[0. Summary.—1. The method of analysis: 1.1. Individual co-occurrence; 1.2. Constructional status; 1.3. Transformations defined; 1.4. Determining the evidence.—2. Co-occurrence as a structural property: 2.1. Dependent elements in constructions; 2.2. Considerations from co-occurrence; 2.3. P N and D; 2.4. C; 2.5. v; 2.6. Pro-morphemes; 2.7. Two-V constructions; 2.8. V N N; 2.9. Summary of constructions.—3. Transformations in sentence sequences: 3.1. Pro-morphemes and zero recurrence in sentence sequences; 3.2. Types of sentence combination; 3.3. The question sequence; 3.4. Matched sentences; 3.5. Conjunctions; 3.6. Word-sharing; 3.7. Constructionally included sentences; 3.8. Sentences combined by wh-; 3.9. Summary of sentence sequences.—4. The transformations of English: 4.1. S ⟷ S; 4.2. S ⟷ S2; 4.3. S ⟷ N; 4.4. Many-one transformations ; 4.5. Quasi-transforformations.—5. The place of transformations in linguistic structure: 5.1. Elementary transformations; 5.2. The algebra of transformations; 5.3. Addition (concatenation) of transformed sentences; 5.4. The kernel; 5.5. Effect of transformations in the language structure; 5.6. Co-occurrence and transformation in structural theory; 5.7. Applications.]

It seems to be a universally accepted view that the Old Irish feminine numerals, nom. teoir, tenir ‘three’, acc. and gen. téora, dat. téoraib, and nom. cethéoir ‘four’, acc. and gen. cethéora, dat. cethéoraib, are derived from PIE stem forms *tisor- and *kwetesor-, with a different ablaut grade of the suffix from the equivalent Aryan forms, Skt. tisrás, Av. tišrō ‘three’ and Skt. cátasras, Av. cataŋrō ‘four’. This is the view presented by the Celtic handbooks, e.g. Thurneysen, A grammar of Old Irish 246; Pedersen, VKG 2.127-8; Lewis and Pedersen, CCG 188. Cf. also Pokorny, KZ 47.160-1 (1916); Walde-Pokorny 1.512, 753, and Ida. etym. Wb. 642-3.

[The question of the phonemic status of *i and *e in Proto-Germanic hinges on the acceptance of two alleged sound-changes, *e to *i before *u, and *i to *e before a-sounds. If we deny the occurrence of these two sound changes, as most recent treatments of the problem do, then *i and *e are members of different phonemes. It is shown here, however, that the two sound changes can be defended. It is therefore assumed that *i and *e were members of the same phoneme in Proto-Germanic, and this assumption is strengthened by the demonstration that it offers a better explanation for the situation in OHG and Gothic than is offered by the assumption of a phonemic difference.]

The present paper is not a programmatic statement, offering a theoretical base for the analysis of style, but the application of descriptive techniques to some aspects of style in a particular language, Persian. Linguists have generally been accustomed to restricting their analyses to a given style; this has been useful in presenting a consistent and coherent picture. The introduction of a stylistic frame of reference will enable us to deal more fully with each language, and, in my opinion, to present an even more consistent and coherent picture by defining what were previously called ‘free variants’.

Linguists, like many other people who feel called upon to talk about language, are in the habit of saying that speech activity is continuously variable in nature. Having said this, they proceed to describe particular samples of speech as sequences of events which they isolate on the basis of either articulatory definitions or acoustic definitions, or both. In carrying out this operation they are not seriously inconvenienced by the continuous aspect of speech: the fact that boundaries between any two of the elementary events composing an utterance cannot be fixed with exactness does not constitute a problem for them. They may occasionally use metaphoric expressions such as ‘overlapping phones’ and ‘slurring’, by way of acknowledging the continuously varying character of speech; but the function of such expressions is to justify the keeping of a discrete representation in the face of any demonstration that the physical segmentation of speech is hopeless. (That it is in fact not hopeless at all is beside the point here.) Speech may indeed be continuously varying when looked at in the laboratory, but the basic fact about speech is that human beings can hear it as a sequence of auditory fractions. Linguists may divide an utterance into a larger number of fractions than other listeners do, but even linguists have never been forced to concede the inadequacy of a discrete representation on the ground that it did not account explicitly for the physical continuous character of speech.