--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> In whichever formulation, Lachmann's law (stem vowel is lengthened
in
> the ppp of verbs ending in voiced stop) contains a hidden flaw: in
> order to effect said change, the old voiced stem, the voiced
auslaut
> of which according to common knowledge was devoiced in the ppp
already
> in PIE, has to come alive again, only to expire again after doing
> that. Also, the unvoicing of that final consonant is progressive,
> while the voiced aspirates in Sanskrit progressively influence the
> following eg. *-t-. That's a mess.
> (snip)
One way around this is to assume that the development was internal
to Latin, and that the *to-partciples that show Lachmann are not
inherited from PIE, but new formations. If I recall correctly,
Otkupshchikov proposed two avenues for that:
1. replacement of old verbal adjectives in *-no- by *-to-
participles (e.g. an *CVg-no- was replaced by *CVg-to- > *CV:k-to-)
2. Syncope of ppps with thematic vowels. He explains the existence
of frequentative verbs like agitare beides a ppp actus with agitare
retaining the old, unsyncopated ppp. So *agitus > *agtus > *actus.He
went to the attested cases of Lachmann and for each found evidence
of attested *no-adjectives, existing frequentative verbs with -
itare, or other formations with *Vto-.
If anybody is interested, I can dig out the reference
(unfortunately, it's in Russian).
I don't know whether that view ever gained wider currency, or
whether anybody else has argued along these lines. Did anybody on
the list come across such views elesewhere?
Best regards,
Hans-Werner