> Looking closely at §792, I see that Thurneysen cites the 3rd pl.
> forms "air-it" and "airat", as well as 2nd pl. "ar-idib" (Wb.).
> Kavanagh's Lexicon of the Wb. glosses lists "aris" as most common 3rd
> sg., as well as "ar is", and "airis". The standard practice in Wb. is
> to write closely associated words, words in a phrase having a single
> tonic, as one word. This is not the practice in normalized texts,
> however. I would prefer, for the sake of the reader's ease of
> interpretation, to follow MS (a) and write "ar it" (because they-are)
That's just as fine. That's actually the practice I followed in my introduction, but I hadn't noticed Thurneysen's suggestion to write "air-it" then. Since forms of the copula are
enclitic to preceding conjunctions (cp. "mad", "masu"), I thought there was some consistency in writing "air-it". But still, in the end I think it is easier for modern readers to
handle forms like "air it" than "air-it".