Greek question & the pre-history of *nekwt

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Rich and IEists:

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick C. Ryan <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 2:05 AM

<snip>

>[ Moderator's response:
>  It may be what you favor, but it flies in the face of the data:  Sanskrit
>  *requires* a labiovelar, or the accusative would be **nas.t.am rather than
>  the attested _naktam_.  And what is represented by that "*s/t -?" ?
>  --rma ]

Not at all. I am suggesting that the IE accusative was *nektom for those
branches which either derived from forms without the w-extension or deleted
it. *negh(-w)-t- -> *nek(h)t-.

As for the *-s/t-, I believe that Pokorny has erred in reconstructing
*neuk-, 'dark'. This looks like a set of derivatives of the *negh-w- stem I
postulate plus *-s, which had the same effect on the *-gh- as *-t- did:
*negh-w-s -> *neugh-s- -> *neuk(h)s-.

<snip>

Pat

[ Moderator's response:
  I give up.  I will not argue the question with someone who does not see that
  the question exists; I do not have the time.
  --rma ]