Greek question

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Peter and IEists:

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter &/or Graham <petegray at btinternet.com>
Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 3:14 PM

>Patrick said:

>>The entry in Pokorny that comes closest to being related to the Greek forms
>>is *neuk(h)-, 'dark', from earlier *neugh- + -s/t- (metathesis in Latin

>Mann suggests *nokw-t-s alternating with nokw-t-is, and points in evidence to
>Lith. nakvoti,

If all we had we Lithuanian nakvo/ti, then, perhaps. But we do have
Lithuanian nakti\s. Is it not equally possible that the <t> has been lost in
this cluster as Pokorny's nak(t)vo/ti suggets?

>and hesitantly also to Hittite nekuc.

Sturtevant lists nekuz, 'evening', on page 58 of his A Comparative Grammar
of the Hittite Language, under the heading "IH g' = IE gh, g^h, or the velar
part of ghw". As you are aware, S. considers the normal Hittite spelling of
voiceless stops in Hittite to be doubled intervocalicly.

Also, p. 181 gives the phonetic interpretation of ne-ku-uz as "neguts".

I believe the Hittite example strengthens rather than weakens a case for IE
*negh-. It certainly appears that Sturtevant reconstructed *negh-.

Pat