In a recent article I attempted to show that on the basis of Hittite evidence and the laryngeal hypothesis alone assumption of the existence of ъ is unnecessary if we assume the laryngeals to have been sonants obeying Sievers-Edgerton's law. In so doing, I dealt with the comparison of Hitt. tum-me-ni, da-a-u-e-ni ‘we take’, 2d pl. da-at-te-ni, 3d sg. da-a-i : Lat. dās, Skt. dádāsi ‘you give’. Concerning the variation between m and w in the Hittite forms I said: ‘The questions of the stage of these processes in which the uw/um problem arose and of whether variant forms of the endings already existed are outside the province of this discussion.‘ The purpose of the present article is to take up these questions and to show how the problem of uw/um alternation in Hittite may be answered more simply and satisfactorily by a restatement of phonological law consistent with the assumption of laryngeal sonants.

Jacob Grimm believed that Gothic ei designated a diphthong. He based his opinion on the presence of two characters in the orthographic symbol, the alternations between ei and ij, and parallelisms in the use of ei, ai, au, and iu. Many modern scholars have resorted to reasoning of this sort in their efforts to justify diphthongal references for ai, au, iu, though it is now generally agreed that ei designated a monophthong. The supporting evidence is almost entirely orthographic. It may be assumed that Gothic ei is a direct transliteration of Greek ei (a monophthong in the 4th century A.D.), since (1) ei is used to transcribe ei in foreign names, e.g. Peilatus (Peilâtos), Samareites (Samareítēs), and (2) the need for an orthographic distinction between ei and i would be suggested by the Greek use of ei and i. No present-day student of Gothic phonology would think of claiming that ei was a phonetic spelling or of citing the alternation ei : ij as proof that ei was a diphthong.

The purpose of the present brief note is twofold: to correct in certain respects the analysis outlined in my recent note in MLN 71.265–9 (1956), while taking account of the relative spate, of late, of published views on this subject; and to carry the analysis a bit farther.

1. Sehrt, in Festgabe für Theodor Frings 1-11 (1956), has recently argued the old interpretation, which may be summarized as follows (3): 'Dass also die Zeichen ai, au zwei Lautwerte haben, wird wohl kaum zu bestreiten sein.' I see nothing especially fresh in his arguments for a dual interpretation. His reasoning is based entirely on etymological or morphophonemic considerations or on explicit inattention to dialect provenience. Penzl long ago disposed of such arguments, in JEGP 49.228-30 (1950). The main problem outstanding for Sehrt seems to be the decision between a diphthongal or monophthongal, long or short interpretation of supposed older long diphthongs. Again, Sehrt's arguments are all etymological and morphophonemic. Moreover, his solution is a variation on an old theme; for a handy reference to earlier notions on a 'Hiatusgesetz', see Penzl 227 fn. 41.

[The voiceless releases of p t k and the voiced releases of b d g in final position, occurring sporadically in American English, may contain powerful cues for conveying place of articulation and voicing or voicelessness. These cues, especially the place cues, appear in most cases to be more powerful than those contained in the unreleased portion of the stop.]