Question 1:
díoltas (an Biobla Naofa)
dioghaltus (an Tiomna Nuadh)

Is the word díol (sell) somehow the root of díoltas (vengence) or is this just a coincidence?
How do I pronounce dioghaltus?

Question 2:
"Déanfaidh mé lochán den desert agus toibreacha den talamh tirim"

I translate this as: "I will make pond of desert and fountains of dry earth"

Could I change the first den to i (in):
"Déanfaidh mé lochán i fásaigh agus toibreacha den talamh tirim"
"I will make pond in desert and fountains of dry earth"

Furthermore, it would be great if I could pluralize the pond and desert:

"I will make ponds in sandy wastes and fountains from dry lands":
"Déanfaidh mé locháin i fásaigh agus toibreacha den talamh tirime"

(It is my goal to have an accurate translation of the bolded sentence above)

Question 3:
Tá an teanga spallta iontu le tart
"The tongue is shrivled in them with thirst"

I see that "iontu" is the 3rd person plural of "in". Is this word necessary?

If i removed it to have:
Tá an teanga spallta le tart

Would this then be: "The tongue is shrivled with thirst?"

I'd like to change the "the" to a "their" to have: "Their tongue is shrivled with thirst".
To achieve this, would I just change "an teanga" to "a teangacha"? ("the tongue" to "their tongues")

(again, it is my goal to have an accurate translation of the bolded sentence above.)




Thank for your time!!!

At the time this was written, it was pronounced pretty much the same way as today, ie. /d´iːLtəs/ – or maybe with three syllables still /diː.əLtəs/; at an earlier stage (and probably at that time in some regions) it would be /d´iɣəLtəs/. The consonant gh merged with the vowel somewhere during that time.

The spelling dioghaltus is a variant of what could also be written as dioghaltas. The vowel character (a, u, o) after the stressed syllable doesn’t really matter for short vowels, so you’ll see things written with u, with a, sometimes with o, seemingly randomly. In modern spelling the unstressed /ə/ between broad consonants is mostly spelt a – but this wasn’t a strong convention back then.

And no, the words are not related. Díol and an í and no gh long before they started sounding similar.



I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here… First, fásaigh is the plural / genitive form of fásach, and you don’t seem to want plural ‘deserts’ in the first part. Then, you need eclipsis after i, you could write something like i bhfásach for ‘in a desert’. I’m not sure if that’s what you want though.

For the plural in the 2nd part, same problem with the lack of eclipsis: i bhfásaigh (or if you want to be old-school, i bhfásachaibh with dative plural form that has mostly gone out of use).



It is necessary for the meaning ‘their tongues’. Otherwise it’s not stated whose tongue the quote talks about.


Yes.



For the meaning ‘their’ you need eclipsis after a. Your sentence now says ‘her tongues’.

But then, when talking about something many people have each one of, Irish uses the singular. So ‘their tongues’ would be a dteanga. But an teanga … iontu is probably more idiomatic in this context (you’ll find some expressions where Irish prefers to talk about body parts being on/in a person rather using possessive/genitive and talking about their body parts).

But yes, removing iontu and replacing an teanga with a dteanga ‘their tongue(s)’ would be grammatical. And if you look at Bedell you’ll see:



which in modernized spelling would be agus go bhfailleochaidh a dteanga le tart ‘and that their tongue(s) will fail with thirst’.

BTW, interesting that both Polish translation and English KJV Bible use the singular język / tongue here too.