In this paper I discuss some diagrammatic representations of syntactic structure. I introduce the concept of syntactic ‘distance’ as an aid to depict the ‘degree of grammatical relatedness’ and show that this concept leads to a kind of equivalence among several methods of representation.

Though I sometimes speak only of relatedness, I assume that grammatical relatedness and degree of grammatical relatedness are the same thing. Suppose that the concept of relatedness is defined implicitly, at least to the extent that it is possible not only to make statements about which parts of sentences are related to other parts, but also to make judgments about the relative degree of relatedness. If A, B, and C are parts of a sentence we can say, for example, that A is more closely related to B than C is to B.

Hermann Hirt, Idg. Gr. 1.336–7 (1927), in a treatment of initial consonant variation, presented eight sets of examples as evidence for an alternation gw [sic] : w. In general the etymological relationship of so much as lies to the left of the colon (e.g. Gk. bía, Skt. jayati, jināti) or to the right of the colon (e.g. Gk. s, Lat. vīs) is admitted by the standard etymological dictionaries. Relationship between forms lying on the left and on the right is naturally not admitted, since Hirt did not develop his material to a point at which alternations of the kind in question could be used in support of new etymologies. We have in fact no right to take such equations for granted, though I hope in this article to show some reasons for regarding it as credible that certain forms with reflexes of /gw/ and of /w/ had an identical origin. In connection with the Latin forms it is well to mention that v, being a reflex of both IE /gw/ and /w/, cannot be used as unambiguous evidence for either. In §§2–9 I take up Hirt's equations in order, with brief discussion.

The Scandinavian, or Nordic, languages, generally considered to be a separate, independent branch of the Germanic language family, and therefore to be the modern representatives of a single relatively uniform or homogeneous common ancestor—Proto-Scandinavian or Proto-Nordic—have, during the past millennium or so, developed rather differently. This has led to an ever increasing differentiation and diversity, the result being that, even if these languages are still, to a greater or lesser extent, mutually intelligible, they now differ from each other on a number of points, some of fundamental structural significance, some of more limited consequence.

A grammar of almost any Bantu language will attest a morpheme α in a variety of constructions involving association, usually of a preceding noun with a following noun or pronoun. In many Bantu languages a second morpheme, with the shape ka or something similar, is used in some similar constructions. These morphemes have frequently been labelled ‘possessive’, with reference to one of their more obvious uses, or genitive, with the implication that more than literal possession may be involved; the variety of constructions in which they are found makes the more neutral term ‘associative’ preferable.