Re: Something about Lachmann

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "hwhatting" <hwhatting@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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?

No one has tried questioning the *-tó- of the ppp. either. The above
solution is very drastic; replacing all old participles? However, if
PIE alternated the verbal adjectives like Scandinavian (and with more
complication already in OIc) as from PIE m.f. -n-, n. -d-, it would be
a matter of generalization instead, cf Swedish c.(m.f.) naken, n.
naket and the Italic pronouns I quoted before m.f. -i (< *-n?), n. -d.
As for Otkupshchikov's point 2), I think that makes sense, those verbs
that could 'take it', ie were still stem-recognizable after colliding
with the 'pure suffix' *-Dó-, depending on frequency of use and the
degree of malformation, were permitted that ending, in the rest, stem
and suffix were kept apart with an epenthetic vowel. That solution
seems reasonable to me, not least since that is essentially the
present situation with weak verbs in Danish, one closed conjugation in
preterite -te, ppp -t, one open in -ede (-&D&), ppp in -et (-&D). The
situation is similar in Swedish and Dutch. However, the unquestioning
assumption that the ppp suffix is *-tó- leaves the Latin *-idus
pseudo-ppp's stranded, and I still think, in spite of Olsen's
proposal, that adopting another shape for the ppp suffix pays off.


This is my solution:
*aNg-Dó- (where D is some dental) ->
*aNg-dó- (by progressive assimilation) ->
*aNg-tó- (by regularization of ppp suffix) ->
*an.k-tó- (by regressive assimilation, n. is voiceless nasal) ->
*axk-tó- (since n. = x)
*a:k-tó-

Note also exa:men (beside agmen), the *ag- seems to show weakness in
the presence of nasals (*-VNg-m- -> *V:m-).


Torsten