Re: [tied] Re: the true nature of

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 14157
Date: 2002-07-26

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

> >The important point is that *none* of these authorities has ever even
> >considered the suggestion I am making now.
> How does your suggestion differ from the versions of Sommer, and of
> Leumann,
> who also propose a reversion in Pre-Italic from *aktos to *agtos?
> >scholars apparently want things to be either totally regular or
> >totally analogical. That is nothing short of idiotic.
> I thoroughly agree with you.

Dear Peter and list,

Sommer and Leumann are not easily beaten. Sommer (§ 83.6) says *explicitly
and in full* what I stated in my mail, and Leumann (§ 129) says the same
in much less elaborate terms. Sommer is alone in expressly calling the
deviations archaisms that just did not have their original root finals
restored. I guess I have been blinded by the widespread discussion of the
analogical suggestions and just had not noticed that the obvious solution
was already on record in some of the most central handbooks. I discussed
the matter a year ago with Alexander Lubotsky who asked me about my
opinion and emphatically supported it when I told him; he said he had
arrived at the same view himself. - I find it surprising that Meiser,
otherwise working in the best tradition of Sommer and Leumann, has managed
(p. 227 and 79f) to completely conceal the clear analysis made esp. by
Sommer. Sihler's account (p. 75f) makes better sense, but also leaves
loose ends, and both miss the point of restoration. - I don't know
anything about the first edition of Sommer's Handbuch, but my personal
copy is from 1914, being already the second edition. He already had then
what I believe was the truth, and I can't say I'm surprised. The book is
that good.