I am grateful to Professor Bloomfield who, by printing in its entirety my discussion of his principles, has, in accord with the wise and noble policy of Frederick the Great ('niederhängen!'), thereby given my remarks currency among the readers of this journal. But I am disappointed that he contents himself with brushing them aside as 'tertiary responses' or, as I would express it, 'linguistic folklore' (of course, they are folklore only provided Mr. Bloomfield's way of thinking is the truly scientific one—and, conversely, his remarks are linguistic folklore if mine is scientific), and that he does not answer the two main questions I raised: 1. how he can, as a mechanist, be willing to use the terms basic in our linguistics ‘Indo-European’, ‘Vulgar Latin’, ‘Proto-Romance’ etc., which are of mentalistic and even speculative origin; 2. why a stylistic study such as I am in the habit of undertaking, should be any more daring than is the reconstruction of Proto-Romance.