>[Jens] Lachmann's Law is a phonetic event in the prehistory of latin
working
>on forms brought about by a previous analogical restoration.
Alas, you are out of step with the consensus here Jens. That doesn't make
you wrong, and I hope you're right, but it does mean your posting might be
better prefixed with "in my opinion". Kurylowicz, Watkins, Strunk, Meiser,
Sihler are all agin it, and several others.
Davies says: ""of one thing I am persuaded - Lachmann's law is a
morphological not a phonological process."
Collinge says: "The Osthoff-Kent-Kurylowicz-watkins formulation admits no
phonological conditioning whatever ... It is not easy now to find thorough
disbelievers in the Osthoff-Kent-Kurylowicz-Watkins solution."
Details and references if you want them. Personally I don't think the
consensus is right, but we perhaps need to speak less magisterially!
Peter