Among the Anatolian proper names transmitted to us in the Old Assyrian tablets from Cappadocia, those in -uman and -l(i)ka, in and -aššu, and finally those in -iyat/iet are particularly characteristic. Their analysis, undertaken elsewhere, has shown that they contain the following identifiable theophorous elements: Aššiyat, Ḫalki, Ilaliya, Inar(a), Išput, Perwa, Tarawa, and possibly Šiwat. The question arises whether these gods can be ascribed to a definite ethnic and linguistic layer of early Anatolia, such as is known to us from the Boğazköy texts.

[The paper delimits the group of pure-relational suffixes by removing some morphemes that have hitherto generally been included in this group. An important morphological criterion of these suffixes, the oblique stem, is examined, and as a result of this examination pure-relational suffixes are divided into two classes: case suffixes and suffixed postpositions, the latter forming the transition from the case suffixes to the free postpositions.]

Ærnen intrans., wk. ‘to ride, go on horseback; go, pass’, etc. OE ærnan intrans. and trans. (See also irnen, eornen below.)

The verb is rare in OE, and its precise sense is hardly determinable from the two passages, from the OE Bede and Orosius respectively, cited in Bosworth-Toller. Madden, however, Glossarial Remarks 3.470, cites an illuminating passage from Alfred's Laws: gif hie fah mon geierne oþþe geærne ‘reach (a church) by running or by riding’ (see Alfred's English Laws, Cap. 5). This passage where the two verbs are contrasted, the latter being here transitive, is also quoted by Toller in the Supplement. With this cp. the quotations from Laamon in (ii) below. The verb, in the Pret. Pl., occurs also in the Battle of Maldon, where it is transcribed ærdon by Hearne. All editors except Thorpe, Müller, Grein, and Wülcker agree in reading ærndon.

The past decade has seen a flurry of activity in the field of language contact, with the result that we now have many descriptive studies and several valuable theoretical reviews of the field which serve to stimulate and guide further inquiry. One of the suggestions repeatedly pressed on the reader of Weinreich's Languages in contact and Haugen's Bilingualism in the Americas is the necessity of interdisciplinary research in studying the so-called extralinguistic factors which abound in any consideration of this subject. To be sure, linguists have made great strides in their principal area of interest in language contact, viz. the study of linguistic borrowing. But these studies have been by and large descriptive of the linguistic results of language contact. They are not so much interested in the behavior which accounts for the observed changes (say, between two historical stages of a language) as they are in identifying and tabulating the changes. Excellent documentation of the range of variability of these linguistic results is unfortunately matched by little knowledge concerning the social factors which effect their inception.

[It is well known that Middle Indic has an indefinitely productive causative suffix derived from Skt. -āpaya-. But it is commonly assumed that the ‘causative’ meaning of such forms is often evanescent; that they are often used as synonyms of the underlying primary verbs (as is, undoubtedly, true of not a few Sanskrit ‘causatives’ in -aya-). This paper undertakes to refute that opinion, particularly for Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, which however is believed to be typical of all Middle Indic.]

The paper is concerned only with those time adverbials that are not part of the Verb Phrase (free time adverbials). Taking the rule Adv → Prep NP as part of the base, it is shown how different types of adverbials can be distinguished either by the syntactic features of the lexical items dominated by Adv or by configuration. Each #S# of the deep structure is allowed at most one free adverbial. Surface sentences with more than one free adverbial are derived either by conjoining #S#'s or by unfolding non-restrictive relative clauses within an adverbial. The latter type of derivation applies only to surface strings of adverbials of the same type, the former only to strings of adverbials of different types or to strings of adverbials of the same type joined by und.