It is a commonplace that the Spanish conjunctive pronoun has more than one possible position with respect to a series of interdependent verbs. Constructions of the type Lo quiero ver ~ Quiero verlo, Lo estoy viendo ~ Estoy viéndolo, Lo vamos a tratar de hacer ~ Vamos a tratarlo de hacer ~ Vamos a tratar de hacerlo are of everyday occurrence; they have been counted and to some extent classified by Keniston.

[Recent experiments with synthetic speech have shown that the perception of voiceless stops depends in large measure on the context, not on the characteristics of the consonants alone. The same phenomenon was investigated in actual speech by recording voiceless stops on tape before certain vowels, cutting them away, and splicing them back before other vowels. The change in context caused certain instances of [k] to be perceived as [p] or [t]. The experiment shows that in actual speech the context of an initial voiceless stop is an important factor in its perception; the results agree strikingly with those obtained for synthetic speech. It is further suggested that aspiration ought properly to be regarded as part of the following vowel rather than of the preceding consonant.]

This paper presents in summary form the chief results of an extensive lexicostatistic study of Germanic dialect evolution. I undertook the study, on the one hand, in order to put the theory and technique of glottochronology, as set forth in the main by Swadesh and Lees, to a searching test within a sizeable system of related dialects, where historical, literary, and phonological data were relatively abundant. On the other hand, I hoped in this manner to secure new evidence bearing on the controversial genesis of the Germanic dialects. If the results fell into a well-marked chronological pattern supported at key points by extraneous evidence, this pattern might then be juxtaposed and critically correlated with the leading nonstatistic doctrines in the field, notably the tripartite theory of quasigenetic descent, and the modern concepts of diffusion and synthesis represented chiefly by Friedrich Maurer and Ernst Schwarz.

Variation in IE languages between morphemes containing o and yo is found in genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings, in four non-finite verbal formations, and in the sigmatic future. Suffixation with o was a frequent source of IE adjectives. If the o was added to a noun stem in i or to a locative form ending in i, the resulting yo through re-analysis could itself become a productive suffix. The yo so derived was the basis of three participial formations. The sigmatic future and the Vedic infinitive in -dhyai derived their y from present formations with stems in yo. The genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings must be otherwise explained.

In this article I propose a new explanation of the forms of the verb sum. This explanation is based on synchronic facts of Classical Latin and is expressed in terms of a set of ordered rules applying to basic forms. I do not propose that forms appearing in the derivations of the Classical Latin forms necessarily appeared phonetically in any stage of pre-Latin or Indo-European. Nevertheless, I feel that my analysis is not wholly devoid of historical and comparative interest. In this I follow Leonard Bloomfield, ‘Menomini morphophonemics’, Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 8.105–15 (1939):

[In the actor-action-goal construction and in the character-substance (or modifier-noun) construction, Old English used taxemes of selection (inflected forms) to distinguish between actor (subject) and goal (object), and to indicate the direction of modification. The development of English has been away from the use of taxemes of selection with non-distinctive and connotative word-order, toward the use of taxemes of order operating practically without the aid of other devices. The patterns of the Modern English use seem to have been established by the middle of the 15th century.]

Certain Old Norse secondary formations were discussed in Lg. 29.26-33 (1953). Here I shall continue the discussion by adding examples which at the time of my previous article I had not yet investigated.

Under the general heading terms of address I propose to describe (1) vocatives, or terms of direct address to call persons by, and (2) designatives, or mentioning terms, which one uses as part of connected discourse in speaking of persons. In the order of approximately increasing complexity, I shall discuss pronouns, proper names, titles, and kinship terms. The scope of the present account will include only current usage in colloquial Mandarin. But, unless otherwise qualified, what I have to say will in fact be valid for large sections of China.