There are in Hittite several groups of words that show alternation between a and e in a way that has suggested to certain scholars assimilation of a vowel to the vowel of the following syllable. The following pairs illustrate the principal groups that have been brought into the discussion.

Sturtevant's translation of KUB XIII 4 (and duplicates), JAOS 54.363-406, renders ša-an-na-pí (XIII 4 III 48) by ‘ashes’, a translation which (404) is suggested merely by the context. The word is a hapax, but fortunately we have the obviously related word šannapili-, and this is more frequently attested in our materials. A study of the latter word leads to conclusions which are of more than usual interest.

Etymologies heretofore proposed for Grk. ταχύ𝗌 ‘swift’, τάχo𝗌 ‘swiftness’, have met little favor. The notion of ‘swiftness’ is frequently a by-product of ‘tension’: e.g., cf. ON snarr literally ‘tightly twisted’ of a string (: snara ‘turn, twist, wring'), but chiefly ‘swift'; and more especially Lat. contendo frequently ‘hasten', or NE speed, OE spēd, OHG spuot ‘speed, success’, ChSl. spěšiti ‘hasten’, all probably from the root ∗spē(i)- in Grk. σπéω ‘draw’. With this in mind one is tempted to derive Grk. ταχύ𝗌 < ∗thgh- from the root in Av. θang-‘pull, draw’, θanvan-, θanvar- ‘bow’, ChSl. tęgnąti ‘draw’, etc. According to Osthoff the comparative σσωv, ττωv represents ∗éωv with the gradation to be noted in Skt. bahú- ‘much’ and the comparative bánhīya- ‘very stout’, hence the root must be ∗thangh-/∗thṇgh-. In this case all the Slavic forms in tęg- (ChSl. tęgnąti, etc.) represent the weak grade of the root and Slavic ∗tog- in Russ. tugój ‘tight, solid, stretched (of the bow)', Pol. lęgi ‘hard, solid, strong', etc., represents a Pre-Slavic ∗tang-, The representation of IE th by Grk. ∂ though often denied seems clear in several other cases.

Tocharian possesses three paradigms of demonstrative pronouns which are characterized by m, n (written -m when final), and s (alternating with ). Compare SSS 168 ff., who rightly maintain that these three paradigms go back to a single kernel. It is also clear that this kernel is the IE stem ∗to- ∗tā- with s-forms in the nom. sing. masc. ∗so, fem. ∗sā. On the other hand the interpretation of the three characteristic consonants as being added particles (SSS 28 f.) cannot be upheld when It is realized that some of these forms correspond in their entirety to IE forms of the same meaning. Thus tērm, the fem, oblique of the first series, is identical with the IE acc. fem. ∗tā-m; and to, the nom. pl. fem, of the third series, is the IE ∗tās of Skt. tāh, Goth, ōs, Lith. tõs. Instead of seeing particles in these elements -m and -s, which from the Tocharian point of view seem secondary additions, we must therefore interpret as IE inheritances as many of the entire forms as possible, and then the others can be understood as formed analogously to these. However, the more precise history of these paradigms can be understood only in the light of the history of the Tocharian nominal declension, for the demonstrative paradigms are the result of the influence of Tocharian nominal paradigms on the inherited pronominal forms of the nominative and accusative (Toch. oblique).

It has been generally accepted that the Greek word θvατos and its kin are to be connected etymologically with a few scattered words in other Indo-European branches, as follows:

The current definition of bebeodan is ‘to command’, of forbeodan ‘to forbid’.

There are two cases, however, where bebeodan translates Latin prohibere:

(1) In a manuscript of the eighth century, in the Old High German Glosses published by Steinmeyer and Sievers 1.26.9:

Arcentibus prohibentibus pipeotantem piuuariantem

(2) In the Old English version of the Benedictine Rule of the third decade of the eleventh century:

EETS 90.62.10:

from pam him pe beoϑbeboden he ne a quibus eum proibuerit non gedyrstlrece presumat

[Goth, l- is to be regarded as the product of an assimilation of fl- > -. By this we obtain wanting etymologies for words like Goth.liuhan etc.]

[The ending -mēs is attributed to an IE medio-passive formation, which, though not otherwise preserved, can be logically derived from the IE paradigm.]

[In OFr. words of the type mencie < moneta, peroindre < poroindre the e is a weakening of the o when adjacent to a liquid or nasal which tended to be syllabic. This phenomenon was more frequent in eastern dialects. The progressive changes of an o in this position, to judge from modern dialect forms, must have been poroindre > peroindre or paroindre > proindre. The last form, with zero grade of the vowel, was seldom written in the older texts because of conservatism in spelling.]

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