Re: [tied] Re: the true nature of

Dear Peter and List,

begging your indulgence I'd like to add one comment to what I
have already answered.

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, P&G wrote [about my explanation of Lachmann's Law]:

> >[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."

[...]

The important point is that *none* of these authorities has ever even
considered the suggestion I am making now. In any other language, it would
be standard procedure to assume that *only a part* of the long chain of
events by which a set of forms have developed is exclusively phonetically
regular or exclusively analogical. But Latin is IE and comes from PIE,
and so scholars apparently want things to be either totally regular or
totally analogical. That is nothing short of idiotic. Both IE tradition
and the tradition of criticizing it have been wrong here.

Jens