Greek question

[manaster at umich.edu]

Part of the answer must surely be that we cannot
start with an unanalyzed stem nykt-.  Rather
we must start with nyk-t-, next to which there
can be a nyk-H- perhaps.  Or perhaps nyk-t
really nykh-t- from *noghw-t- or the like.
Do we have any reason to assume that the "k"
of nyk-t- comes from a *kw and not a *ghw?

[ Moderator's comment:
  Bartholomae's Law:  If the PIE form contained *-ght- we would expect Sanskrit
  to show -gdh- instead of the attested -kt-.
  --rma ]

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, George Hinge wrote:

> Wayles Browne:
> > Nyx has stem nykt-os. So why do some derivatives have nykh- as
> > in nykhios, pannykhis etc? Frisk's etym.dict. just says one
> > stem is 'neben' the other. Has anyone figured out anything