Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:13 PM
(15-11-2025, 06:00 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias.
Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean.
Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again.
Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:20 PM
rikforto > 15-11-2025, 06:25 PM
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is:
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct
abhouil - bi
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix:
afada
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:26 PM
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:31 PM
(15-11-2025, 06:13 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="LisaFaginDavis" pid='73644' dateline='1763226028']
Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias.
Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean.
Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again.
Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.
LisaFaginDavis > 15-11-2025, 06:35 PM
rikforto > 15-11-2025, 06:38 PM
(15-11-2025, 05:39 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2. Both have been spelled and/or pronounced the same historically:
doic1, f. (gs. ~e). 1. Difficulty, impediment. ~ a chur i rud, to impede sth. ~ i gcaint, i bpósadh, an impediment in speech, to marriage. 2. Hesitation, reluctance. Gan ~, unhesitatingly. (Var: ~e f)
duga, m. (gs. ~, pl. ~í). 1. Dock (for ships). ~ grábhála, snámha, tirim, graving, floating, dry, dock. ~í, docks, dockyard. 2. (Of canal) Basin. (Var: dug m; pl. ~nna)
(15-11-2025, 05:39 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.5 and 6 I'm not sure, I have to revisit my language arts notebook from 5th grade. lol
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:40 PM
(15-11-2025, 06:25 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is:
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.
Thank you for clarifying that I need not concern myself with the adjectival form, though I share Davis's concerns about choosing between the two. But even then, there were several moving parts to this question. That still leaves the question of how you interpret that in a long string of nouns, my question 4 under syntax. Please answer it.
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct
abhouil - bi
Can you explain how you go from one to the other? I could not find abhouil in Irish conjugation tables or the dictionary. (This is question 3 under the word choices.)
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix:
afada
So it is ológá, not ológ?
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 06:50 PM
(15-11-2025, 06:40 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-11-2025, 06:25 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is:
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.
Thank you for clarifying that I need not concern myself with the adjectival form, though I share Davis's concerns about choosing between the two. But even then, there were several moving parts to this question. That still leaves the question of how you interpret that in a long string of nouns, my question 4 under syntax. Please answer it.
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct
abhouil - bi
Can you explain how you go from one to the other? I could not find abhouil in Irish conjugation tables or the dictionary. (This is question 3 under the word choices.)
(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix:
afada
So it is ológá, not ológ?
No it is ológ dhin (or dínn)
Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 07:11 PM
(15-11-2025, 06:35 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're not going to convince anyone (and neither is any potential solver) until you (and they) do the reading and explain how your (their) work fits into the work that has already been done. Read Ray Clemens's book. Read Claire Bowern's linguistic work. Read everything on Rene's website, even the pages that don't seem directly related to what you are doing. Any solution, in order to be convincing, absolutely must be alligned with what we already know about the manuscript.
How does your solution allign with the A/B differences? If you don't know what that means, then you really need to take a break and do some background reading - it is a fundamental characteristic of the manuscript.
How does it allign with the known history of the manuscript? If you don't know the history, step away and do the reading.
How does it allign with the liguistic analytics? Again, if you don't what those analyses are, step away and do the reading.
These are just a few of the fundamental questions that any plausible solution needs to address.
Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this.
No one does this work fulltime. Many of us, including myself, have other jobs. Take your time, step away if you need to and take time to do the background reading at your own pace, then think about - in an intellectually honest way - how what you've learned impacts your ideas, and then either change your ideas if necessary or be prepared to explain how they allign with what we already know.
Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this.