The following paragraphs attempt to give a partial phonemic analysis of modern standard German. §1 establishes the segmental phonemes that are needed to describe utterances of only one syllable. §2 discusses the role that stress plays in German, describes the effect of stress on the segmental phonemes already established, and adds one new segmental phoneme (ž) which does not occur in monosyllabic utterances. §3 describes the inadequacies of this phonemic analysis, and shows how they may be removed either by giving phonemic status to a number of sounds which are not phonemic in monosyllabic utterances, or by assuming a segmental phoneme of open juncture. §4 gives the reasons why the present writer considers it preferable to assume a phoneme of open juncture. §5 discusses a possible second type of juncture, for which no explanation is offered.

Ever since Horn 1972, it has been a received view that the lexical meaning of scalar quantifiers specifies only a lower bound. Most, it is assumed, codes ‘more than half, also covering ‘all’. To account for most's common interpretation, ‘more than half but less than all’, linguists have assumed a ‘not all’ implicature. I argue that the implicature analysis cannot account for most of the discourse data, and that the upper bound on most is independent of a ‘not all’ implicature. Furthermore, based on questionnaire results, I propose a different semantics-pragmatics division of labor. Most denotes ‘a proper subset which is the largest subset given any partitioning of the complement subsets’. Thus, most's lexical meaning does provide an upper bound, but pragmatic inferences may nonetheless sometimes render its use compatible with states of affairs in which ‘all’ is true.

[See the introductory paragraphs]

In working through the various versions of the Kālakācārya legend of the Śvetāmbara Jains, preparatory to publishing a work on Kālaka and the cycle of stories associated with his name, I have noted a number of new or rare words in Sanskrit, Jāina Māhārāṣṭrī, and Apabhraṃśa, new meanings for words already recorded, meanings hitherto recorded only from lexical sources, and new formations from bases already listed.

The Nuzu tablets, excavated by an American expedition, have consumed a good deal of the labor of American Assyriologists in recent years and will continue doing so for some time to come. After the publication of the material has far advanced, the grammar of the new dialect is in progress of reconstruction. The efforts made in this direction have so far been of a merely descriptive kind. It seems time now to apply also the linguistic line of approach to Nuzu Akkadian. Though the registration of the philological facts is the necessary basis for such work, it will in turn help to clarify difficulties which the descriptive grammar is unable to remove.

Among Alfred L. Kroeber's many great contributions to the sciences of society, some of the most important are in the field of linguistics. They include both descriptive and comparative research, and embrace theory as well as documentation. He has paid considerable attention to the question of linguistic diffusion, tracing and analyzing specific examples of morphologic and lexical borrowing among California Indian languages and developing the theoretical implications of the process. It was in the course of a major study along these lines that he and his co-worker, Roland B. Dixon, discovered several previously unsuspected groupings of languages, including ‘Ritwan’, ‘Hokan’, and Tenutian', and thereby helped to open to comparative linguistics the new horizon of long-range comparison, which we are still struggling to master.

Any attempt to clarify the development of the German word Verhältnis must start from the article, in which the Deutsches Wörterbuch discusses it—rather a voluminous article, but, as will be seen presently, by no means an exhaustive one.

[Proto-Dravidian had a class of kinship nouns which occurred only in the possessed construction (inalienably possessed) ; this probably was a syntactic rather than a morphological construction. The personal and reflexive pronouns which occurred as attributes in this construction were only the plural ones; distinction of number in the possessor was not indicated, and could be gathered only from the context. The evidence is drawn from Old Tamil, Kota, Gondi, Kolami, Kuwi, and Kurukh.]