Readings for line KD.2.119

For Mede is moylere · of amendes engendrethL.2.121: LCYR alone have the form engendreth; all other B manuscripts have the past participle. The form spelled engendrit in some A manuscripts perhaps accounts for the error.
For mede is m.....oliree of amendes engendred
For Mede is mulier of amendes engendred
For Mede is muliere . of Amendes engendred
For mede ys a Mulier  of amendys .engendred
For Mede is Moilere of amendes engendreth
For mede not a mulyer & off amendes engendred
For Mede is MulirieO.2.120: O alone has the form Mulirie; most B manuscripts have muliere.  of amendis engendrid
For mede is moylere  of amendes engendreth .R.2.80: R shares an apparently nonsensical verb inflection (engendreth for engendred) with beta witnesses LCY. Nevertheless, any RL shared form, however odd, is intrinsically likely to be archetypal, albeit perhaps non-authorial—because of their extraordinary accuracy as well as their definitive stemmatic positions. If this lection is not merely a blatant archetypal error (one "corrected" by most later copyists to the expected form), it may be that the R and L scribes (or the Bx scribe) understood the -eth suffix in this word as allomorphic with the past participle suffix -ed / -et attested in other B copies. The final phone of engendreth would then probably have been construed by L and R as /t/ (not the /θ/ which the spelling would suggest to us). Cf. the 1408 London will of John Plot. Twice in this brief document, Plot uses a phonologically identical verbal suffix <-yth> to denote the past participle form usually spelled as <-ed>. In the first instance, Plot requests that "thyr be Spendyth among my Nyebourus in Mete & in drynke" a certain amount of money; in the second, he requests that some of his assets be used for road repairs, or, as he phrases it, "be yspendyth betwene London and ware, of fowle weys, . . . there most nede ys" (The Fifty Earliest English Wills, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall (London: Trübner, 1882), 14-15. A few pieces of evidence scattered throughout manuscripts L and R may support such a conclusion. One wonders, for example, whether the strong preference in manuscripts L and R for the ON-derived spelling of the cardinal number 100 (= hundreth) over the OE-derived form (= hundred) indicates that these scribes, or their models, would have pronounced that word with /θ/ as the final phone, rather than /t/. Such a conclusion seems doubtful. Rather, this spelling preference for the number 100 probably attests the same trivial orthographic anomaly hypothesized above concerning engendreth. For fuller discussion see Introduction III.2.2.10.
For Meede ys Moylere / of a-Mendys ongendred[e]ngendred.