Re: [tied] Re: the true nature of

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 14144
Date: 2002-07-25

Jay Jasanoff once said to me, "Trouble is, simple things don't get said".
Now, this version of Lachmann's Law is simpler on all counts than anything
else, it is unforced and goes by changes that would be accepted by anyone,
were there not great names of high prestige attached to different views
already. If you want it simple, this is the way to go. And I don't need to
add "in my opinion", nor do I need to concur with a consensus - I do the
trick with arguments.


On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, P&G wrote:

> >[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
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.