The author's Analytical Grammar of the Hungarian Language was written ‘to fill the need for a descriptive, scientific grammar of Hungarian in English, with analysis of the various elements into their component parts’ (12). The present grammar has been written with the same end in view; originally intended as a second edition of the Analytical Grammar, it has been so completely rewritten as to form an entirely new work. The entire analysis has been placed on a phonemic basis, all Hungarian examples are cited in phonemic transcription, and extensive use has been made of morphophonemic analysis and symbolism, especially in the treatment of vocalic harmony.

For a full century the Latin language has been subjected to the most searching scrutiny by comparative methods, semantic data being employed as a sort of control. While these studies may be judged to have reached their limits, a residue of words remains for which no satisfactory etymology has been found, or none at all, as may be discovered by consulting the very conservative dictionary of Ernout and Meillet. Upon these more obscure words, the writer believes, some light may be thrown by following semantic clues, and the following notes are offered in the hope of demonstrating this to be true. Documentation is not presented for usages that may be verified in any lexicon.

The Inscription of Darius the Great, cut high up on the face of the cliff at Behistan in Western Persia, records the accession of Darius to the throne of Persia and his successful suppression of a number of revolts against his power. It is engraved in a cuneiform syllabary, the conventions of which are well determined and familiar to scholars (cf., for example, E. L. Johnson, Historical Grammar of the Ancient Persian Language, 29-35; also R. G. Kent, JAOS 35.325-9, 332, on special points). The text is presented in the cuneiform syllabary, with transliteration, translation, and critical annotations, by L. W. King and R. C. Thompson, The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia, 1-91 (1907), a publication of the British Museum embodying the results of their reexamination of the rock and its inscription; this is the definitive text. A transliteration and translation, with critical notes and vocabulary, is contained in H. C. Tolman, Ancient Persian Lexicon and Texts (1908); and the same scholar's Cuneiform Supplement (1910) contains an autographed copy of the text in the cuneiform, and as an appendix E. L. Johnson's Index Verborum to the Old Persian Inscriptions, which is a complete word concordance : these two volumes are Nos. VI and VII in the Vanderbilt Oriental Series. These will be referred to hereafter by easily recognizable abbreviations.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the persisting Latinisms in the Poema de mio Cid and other selected Old Spanish literary works, such as Roncesvolles and Elena y María, and to show how tenaciously Latin held its grip upon the emerging Spanish vernacular.

[OP hya hyā tya, functioning as relative and as article, rarely as personal pronoun, is a contamination of pIE demonstrative *so sā tod and relative *ḽos ḽā ḽod; it is a late formation in Iranian dialectal times, which is why the anteconsonantal t is not spirantized; it is not genetically the same as the Vedic demonstrative sya-s syā tyad, with which it is phonetically identical. But the category of the definite article was not well developed in OP, as examples show. OP hyāparam ‘afterward’ is abl. hyād + aparam ‘later’; there is no evidence that -d survived final after a long vowel, which would have prevented crasis. OP patiy is not only prefix, preposition, and postposition, but also adverb, as is shown by the use of hyāparam with and without a preceding patiy (as well as by other examples).]

The relation between structuralism and dialectology has been the subject of occasional discussion among linguists. One extreme point of view apparently claims that since the elements of a system are defined only in terms of their relations to other elements, the systems as a whole are incommensurate. This view, which essentially legislates the problem of structural dialectology out of existence, has as a consequence the clearly untenable proposition that two dialects of English, for example, are no more similar than a dialect of English and a dialect of Chinese.

§6. Introductory. In morphology, the Chewa language conforms quite rigidly to the general Bantu pattern. It illustrates the typically synthetic language of agglutinative technique; i. e., the word is fairly elaborate in structure, with affixed elements that are loosely united to its nucleus. With the exception of the two vocalic suffixes of the verb form,1 there is hardly a single element that may be regarded as fused. The system of noun classes and concordances serving as relational elements may be said to stamp the Bantu family as a ‘simple mixed relational’ type; i. e., the relational elements may be classified as 'concrete relational· elements.2 We shall see that certain of the noun classes are more formal than semantic in application—at least in Chichewa.3 Another feature (of Chichewa at least) is the identification, very much as in English, of the relation of actor and action with that of subject and predicate.4