Die umbrische Anordnung 'subra'. 'spahmu': Wege der Forschung

The paper analyses the Umbrian formula subra. spah(a)mu (mediopassive) / subra. spahatu (active) and the various interpretations which have been suggested for it in past research. The investigation of previous work on subra. spahmu shows that, since the beginning of the 20th century, the morphological difference between mediopassive and active forms of the imperative II has been considered negligible, an arbitrary hypothesis first expressed by Buck. Earlier research, however, e.g. Aufrecht and Kirchhoff’s groundbreaking monograph or Bucheler's synthesis on the Iguvine Tables, observed, more cautiously, that a syntactic and semantic difference between both diatheses must exist, even if this difference was difficult to determine. New comparisons within the Umbrian corpus provide an explanation for this opposition and show that the founders of Umbrian studies, whose work did not yet rely on a rigid scientific tradition, were correct in supposing that both variants of the formula subra. spahmu had to be interpreted in different way