This paper is the second in a series of articles dealing with various phases of colloquial Japanese grammar. The dialect to be described is the present-day standard language, based on the speech of educated persons native to Tokyo. Forms and constructions peculiar to other dialects, including the literary style, are not considered.

The Muskogean family of languages has two main divisions, the Western and the Eastern. Among extant languages, the Western division is represented only by Choctaw-Chickasaw; the extant languages of the Eastern division may be further divided into three subgroups: (1) Alabama-Koasati, (2) Hitchiti-Mikasuki, and (3) Creek-Seminole. The material on which the present paper is based is taken from my field notes on Choctaw, Koasati, Hitchiti, and Creek (Muskogee). These four languages may be considered representative of the family as a whole, since both divisions and all the subgroups are represented among them.

[It is well known that Middle Indic has an indefinitely productive causative suffix derived from Skt. -āpaya-. But it is commonly assumed that the ‘causative’ meaning of such forms is often evanescent; that they are often used as synonyms of the underlying primary verbs (as is, undoubtedly, true of not a few Sanskrit ‘causatives’ in -aya-). This paper undertakes to refute that opinion, particularly for Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, which however is believed to be typical of all Middle Indic.]

[By the end of the 18th century the diacritical system for indicating pronunciation had been developed almost to the stage now current in commercial dictionaries. This paper traces the growth of diacritical systems from their beginnings in early 18th-century dictionaries to their final form at the end of the century, and indicates the relative usefulness of the 18th-century dictionaries as source material for studies of pronunciation.]

The fact that most writing is the graphic representation of vocal-auditory processes tends to obscure the fact that writing can exist as a series of morphemes at its own level, independent of or interacting with the more fundamental (or at least more primitive) vocal-auditory morphemes. Recognition of visual morphemes is also hampered by the controversy, not yet subsided, over the primacy of the spoken versus the written; the victory of those who sensibly insist upon language as fundamentally a vocal-auditory process has been so hard won that any concession to writing savors of retreat. Yet, so long as a point-to-point correspondence is maintained, it is theoretically possible to transform any series of morphemes from any sensory field into any other sensory field, and keep them comprehensible; the only condition is that contact with the nervous system be maintained at some point. More than theoretically: it is actually done for the congenitally deaf-and-dumb reader of Braille, who ‘reads’ and ‘comprehends’ with his finger-tips. Just as here is a system of tactile morphemes existing with no connexion (other than historical) with the vocal-auditory field, so there is nothing unscientific in the assumption that a similarly independent visual series may be found.

Throughout its history the Greek language has been characterized by a remarkably steady trend toward reduction of the number of permitted final consonants, though at all periods the number has been greater in close juncture than in open. The purpose of this paper is to trace and illustrate this trend, by considering the development of the language in this respect first from Indo-European to Ancient Greek and then from Ancient Greek to Modern. Since an approach of this kind entails a comparison of juncture systems, I have found it necessary to include a descriptive statement of the operation of the juncture systems of Ancient Greek (specifically, colloquial Attic Greek of the fifth century B.C.) and Modern (standard colloquial) so far as final consonants are concerned.

[An IH laryngeal with a following semivowel became IE hy and hw, which in turn, under certain accentual conditions here described, became Gmc. k; e.g. NE quick : Lat. vīvus, Skt. jīvas.]

1. Phonetics

1.1. Phonemes:

Consonants: A. ptkcć čsš C. fh

B. bdg z ž v r 11‘ m n n’ j

Vowels: i e a o u r

Pitch-stress: ‘’

Junctures: close (no symbol), open (#:)

The division of consonant phonemes into groups A, B and C is on the basis 0 distribution (see 2.2).