This is the 'add-on' r, the one that is shaped a bit a bit like a
pony-tail. This one doesn't seem so much smudged to me as rather minimalist
in its execution (the scribal equivalent of a bad-hair day). It is quite
similar to the one on 'teora' in the middle of the next line.
> 'p-t' represents 'p' with a 't' written above it. I wonder if it means 'Patraic'
> or 'Petir'.
I suspect it's Pátraic.