Update on *nekw and the N-word

[Rick Mc Callister]

	If I may throw in my semi-informed 2 cents/pence/pfennig/hundredths
of a Euro, etc.

	There's a classic case in Romance phonology that included /tl/
	vetus > vetulus > *vEtlu > *vEklu > *vEkyu [> Italian vecchio
/vEkkyo/], *velyu [> French vielle (fem.) /vyiey, vyiey@/, Portuguese velho
/vELo/, Spanish viejo /ByeHo, Byexo/]
	The masculine form of vielle, of course, is vieux, which, on the
face of it, seems to come from *vEkyu, rather than *vElyu

	If this case is typical, wouldn't such a form as *netl also evolve
with a palatal?
	If not, please explain

[snip]
>Now that I have the source before me... Under Allan Bomhard's
>"208. nitl[h]-/netl[h]- 'to rise, to arise; to lift, to raise; to
>move'", there is:
>
[snip]
>Taking out AA (the only one with *tl), we're left with a clearer view.
>However, I would go out on a limb and say that rather than the IE
>cognate attested above, I would throw in IE *nekwt instead and possibly
>Finnish nukkua "to sleep" (There's got to be a relation somehow with
>nukkua) and that it all points to *nukw "to sleep" ("to sleep" -> "to
>awaken"; "to sleep" -> "to sleep over" -> "to migrate"). Any Uralicists
>in the house?
>
>In all, I haven't personally verified the reconstructions yet, so anyone
>is open to suspicions but so far this is my idea on the origin of IE
>*nekwt.
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Glen Gordon
>glengordon01 at hotmail.com

[ Moderator's response:
  There is a serious mixing of levels here, in that a Romance-specific
  development is being projected back to Nostratic, although other Indo-
  European languages do not have this phonotactic constraint, e. g. Greek.
  Before we can even accept it as a parallel, we have to determine what
  the digraph <tl> represents in Bomhard, a unit phoneme or a cluster.
  --rma ]