The remarkable poetical quality exhibited in the Brut of Layamon is perhaps hardly recognized at its true value even by students of our earlier literature. The rather excessive length of this work has probably deterred many from a careful and thorough perusal, and it is likely that the number of those who have read it right through is not large. The Present writer believes that lovers of English poetry will be well repaid by such a study and he has attempted to display some of the chief beauties of the Brut in an article which appeared in the January 1930 number of the Review of English Studies.

The development of the original diphthongs in Hittite has seemed to be a peculiarly difficult problem; but evidence has gradually accumulated until something like a system has emerged. We may now say that all the original short diphthongs appear in Hittite as monophthongs, whereas the original long diphthongs retain their diphthongal character. It is not always possible to distinguish with certainty between the several diphthongs; but it will promote clearness if I treat them separately, as far as possible.

[The word guṇa was originally an adjective ‘bovine’ from the zero-grade of the base go-. It is formed with the secondary suffix -na-, and the -ṇ- is Prakritic. The adjective is then substantivized in the sense ‘bovine sinew’, from which the meaning shifts to ‘sinew’ and the other derived meanings.]

There is at present a singular lack of materials in the historical development of Spanish syntax from the earliest period to the present time. At best, we possess only studies of isolated phenomena. The main lines of usage remain untouched. If we are to build up a picture of the evolution of syntactical form in Spain, we must have detailed studies of the current usage in each of the periods since the thirteenth century. I am now engaged in an effort to make a survey of sixteenth century syntax. The present study of the subjunctive in Lazarillo de formes is an example of the type of materials which I am gathering.

[Sketch of the Zapotec language (primarily the dialect of Tehuantepec) as now spoken. The article is based on observations made (1912–1929) by the author, and includes also some comment on discrepancies between his data and those of Cordova.]