_________________
ānhyll ānhylle
waċede wacode
dearre dearr
wæle wæl
bēo wæs
þīn þīnne
ġeong ġeongne
________________
I am still chasing these up, thanks again David! So far you seem to be quite right about wacode and dearr, but I have yet to trace/ remember what I thought I was doing with the others.
However, do I guess aright that you are treating the ‘young’ in Ðú bet forlǽtest ġeong Isaác as a strong adjective in the accusative? Quite rightly quite possibly, but I declined it weak because I understand the line to be the daughter’s, somewhat defiant reply to her father’s ( or possibly the angel’s) demand in the line above, the flourish on which the drama ends. So I plumped for treating it as a “defining or demonstrative situation” and quite possibly a vocative phrase to boot, so I declined it weak. Re-reading my Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon Primer where I got that idea I see that the latter is not a set-in-concrete rule so much as the commonest practice: þú yfla þéow and sláwa! is one example of this, but the example of the exception is iċ bidde þé, léof eldormann which is also in an accusative kinda position.
So... the accusative trumps all other considerations? Or what?
[ PS: I, er, did do a good job leafleting, didn’t I? Wonder which leaflet of mine it was that made all the difference ǽr útgang lá slóg þá fann... ]