Linguistic science is today in every sense of the word an international science. Few disciplines can lay better claim to this term than ours, in view of its universally and specifically human subject matter, as well as its bearing on the interrelationship and communication of nations. Even within our generation a vast expansion of linguistic study has taken place when compared with the preceding one. It is characteristic that around 1930 contributions to phoneme theory were being made by men as widely scattered as Trubetzkoy in Austria and Yuen Ren Chao in China. This was already a forward step over the much narrower field of Rask and Grimm, but we have seen a still more intense effort in the last two decades. From the occasional contributions of isolated professors we have in our own country proceeded to a concerted and eager program of linguistic research sponsored by a whole group of scholars working together in a vigorous and well-knit Linguistic Society.

Behind the words ăvτα, ăντην, àντί (all ‘over against’ and the like) lies a noun *ant- ‘front, face’, and by its side another noun *ant-ā of similar meaning. The dative of *ant- is continued in ăντί, its accusative in ăvra; while ăντην continues the accusative of the other noun. Similar groups (cf. Risch 4) may be seen in : ίωκή, : φυγή, άλκί: . The loss of the other cases resulted in the isolation of the surviving forms, and so in a shifting of these into the class of adverbs. The present paper examines separately the use of , , and in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

[To the writer's knowledge, the initial mutations of the Keltic languages have never been systematically stated as functions of morphophonemes. The first part of this paper gives sample morphophonologies of three of these languages—Old Irish, Welsh, and Breton—by way of illustrating the simplification thus arrived at in situations that otherwise present great complexities in synchronic morphological statement. Such use of morphophonemes further lends precision to diachronic statements and by extension may also prove useful on the phonetic level by simplifying the statement of the stock and distribution of phonemes extracted at an earlier point in linguistic analysis.]

The present description of the phonemes of Costa Rican Spanish is offered primarily for comparison with Castilian Spanish. Attention is directed especially to Tomás Navarro Tomás, Manual de pronunciación española (Madrid, 1932), and George L. Trager, The phonemes of Castilian Spanish, TCLP 8.217–22 (1939); Trager's article is essentially a phonemic restatement of Navarro Tomás' larger work. It is hoped that the present study will lead also to further comparisons, on the phonemic level, with other modern Spanish dialects, American and European.

Perhaps the most problematical feature of verbal usage in modern English is the alternation of simple and progressive forms. According to the traditional opinion, the progressive is intended to emphasize durative aspect; but while this emphasis, as well as the contrast it offers to that of the simple form, is well illustrated in such an example as While we were talking, the telephone rang, there are countless cases in which the peculiar force of the progressive is at first glance difficult to grasp. Such cases may be divided into two main groups.

[The following objective report on certain aspects of linguistic study in the Soviet Union is printed here for the information of American scholars. The author has carefully refrained from injecting his personal views into what he intended as a purely factual account; but it may be proper to remark, by way of editorial comment and summary, that although the recent repudiation of Marr by Soviet linguists is undeniably a step in the right direction, so long as that repudiation remains a matter of dogma, promulgated by official edict, it is not yet a step from darkness into the light.—The Editor]