The idea that functional load offers a tool of potentially great explanatory power in diachronic linguistics is shared by a number of contemporary linguists, particularly those influenced at first or second hand by Prague. It is the purpose of the present paper to investigate the hypothesis that functional load plays a significant role in sound change. I will attempt to demonstrate that functional load, if it is a factor in sound change at all, is one of the least important of those we know anything about, and that it is best disregarded in discussions centering on the cause and direction of phonological change.

Generative grammarians have claimed that, in situations where no trust can be placed in intuition, and several alternative analyses appear equally possible, the criterion of simplicity can be relied on to indicate which alternative is the ‘descriptively adequate’ one. This claim is put to the test with the English ‘aspectuals’ keep, begin, continue etc. It is found that reliance on simplicity makes possible a choice in one area of the grammar only at the expense of intuitions in another. We conclude that, as long as the basic concept of ‘descriptive adequacy’ remains undefined, reliance on the derived criterion of simplicity must be illusory.

Variation in IE languages between morphemes containing o and yo is found in genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings, in four non-finite verbal formations, and in the sigmatic future. Suffixation with o was a frequent source of IE adjectives. If the o was added to a noun stem in i or to a locative form ending in i, the resulting yo through re-analysis could itself become a productive suffix. The yo so derived was the basis of three participial formations. The sigmatic future and the Vedic infinitive in -dhyai derived their y from present formations with stems in yo. The genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings must be otherwise explained.

That section of Pāṇini's grammar which deals with Sanskrit morphology has an underlying principle which in this paper is illustrated by the theory of the active finite verb. The rules that govern the formation of the verb from its elements are stated in terms of replacements. In theory, these are valid throughout the grammar, but by the grammar's design the replacement rules are only effectively operative in specific environments. The rules, their scope, and their occasional failures are given in detail.

The grammarian, having delimited the range of data he suspects to be related, seeks to express this relatedness (= regularity = generalization) in the simplest and clearest (= most revealing) way. For example, examining some English phrases, he may notice:

1. (1) the man I do business with

2. (2) the man that I do business with

3. (3) the man who(m) I do business with

4. (4) the man with whom I do business

5. (5) the man to do business with

6. (6) the man with whom to do business

and would, perhaps, like to state the manner in which certain clauses and clauselike sequences are attached to a noun to form a complex nominal; he would be especially pleased if he could reflect the unity of the mechanism in a single statement. Most of the time, the data do not lend themselves to such elegant summary, and the grammarian must settle for a major statement backed up by one or two qualifying ‘remarks’ (as the older handbooks say). But he does not ‘settle’ easily.

Look and see are semantically and syntactically related, being similar in some respects and complementary in others. Their relationship can be elucidated by reference to the underlying strings into which they are inserted. Both these verbs appear to be verbs of motion of some sort: in the underlying strings, the set of prepositions specifically used in the verb phrase of a verb of motion may be generated. The aspectual complementarity between look and see follows naturally from the fact that they require mutually disjoint subsets of this set of prepositions.