Ailín got me thinking on another thread just now about rare forms of the copula, and particularly how they are pronounced. You know, just as we in English can pronounce words that are archaic (there is a way of reading out aloud "dost" and "doth", despite the fact they are no longer used), so there must be a way of reading these from Bedell's Bible, Genesis 17:5:

Gn17:5: Agus ní Hábram bhus ainm ort óso amach; ach budh é hainm Abraham, oir ad tathair mhóráin do chinidheachuibh do rinne me thú.

Now: budh is the future copula. But what would it be? /bu/ or /bə/? How does it dovetail with é? I understand the past tense "ba é" can be /bɑ we:/ in some dialects, so it would be necessary to distingish budh from that.

Bhus is even more sexy: the relative form of the future copula. Presumably /vus/ or /vəs/.

Geróid Ó Nualláin said in his New Era Irish Grammar of about 1934 that he had heard the future copula only one in his life, from a speaker in Muskerry...

An Bíobla Naofa avoids the issue:

5 Ní thabharfar Abrám mar ainm ort feasta,
ach tabharfar Abrahám ort, óir tá athair ar mhórán ciníocha á dhéanamh agam díot.

I'm afraid that I have no answer to your question: It would require a deep knowledge of 17th century poetry to venture one.

I never knew the copula had a future form but it makes sense and I have always wondered why the modern language doesn't have a future copula.

As for "ba é" in the past tense, I've heard /bə je:/ from Conamara speakers, I think.

Ailín, budh and bhus are mentioned by Dinneen on p1318

Ailín, this is what Gearóid Ó Nualláin said about this:

"The copula. Fut. Now nearly obsolete. I once heard, near Céim an Fhiaidh (W. Cork) - má bhus liom é, if it will be mine".

But I wonder if Ó Nualláin is getting his wires crossed, as that sentence would not be relative, and so "bhudh" (with lenition after má) and not "bhus" is probably what he heard.

Well, you learn something new here every day! :o)