[IE prevocalic iy and y, uw and w, after a consonant, were each a single phoneme, varying automatically under fixed phonetic conditions (essentially, y and w after a light syllable, iy and uw after a heavy). This was equally true of liquids and nasals (:r, etc.). The i, u ( etc.) in such cases was a vowel of the quality of the following semi-vowel and cannot have been ‘schwa secundum’. From this it can be indirectly but convincingly inferred that the weak-grade forms of dissyllabic bases contained preconsonantal IE (not only ī, ū but also) , , , .]

[The abundance of i-stem adjectives in Latin and Hittite is inherited from Indo-Hittite. The suffix tis formed from verbal roots adjectives as well as nouns, and a few formations of this sort survive in the historical languages. A similar suffix may have formed adjectives from adverbs.]

[The Hittite and Greek forms are not cognate. Hittite borrowed its word from Semitic; Greek did the same either through Hittite or through some ‘Asianic’ language.]

When we consult an etymological dictionary, particularly a dictionary of a living tongue, we should prefer not to find such broad statements as ‘stammt angeblich aus dem Chinesischen’ or ‘Emprunt du chinois’ with no effort made to record the precise etyma. It so happens that there are ten modern French words, no longer considered foreign by the French speaker, which are supposedly of Chinese origin. These are ailante, cangue, cannequin (or caniquis), ginseng, jonque, kao-ling, moxa, poussa, typhon, and thé. Except in the case of typhon Ernst Gamillscheg contents himself with the German phrase which I have quoted. His important source, the Dictionnaire général of Hatzfeld, Darmesteter, and Thomas, is more specific than this at times, but even there we often find no etymon cited or an occasional inaccurate statement such as ‘ailante, emprunté du chinois ailanto’, whereas ailanto cannot possibly be claimed as a native Chinese word. In Chinese this tree is called ch'u (2627) or ch'ou ch'un (2521 and 2856). Karl Lokotsch in his dictionary of European words of Oriental origin has used almost exclusively as his source for Chinese words an article by Hirth in Herrigs Archiv. The very recent etymological dictionary of the French language prepared by Oscar Bloch, with the collaboration of von Wartburg, is far superior in its treatment, but it omits some of the words in question, and in several other instances we are inclined to differ with it. Where any of these ten French words are also current in English the NED is certainly the best reference of all. It is our intention here to check these references, for the words in question, and to specify, where possible, the exact Chinese etyma.

In his review of Bloomfield's book Language, Kent (LANGUAGE 10.40-8) has dealt with what will seem to many a very objectionable feature of this volume, namely the system of transcription therein proposed. The purpose of all legitimate publication is, presumably, to make one's self understood, and there are features of Bloomfield's system which operate to defeat, or at any rate to make needlessly painful the achievement of that purpose.