No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Language=Old Irish (Meyer, Carney) or possibly, late Old Irish/early Middle Irish (Carney) | |Language=Old Irish (Meyer, Carney) or possibly, late Old Irish/early Middle Irish (Carney) | ||
|Date=“A date in the mid-ninth century would be very possible, but an earlier date might be arguable [...] The features of ''Tánic sam'' which would suggest a date ''c''.800 (or earlier) are: npl. masc. adj. ''lúaith, léith'', § 2; ''sáim'' for later ''sám'', § 2; neut. ''fúam'', § ''díambi'', 3 sg. consuet. of copula, §§ 1, 3 etc.; ''ro-faith'', perf. of ''fedid'', § 5; ''for-berait'' (favoured by alliteration against, ''forbrit'' of MSS), § 7. Also ''dedlai'', 3 sg. fut. of ''dlongaid'' (?), ''fris-sil'', 3 sg. fut. of ''fris-slig'' if the interpretation of the text is sound. On the other hand, ''íach'' ‘salmon’ can hardly be very early, and suggests the late Old Irish or early Middle period. [...] Furthermore, we may note the word ''ocus'' in § 2. In early accentual verse there seems to be a tendency to avoid copulative conjunctions” (Carney).<ref>{{C|Carney 1971a|at=38, 39-40}}</ref> | |Date=“A date in the mid-ninth century would be very possible, but an earlier date might be arguable [...] The features of ''Tánic sam'' which would suggest a date ''c''.800 (or earlier) are: npl. masc. adj. ''lúaith, léith'', § 2; ''sáim'' for later ''sám'', § 2; neut. ''fúam'', § ''díambi'', 3 sg. consuet. of copula, §§ 1, 3 etc.; ''ro-faith'', perf. of ''fedid'', § 5; ''for-berait'' (favoured by alliteration against, ''forbrit'' of MSS), § 7. Also ''dedlai'', 3 sg. fut. of ''dlongaid'' (?), ''fris-sil'', 3 sg. fut. of ''fris-slig'' if the interpretation of the text is sound. On the other hand, ''íach'' ‘salmon’ can hardly be very early, and suggests the late Old Irish or early Middle period. [...] Furthermore, we may note the word ''ocus'' in § 2. In early accentual verse there seems to be a tendency to avoid copulative conjunctions” (Carney).<ref>{{C|Carney 1971a|at=38, 39-40}}</ref> | ||
|Textual relationships=The poem is often considered in relation to three other ‘nature poems’ | |Textual relationships=The poem is often considered in relation to three other ‘nature poems’ attributed to Finn mac Cumaill or an associate: the very early poem beg. ''Cétamon, cain cucht'' (attributed to Finn in ''Macgnímartha Find''); and two poems sharing a manuscript context: ''Scél lem dúib'' cited by the Middle Irish commentary on the ''Amra Choluim Chille'' (Rawl. B 502, f. 58ra) and ''Fuit co brath'' already referred to (Rawl. B 502, f. 59vb). James Carney has suggested that the poem was composed in imitation of ''Cétamon''. | ||
|Draws on=Cétamon; | |Draws on=Cétamon; | ||
|Compare=Cétamon; Scél lem dúib; Fuit (poem); | |Compare=Cétamon; Scél lem dúib; Fuit (poem); | ||
Revision as of 13:31, 28 March 2014
This page has not as yet been published.
It is work in progress, but we hope to get it published in the foreseeable future.
Details
Page name:
Tánic sam
Redirect (method 1):
Redirect (method 2):
Namespace
Main
Page class
texts
