The ‘laryngeal’ hypothesis poses a problem concerning the Indo-European ā-stem nouns and verbs, for IE ā may result from the loss either of a following x or of a following;. In the present state of our knowledge a decision between the two possibilities can be reached only on the basis of Hittite evidence; IH x appears in Hittite as ḫ, usually written double between vowels, while IH; is lost, or at least not written in Hittite. In the case before us the Hittite evidence makes it necessary to assume IH x in some words and; in others. The Indo-European ā-stems must therefore be divided into two originally distinct classes.

It is well known that a very large number of American Indian languages number among their phonemes glottalized stops and affricates (e.g. p̓, t̓, k̓, q̓, k̓w, q̓w, c̓, č̓). Examples of such languages or groups of languages are Dakota, Winnebago, Ponca and other Siouan languages; Tonkawa; Chitimacha; Kootenay; Salish languages; Sahaptin languages; Chinookan; Tlingit; Haida; Tsimshian; Kwakiutl and Nootka; Chimakuan; Athapaskan languages (e.g. Navaho;) Alsea; Siuslaw; Coos; Takelma; Karok; Shasta; Achumawi and Atsugewi; Porno; Chimariko; Yana; Klamath and Modoc; Kalapuya; Yana; Yurok; Yuki; Wintun; Yokuts; Washo; Keres; Tanoan languages; Kiowa; Mayan languages; Quechua. In most of these languages the glottalized consonants are fortes, as in Chinookan and Athapaskan; in others, as in Chitimacha and Taos (Tanoan), they are lenes. In the overwhelming majority of cases the glottal release is posterior to the oral release, precisely as in Georgian and other Caucasic languages. These glottalized consonants are sometimes known as ‘ejectives’. In some languages, however, the oral and glottal releases are synchronous. An example of a language having glottalized consonants of this type is Southern Paiute (Shoshonean), where they are not true phonemes, however, as they may always be analyzed into stop (or affricate) +?.

In the earlier stages of work on the Hopi language I had the pleasant feeling of being in familiar linguistic territory. Here, wondrous to relate, was an exotic language cut very much on the pattern of Indo-European; a language with clearly distinct nouns, verbs, and adjectives, with voices, aspects, tense-moods, and no outré categories, no gender-like classes based on shape of objects, no pronouns referring to tribal status, presence, absence, visibility, or invisibility.