Re: [tied] Re: the true nature of

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 14159
Date: 2002-07-26

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

> >I am being criticized with arguments that are in reality in favour of
> what
> >I wrote.
> I am not trying to criticize, but to think with you, offering both
> support
> and challenge.  That is why I suggest alternatives to your weaker -ss-
> forms.

I strongly appreciate this attitude. I did not mean "criticize" as having
a note of quibbling or quarreling to it.

> >In a given period /Vgt/ becomes /V:kt/, while /Vkt/ is unchanged;
> We cannot push the change back earlier than the separation of Umbrian
> from
> Latin (because it is not found in Umbrian - there is evidence, as I
> quoted
> earlier);  and we cannot suggest that
> */Vgt/ survived as late as that.  Your suggestion that ago ~ *actus was
> "recast" as ago ~ *ag+tos, while facio ~ factus was "recast" as
> facio ~ fac+tos (and this "recasting" later lengthened the vowel in words
> with a final voiced root) avoids this.

Umbrian seems not really to offer that support, but all it takes is some
difference of original (in the sens of early restored) *-Vgt- and *-Vkt-
hiding behind the spelling, which seeems posssible. I don't feel informed
by what I can read to use the Proto-Italic argument at all.

> The "analogy with the vowel length of the perfect" idea also explains all
> this, with only a few exceptions - and your theory is not yet without
> exceptions.

What exceptions are you talking about?