Page:Irish Lexicography.djvu/20

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

might have suggested itself even at first sight. It occurs in the Fled Bricrend, p. 260, § 18, at banlendan ocus at menmarc fer n-domain uli; p. 288, § 68, 13, is menmarc ban buaignigi.

The following passages will illustrate its use: — F. Mast. ii. p. 1626, ó náċ menmarc latsa giallaḋ do mac M., “as it is not thy wish to give hostages”; ibid., gus an luċt bá menmarc lais do ḃeiṫ ina ḟoċair, “with that portion of the army which he wished to accompany him”; cf. F. Mast., iii. p. 1706, 2016, &c. Windisch adds a singular conjecture of his own, asking (sub voce) if menmarc may not have arisen from menchomarc, giving the passage where he finds the word in an article by Stokes (Beitr. i. 340):

gaidil, gaidil inmain ainxn
ise menchomarc a gairm :

thus translated: ‘gaidil, beloved name! my sole wish is to invoke it’; m’én-chomarc, ‘mein einziger wunsch’: so that Windisch's suggestion amounts to this equation:—

menmarc = menchomarc = m’en chomarc.

I do not think any speculation of our native glossators could beat this.

Windisch renders bascaire “beating the hands together in lamentation”, quoting Stokes; but the word has no necessary reference to sorrow. O'Dav. uses it to explain lam-comairt, ‘hand-clapping’, and both are found in LB. 141 α 3, 222 β 10, 224 α 27; cf. also LB. 5 β 34, 154 β 35, 235 β 38, 259 α 39; F. Mast., iii. 2292; but it is also used in the sense of clapping hands for joy: cf. LB. 230 β 37, o atchonnairc Iúdas sin, ro-s-gab for bascaire moir fri mét na foelti, &c., “he took to clapping his hands from the abundance of his gladness”.

On p. 32 of the Texte, he has a remark that “a word comlabar [sic] in the meaning of ‘speech’ has not yet been established; and in his glossary he appends a (?) to the entry. But cf. Ml. 31b24: huare dǐ asné gnim tengad comlabrae is immaircide andurigni Duaid ingnimsin intengad duairbirt argnimaib inchoirp olchenae, “inasmuch then as speech is an action of the tongue, David was justified in employing the action of the tongue for the actions of the body in general”: we could scarcely have a clearer example of the use of comlabra in the disputed