Greek question & the pre-history of *nekwt

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

Rick Mc Callister <rmccalli at sunmuw1.MUW.Edu> wrote:

>	I may have missed someoneelse's response but I've seen several
>cases where Hittite <z> is from from /t/. So wouldn't there be a fair
>chance that nek(uz) is from *nek(ut)? And that *nek(ut) < *nekwt

Hittite <z(z)> can come from palatalized /t/ + /i/ or /e/, as in
the 3rd.p.sg. ending -zzi (< *-ti).  In this case, however, it's
from /t/ + nominative /s/.  The spelling <nekuz> stands for
/nekwt-s/.  The problem is that we would expect <nekkuz> if the
word is to be derived from PIE *nekwt- ~ *nokwt-.  The single <k>
suggests PIE *g(h)w.

>	BTW: is Hittite <z> /dz, z^/, /ts,c/ or /z/?
>[By /z^/ I mean a sound similar to <ds> of English <beds>
>or the "soft" voiced <z> in Italian.

Hittite spelling does not distinguish voiced and voiceless
consonants, but it does distinguish (in medial position at least)
C from CC, where usually the single consonant etymologically
derives from a PIE voiced one and the geminate from a PIE
voiceless consonant.  Whether this means that <zz> was /ts/ and
<z> /dz/, or that we must take Hittite spelling literally and
read <zz> as /tts/ and <z> as /ts/ is a matter of interpretation.
I favour the latter view.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam