Liz wrote:

> >a)  "Erg ass tra a fecht sa," ol in ben, "nachas fogluaisit
> >     do oic," ol si.
> >
> >a1) ... ass," ol in ben ... fogluaiset ...
> "Eirc ass trá a fecht-so," ol in ben, "nachas-fo·glúaisit do óic," ol sí.

> DIL F 55.30 translates "in fecht sa" as "now" and goes on to say
> that 'a' used in place of 'in' in this phrase would represent the neuter
> accusative article.  I kept the neuter article here because it's in
> the source, but I don't know how common it is to see 'fecht' as a
> neuter word.

"fecht" is basically feminine. It's odd that it should be treated as a neuter, but DIL cites enough examples to show that it is not a mistake of our MS. DIL also points out
that phrases like "i fecht-so" could contain the preposition "i". But it is unlikely that our "a" is a spelling for "i". I can't remember that there have been many confusions of
the two by the scribe of a) so far.

> I thought 'fecht' was interesting.  It translates as "a
> course, journey, expedition... time, occasion... a raid or hosting."
> I cannot think of a Modern Irish descendant of the word.

Dinneen cites "feacht" under two entries. One is "turn, time, occasion" (m. and f., old neut.), the other one is "journey, expedition; current drift" (m.). Pokorny,
Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1119 + 1129, separates the two etymologically: fecht "journey, time" < * PIE *weg'hta: (= W gwaith "work, time", Corn.
gweth, gwyth "time", Bret. gwez, gweach "time"); fecht "raiding trip" < *wikta: (= W gwyth "anger", OBret. uueith-). Meid (TBFr 203) treats them as a single etymon.

> I thought 'nachas fogluaisit' was a single verb form where 'nach' is
> used as in DIL 5.70 "instead of ná with the imperative mood or the
> subjunctive in optative sentences, to infix a pronoun object;

Yes, that's correct.

> I thought the 's' was the 3rd singular female object pronoun

The scribe must have intended it that way, but in classical OIr. "-s" would only have been used for infixed pronouns class A. After "nach", however, pronouns of class C
were used, i.e. "nacha·". We already had one example earlier in the tale where the scribe had added class A "-s" to class B/C "-a". In a normalised text, we should do
without the "-s".

> and 'fogluaisit' was the 3rd plural present subjunctive of
> 'fo·glúaisi' (moves, stirs, sets in motion, makes go.)

The subjunctive takes "ní" as negative particle in principal clauses. The negative "ná" is used in principal clauses with imperatives. Therefore "foglúaiset" (non-palatalised
"t"!) must be imperative. Note that the infixed pronoun is always the last element in the pretonic part of the verbal complex. Therefore the whole form should be written

> The problem is that 'fo·glúaisi' is described in DIL as a mainly
> transitive verb.  In F 235.41 it says that the verb can also be
> "reflective, bestirs onself, moves."  In the next line, our phrase is
> quoted and translated as "lest thy warriors come" or " lest they drive
> or startle it (the cow)".  Is it possible that the object of the verb
> is the raid or attack rather than the cow?

Maybe it will become clearer from the following sentences. If Nerae makes off with his cows, this would be an indication that he understood the sentence as an order to
drive the cow(s) away. BTW, the infixed pronoun "nacha(s)" could both be 3rd sg. fem. and 3rd pl., so it could  refer to the one cow who had the encounter with the Donn
Cúailnge, or it could refer to all the cows Nerae is herding.

"oac" "young (man), warrior" is a disyllabic word in early OIr., and so is the plural "oic".

Another thing: you have been normalising "(s)he said" as "ol sí" and "ol sé". Actually this interpretation (viz. verbal form "ol" + independent pronoun "sí, sé") is MidIr. In
classical OIr., it still appears as "olsi, olse", where "-si" and "-se" are (demonstrative?) particles appended to the defective verb "ol".