Greek question

[Peter &/or Graham]

Pat said:
*negh-.
. Sturtevant did mention the
>Greek forms with /kh/, <*gh.

That leaves three questions unanswered:
(a) Was Sturtevant prioritising the Greek evidence over the Sanskrit?   Or
was he suggesting two forms (*nokt- and *negh)?   Neither is satisfactory.

(b) How do we explain the Greek vocalism if the PIE form is *negh?   At
least *negwh would give us a mechanism for the /y/ vowel (< /u/)

(c) Can we reconcile the Skt -kt-, which argues against the voiced aspirate,
with the Gk -kh -, which implies it?   The suggestion that **negh-t- >
*nekt- before Barthomolae's law is up and running in I-I crashes into the
problem that the past participle forms in -tos appear widely in attested IE,
and so must also be fairly old forms.   We would have to argue that the past
participles were still perceived as root + -tos, at a time when *nekt- was
no longer perceived as *negh+t-.

Peter