Greek question

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Rich and IEists:


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 4:11 AM

[ moderator snip ]

>[ Moderator's comment:
>  But this violates Bartholomae's Law:  The Sanskrit evidence shows us -kt-,
>  which could not arise from PIE *-ght- (which gives Sanskrit -gdh-).
>  --rma ]

Good point *if* the compound had been formed independently in each branch
*after* the Indo-Iranians were separated.

I am under the impression that though Kurylowicz and others have been
interested in extending the "law" back to PIE times, this has not met
general acceptance but perhaps I am not privy to the latest information.

If  *ne(u)k(h)-to- had already become compounded in PIE, Bartholomae's Law
would not have come into play, would it?

Pat