Of these compounds the example of particular interest, because of the uncertainty of the meaning, is that in Thuc. 4. 25. 5 of a movement of ships: άποσιμωσάντων κ∈íνων καί προ∈μβaλóντων. The general idea, at least, is clear in Xenophon's πρòs κ∈ívous μν οκ ∈v, έπισιμώσαs δ πρòs τv Hell. 5. 4. 50. The Thebans had occupied a strong position some distance from the city to meet (άντ∈τάξαντο) the approaching army of the Spartans. If, as is probable, they had placed themselves between the city and the enemy, the movement of Agesilaus must have appeared like an attempt to go around the occupied position. Xenophon calls it a clever ruse on the part of Agesilaus because, πóρρω άπαγαγv àπó τν πóλ∈μίων, he caused them to leave their position and run to save their unprotected city. The Spartans get into a position to make some attacks upon them as they run by (παραθονταs). Whatever then, the exact force of έπισιμώσαs, and, in particular, of the έπι, it is evident that the Spartans made some kind of turning movement.

The Hittite documents show many instances of an interchange of the vowels e and a. Since the variation is not uniform, and neither vowel of the pair is restricted to any phonetic surroundings or morphological categories, we must apparently assume several causes, and sound method requires the separate treatment of groups of words which show parallel phenomena. In this paper I propose to discuss the variation in monosyllabic verbal roots which end in a consonant.

[Etymologies are offered for avali, canhos, goffo, migrarse, mucca, potiron.]

Part I of this paper (Lg. 46.850–98, 1970) considered the relevance of coördinate conjoined structures in resolving the balance of power between the transformational component and the base component of a generative grammar; it presented and attempted to justify the PSR grammar of coördinate conjunction, each other constructions, and sentences incorporating respectively. Part II examines the interaction of the lexicon, the phrase-structure component, and the transformational component of a transformational generative grammar of the type presented in Part I. Gleitman's grammar, Lakoff & Peters' Conjunct Movement Hypothesis, and the PSR-Lexicalist Hypothesis are compared; the Lexical Insertion Rule, strict subcategorization features, selection restrictions, rule schema, and category labels are examined. Chomsky's bar notation is used to express certain generalizations that obtain among the categories.

The forty odd years which have elapsed since the first publication of a Tocharian text leave much for the comparativist to do. As clear as is the affinity of both dialects A and B to Indo-European, even so inexplicable are still many of the countless special developments that have led to their remarkable appearance alongside the other languages of the family. It is, in fact, the problem of the relationship of Tocharian to the other Indo-European dialects which has most interested scholars from the very beginning, while very little time has been devoted to the comparative study of the two dialects themselves. Indeed, their interrelationship is as yet quite imperfectly understood. As remarked already by M. Sylvain Levi, in speaking of the vocabulary, the more one observes their fundamental identity, the more one is struck by their divergences. The remark may apply no less appropriately to the phonology.

This paper does not attempt to present a semantic theory of a natural language, but rather to characterize the form of such a theory. A semantic theory of a natural language is part of a linguistic description of that language. Our problem, on the other hand, is part of the general theory of language, fully on a par with the problem of characterizing the structure of grammars of natural languages. A characterization of the abstract form of a semantic theory is given by a metatheory which answers such questions as these: What is the domain of a semantic theory? What are the descriptive and explanatory goals of a semantic theory? What mechanisms are employed in pursuit of these goals? What are the empirical and methodological constraints upon a semantic theory?

A theory has been proposed (Lieberman 1967) that accounts for some aspects of intonation in terms of two phonologic features, the breath-group and prominence. Acoustic and physiologic correlates of these features were derived by experimental procedures that made use of subglottal air pressure and flow measurements as well as acoustic analysis. Perceptual data indicated that listeners ‘decoded’ certain intonational signals by means of ‘motor theory perception’ structured in terms of the ‘archetypal’, i.e., primary, articulatory correlates of these features. In the present study this theory was tested by recording the electrical activity of the crico-thyroid muscle of the larynx for a set of 480 short statements and yes-no questions that sometimes had non-terminal [+prominent] syllables. Independently derived data of Fromkin & Ohala 1968 also were examined, and were found to be consistent with the theory proposed by Lieberman except that [+prominent] syllables in unmarked breath-groups had cricothyroid activity. In yes-no questions where the crico-thyroid was active at the end of the marked breath-group, non-terminal [+prominent] syllables had no crico-thyroid activity. The archetypal articulatory correlate of the marked breath-group is an increase in laryngeal tension; [+prominence] involves an increase in subglottal air pressure as well as increases in vowel duration and generally heightened muscular activity. Implementation rules relate the phonologic features to their archetypal and secondary articulatory correlates.