[The author points out cases in which contiguous languages, though different in structure and vocabulary, exhibit in common striking morphologic peculiarities that must have spread by borrowing from language to language. A simple genealogical classification cannot therefore adequately represent the development, but ‘hybridization’ must also be taken into account.]

[That Hittite denominatives in a(i) correspond to IE verbs in -āyō is supported by etymologies () and by agreement with Latin in method of formation (cf. aestuāre but piscārī) from u- and i-stems. In Hittite no ā-stems have been recognized, the suffix is therefore not a conglomerate. This adds new interest to the fact that in IE (esp. Rig Veda and Homer) many -āyō verbs have no corresponding ā-stem. Probably the IE ā-stems are largely ‘backformations’ patterned on a number of ā-stems that were (cf. Hirt) simply dissyllabic bases.]

[In Corpus Inscr. Lat. 12. 2. 560 asom fero is to be interpreted adsum, fero. The interpretation is supported by parallels from Plautus.]

[Interpretation of the other inscriptions of CIL I2. 2. 560, and discussion of their linguistic peculiarities; esp. porod but recie, sane; and the writing of the final diphthong in cofeci and coepi.]

[1. estragar < *stragare: strages. 2. sesgar < *sesecare (defended against Spitzer and Ullrich). 3. simado, sima: σιμός. 4. sosegar < *insulsicare.]

[Discussion of the terms ‘linguistics’ and ‘philology’ as used in American English.]