Re: [tied] Re: the true nature of

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 14146
Date: 2002-07-25

Dear P&G, thanks for your comments, I'll respond between the lines:

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

> >On Lachmann's Law
> If I understand you correctly, Jens, you're suggesting:
>   (1) PIE *ag-tos  >  *ak-tos
>   (2) within pre-Latin  *ak-tos (~ ago) is reconceived as [ag-]+[tos]
> whatever its phonological form
>   (3) this reconception means that speakers, conscious of the /g/ in the
> root, draw out the vowel, hence a:ctus.

Not necessarily precisely that way, it more looks to me that it is just as
in English where a vowel is longer before a voiced consonant than before
the voiceless counterpart, as ba(:)d vs. bat with a clearly audible
difference of length. It even applies to diphthongs in English, so that
side is a word of much longer duration than site/cite. I guess the
insertion of the voiced [g] conveyed a similar quantum of lengthening to
its preceding vowel, which was retained even after the voived consonant
had been devoiced again (gt > kt is so commonplace that it can be repeated
any day and any number of times).

> This doesn't explain the absence of these forms where the root ended in a
> voiced aspirate, for example  iussum (~ iubeo < *iudh).

The voiced aspirates are voiceless fricatives in Oscan and Umbrian. In IE
they were apparently less voiced than the unaspirated counterparts; that
would explain Winter's Law by a process very similar to Lachmann's Law.
The voicing seen in Latin inlaut will have to be ordered after Lachmann's
Law. Unfortunately there is no evidence from Osc.-Umb. to decide if
Lachmann's Law applied to that branch also. But it is clear anyway that
the reflexes of -b-, -d-, -g- were different from those og -bh-, -dh-,
-gh- when Latin and Sabellic split. That's all it takes to disqualify your

> It doesn't explain exceptions such as e:m-tos (~emo), which the
> analogical
> explanation acounts for easily (perfect e:mi ~> ptcpl e:mptos)

E:mptus is analogical, I'm not denying that. But you can't make a:ctus
analogical on e:gi:, nor ca:sus on cecidi:. I'm avoiding such sillyness by
stating the obvious.

> Timing may also be a problem:  other Italic dialects do not show
> lenghtening, so it is a purely internal affair in Latin.  Does that leave
> enough time for your theory?

As I said, I know of no such evidence. Is Umbrian rehte evidence to you?
And for what? Would Proto-Italic *re:kte: look any different? If so, from
where is that known? Before you answer, please do consider Umb. fesnaf-e
'into the temples' with <e> matching the vowel of Osc. fíísnú, acc.
fíísnam commonly derived from *dheH1s-naH2- (full-grade variant of /a/ in
Lat. fa:num from *dh&1s-no-) according to a beautiful analysis of Rix's.