Greek question & the pre-history of *nekwt

Glen Gordon glengordon01 at
Sun Feb 28 00:00:34 UTC 1999

>In any case, I have subsequently revised my reconstruction to

First, we will assume that you mean *negh<w>-, where <w> is superscript,
as the moderator validly keeps pointing out but that you blatantly
ignore. This means that the labial element is _fused_ to the velar.
There is no suffixing whatsoever. The phoneme *ghw is ONE element in
this case, otherwise we should expect -v- in Sanskrit <nakti>. We don't,
so that's it.

Second, thank you for the tip on Uralic despite the much-loved comments
on my naivete, stupidity, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, that you're so
famous for.

Third, re Hittite's doubled consonants, are you sure that when a medial
consonant is doubled that it means "un-voiced"? I could have sworn it
was meant to be the other way around which would mean that Hitt. <nekuz>
comes from *nekwt as expected and all you have to work with is Greek to
keep the (and I'll say it again) "flimsy" Nostratic theory afloat.

The theory is flimsy because you use localized phenomena in a single IE
language (in this case, Greek) as a means to create an unsupported IE
reconstruction so that you can then casually link IE directly to
Egyptian of all things. You seem to forget that not only does Egyptian
come from Afro-Asiatic first off from which many, many millenia seperate
these two stages but that on top of it, IE and Afro-Asiatic would be
seperated by a good 10,000 years or more by even the most right-wing

Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at

Kisses and Hugs

More information about the Indo-european mailing list