than a century earlier than the date of the MS.; thus it shows the
post-thetic _he_, _iat_, etc. as object, the adverb with _co_, the
confusion of _ar_ and _for_, the extension of the _b_-future, etc.
But YBL preserves forms as old as the Glosses:--

(1) The correct use of the infixed relative, e.g. _rombith_, 'with
which he struck.' (LU, _robith_, 58a, 45.)

(2) The infixed accusative pronoun, e.g. _nachndiusced_, 'that he
should not wake him.' (LU, _nach diusced_, 62a, 30.)

(3) _no_ with a secondary tense, e.g. _nolinad_, 'he used to fill.'
(LU, _rolinad_, 60b, 6.)

(4) Very frequently YBL keeps the right aspirated or non-aspirated
consonant, where LU shows a general confusion, etc.

LL has no very archaic forms, though it cultivates a pseudo-archaic
style; and it is unlikely that the Leinster version goes back much
earlier than 1050. The latter part of the LU _Tain_ shows that a
version of the Leinster type was known to the compiler. The style
of this part, with its piling-up of epithets, is that of
eleventh-century narrative, as exemplified in texts like the _Cath
Ruis na Rig_ and the _Cogadh Gaidhil_; long strings of alliterative
epithets, introduced for sound rather than sense, are characteristic
of the period. The descriptions of chariots and horses in the Fer
Diad episode in YBL are similar, and evidently belong to the same
rescension.

The inferences from the facts noted in the foregoing sections may