Of the various arguments advanced by Austin (Lang. 18.22–5) for regarding Armenian as an Anatolian language, undoubtedly the strongest is his brilliant interpretation of initial h in a number of Armenian words as the continuant of an IH laryngeal. Since in the present state of our knowledge the varying development of the laryngeals in Anatolian and IE proper is the chief phonological canon by which the two branches are distinguished, this point alone goes far in establishing Armenian as Anatolian. The only weakness of this argument, perhaps, is that, in its treatment of post-vocalic laryngeals, Armenian seems to follow the pattern of IE proper, rather than of Hittite.

The relative pronouns in Old English are þe and se, þe being used when the clause has the function of a limiting or distinguishing adjective and se when it has the function of a descriptive adjective, e.g.:

Se casere þe wæs Claudius haten ‘the Emperor called Claudius’.

Se casere, se wæs Claudius haten ‘the Emperor, who was called Claudius’.

In the first sentence the relative clause distinguishes one particular emperor from others, in the second it adds a descriptive detail to a noun already sufficiently defined. Both kinds of clause may qualify the same noun, e.g.: Hom. I. 100.4 Se eahtateoða dæg þæs monðes þe we hatað Martius þone ge hatað Hlyda ‘the 18th day of the month that we call March, which you call Hlyda’. The analogy of other subordinate clauses leads us to expect that conjunctive order will be the rule in the relative clause, and this we find to be the case; but common order is a frequent exception especially when the verb is unstressed, e.g., ‘sum mæsse-preost on þam lande þe is gehaten Hispania se wæs ðearle geswenct’. Occasionally the order of subject and verb is inverted as in ‘Abel þone ofsloh Cain his broðor’.

Haas, in a recent article entitled ‘Shasta and Proto-Hokan’, presents evidence to suggest the changes PH *ama > Sh. /a·/ and PH *ima or *ami > Sh. /e·/. Her recognition and documentation of these changes are valuable contributions to Hokan studies.

The Hitt. suffix -tar gen. -nnas appended to verb stems forms action nouns. Examples are a-ša-tar dat. a-ša-an-na beside e-eš-zi ‘sets’ pl. a-ša-an-zi midd. e-ša e-ša-ri (with reflexive -za) ‘seats himself’ pl. e-ša-an-da e-ša-an-ta-ri, and ú-wa-tar dat. ú-wa-an-na beside a-uš-zi ‘sees’ pl. ú-wa-an-zi midd. u-wa-it-ta u-wa-it-ta-ri ‘appears’. Benveniste has pointed out the etymology of the suffix; it is identical with a hitherto unrecognized IE suffix -ter -tnos. One difficulty remains to be cleared up; and some additional material on the IE side can be supplied. Hence the present paper.

The state of our etymological knowledge of this word is excellently summarized by REW §9439:

*VOLUS ‘fliegend’.

Afrz. veule ‘eitel’, ‘leer’, nfrz. veule ‘schlaff’, ‘weichlich’.—Zussg.: afrz. vanvole ‘nichtige Sache’, volgrain ‘Spreu’, volgrener ‘fliegen machen’.—Thomas, Mél. 214. (Zweifelhaft; VOLA Diez 698 ist begrifflich, dän. hvegl, schwed. vägel ‘unstet’ Vising, NTF. n.v. 7, 33 formell schwierig.)