The most generally assumed ‘cause’ of analogic change has been verbal association (Thumb and Marbe 1901; cf. Kainz 1954:49–53, Stern 1931:199–236). I have presented experimental reasons (Esper 1933) and theoretical reasons (Esper 1935) for regarding such associations rather as results of a more fundamental condition inherent in the nature of the relationships between environmental patterns and response patterns.

From one point of view, the modern output of phonemic papers may be pretty sharply divided into two kinds, those which consider alternative possibilities and those which do not; the latter are hereinafter termed assertive. The difference reflects neither schools, in the sense of theoretical biases, nor linguistic sophistication, which has not been lacking in the English-language and Americanist fields since these have come to serve as testing grounds for advances in methodology. For assertive phonemicization our examples are from Hoijer, Whorf, Bloomfield, Trager and Bloch and Smith, Swadesh, Harris and Voegelin. Alternative solutions are considered by Wonderly, Harris, Kluckhohn and McLeish, Wolff, Robinett, Trager, and Pike. Recognition of the two contrasting approaches is all that is asked for in these introductory remarks to a study concerned with an alternative dialect phonemicization. The remarks which now follow are intended to be neither an exposition of the weakness of assertive phonemic treatments nor a plea for alternative presentations. (The former includes some of the best linguistic work—where the field worker makes experimental tries at various solutions but presents only that result which turns out to be an experimental success. The latter includes some trivial work—where the alternative presentation is little more than a critique of a previously published solution.)

The traditional explanation of Proto-Romance geminate initials (as in Italian rafforzamento), in terms of a progressive assimilation subsequent to Latin, is here rejected in favor of a theory of cognation between the strikingly parallel initial morphophonemics of Romance and Celtic. To sustain this, it is necessary to redefine geminates as units and medial so-called single consonants as phonemically composite. Romance syntactic ‘gemination’ is thus replaced by syntactic ‘lenition’, as in Celtic. Lenition actually handles certain Italian features better than does gemination.

The observations which follow are not primarily concerned with the signe zéro in descriptive linguistics, with zero allomorphs within morphemes, or with zero morphemes within paradigms. Nor are they concerned with the problem of dealing with pauses or of setting up segments without body or even duration but still with recognizable attributes, as is the case with junctures. Those are special cases where a state of affairs otherwise ignored, namely the absence of any segment, acquires special importance. In passing we also note the opposite instance: empty morphs disappear from the picture as we pass to higher and relevant levels of grammar, and the same is true in phonology of transitional stretches like glides and releases whose occurrence can be regarded as predictable and which therefore vanish in the act of phonemicizing.

Any addition to our scanty store of Old Persian inscriptions is certain to yield something of interest, and this is true of the new Darius inscription published by Sidney Smith in JRAS, 1926, 433 ff. It is in the usual trilingual versions, and occurs in duplicate on a gold and a silver tablet. These presumably belonged to a series of three or more (gold, silver, and baser materials), such as have been unearthed in foundation deposits. The editor gives a copy made from a photograph of the gold tablet, and restorations of the text (of the Elamite version) from a photograph of the silver tablet. A photograph of the gold tablet was received from a dealer by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and I have used this.