An index may or may not be a trustworthy shift for finding something a reader remembers having read without recalling just where he read it. No index is a substitute for reading. Accordingly the epigraphic items discussed in this paper were found by reading the entire contents of CIL 13 (in seven parts and two supplements, 1899-1943). The texts are selected for their linguistic interest.

Except for the o-stem class, the formation of the IE genitive singular shows a clear and regular development from PIE -os/-es for all noun classes, in Germanic as well as in the other IE languages: Goth. sunaus, gumins, fadrs, nahts; ON sonar, hana, (nom. nǣtt) ; OHG fridō, hanen or hanin, fater, naht; OS suno, gumen; OE suna, guman, fæder, gēs (nom. gōs); Lat. hominis, patris, noctis; Gk. πατρός, κuvóς, etc. The gen. sing. of IE o-stems, however, is attested in forms whose explanation is problematical. This case is built in a number of markedly different ways in the IE languages: for Greek and Indic the indicated ending is the archaic -sjo (e.g. Horn. Gk. ΐπποιo, Skt. asvasya from ); for Illyrian Messapic it is -ihi (e.g. blatθihi ‘Blossii’; cf. the gen. sing, of consonant stems in -as, e.g. platoras); for Latin and Keltic it is -ī (e.g. Lat. servī, Ir. maicc = older maqi from nom. macc 'son'); while in Lithuanian, Lettish, and Slavic, the ablative singular has replaced the genitive (e.g. Lith. diẽvo, Lett. dìeva, Slav, boga 'of God'). In Germanic there is a form that has not yet been satisfactorily accounted for, namely Goth. dagis, ON dags, OE dœges, OS dages, OHG tages, etc. Because the IE languages differ so widely in the form of the gen. sing, of o-stems, most scholars tend to believe that no common proto-form for all the IE languages can be reconstructed.

Although modern scholars are becoming gradually less reluctant to regard the inscription on helmet B of the Negau trove as a solved riddle, I would propose a more cautious attitude. The only result to be expected from a new discussion of this enigmatic object is clarification, with a warning not to make use of its text for any far-reaching theories in historical, runological, mythological, or linguistic research.

It has been customary in Romance philology to study and analyze texts in terms of their orthographical tradition, even where—as in the case of the famous Oaths of Strassburg of 842—their phonology has been the subject of intensive discussion and interpretation. At the present stage of linguistics, however, this is not sufficient; since every written document represents an act of speech, it is our job to determine as closely as possible exactly what we assume that act of speech to have been, and to analyze its systematic aspects just as we would those of living informants, as far as our evidence permits, making use of historical and comparative linguistic data for synchronic interpretation. This analysis we should then present in consistent structural terms, to make it most usable in further historical and comparative work. It is our intention to do so here for the Oaths of Strassburg, presenting (1) each of the Oaths in its traditional orthography, with a translation; (2) a discussion of the phonemic system that we assume for the Oaths on the basis of descriptive and historical criteria; (3) a tentative phonemic transcription of the Oaths; and (4) a discussion of the implications of this re-interpretation for our classification of the language of the Oaths.

It is a matter of frequent occurrence that words etymologically identical appear in varying forms in a given language. The pairs person: parson, royal : regal, shirt: skirt are familiar examples in English. In the first and third there is a clear difference of meaning, while in the second the distinction is rather one of style. The source of these doublets is different in each case. In the first a sound-change which has resulted in the modern standard English pronunciation of clerk, Berkeley, Hertford affected likewise person. But the change was not completed. The changed form, now written parson, has been retained only for the incumbent of a parish, while the common form person serves the other meanings. In the second we have an instance of learned borrowing, while the third presents Scandinavian and English forms side by side, with a notable differentiation of meaning. The first of these three types is of peculiar interest, for the language, in such cases, has added to its vocabulary from within its own resources, not by means of suffix or composition, but out of the working of phonology. It is as though the speakers saw an opportunity, and availed themselves of it.