As the title shows, the author of this article does not hold with the theory that the spread of the Indo-European languages had its origin in northern Europe. At present we have no means of defining with certainty the starting point, the original 'home' of the Indo-Europeans. Their early appearance in Asia Minor, which the decipherment of Hittite has revealed, is at least no support for the theory of a northern origin; for migrations so swift and so far-reaching have little probability in the first half of the second millenium before our era. Of the proofs advanced for the theory, the alleged racial similarity between Indo-Europeans and Germans is above all scientifically worthless. For here two phenomena of human existence, one physical and hard to define (race), the other psychic (language), tho not necessarily connected, are arbitrarily brought into a causal relationship. Besides, it is urged that the Lithuanians, because of the very archaic type of their language, must have remained closest to the original home. The present distribution, however, of languages south of the Baltic is not an early inheritance.

The ending-point relation is the relation that exists between a movement and the point at which it ends. It may be extended to include the relation that exists between a stationary existent or an extent of space or time and that one of its extremities which is conceived as its ending-point (ending-part conceived as ending-point), as in ‘England stretches from Kent to land's end’, or between such existent or extent and an outside point which is conceived as its ending-point (boundary-point conceived as ending-point), as in ‘England stretches from sea to sea’.

Languages may be classified into groups, the dialects of which are related to one another approximately as arc the members of a human family. Examples are the lndo-European (§2); the Semitic of southwestern Asia, the Ural-Altaic of northeastern Europe and northern Asia, the Dravidian of southern India, the Bantu of southern Africa, and the Algonkian of certain North American Indians. The characteristics of a group are:

1. A. The word bases or roots are the same in all the dialects; though borrowing of words from other languages may obscure this.

2. B. The morphology of all the dialects is the same; though the wearing down and disappearance of inflectional endings may obscure this, as in modern English.

3. C. The syntax of all the dialects is the same; though this may be obscured by changes brought about, for example, by loss of endings and assumption of their functions by prepositions, auxiliary verbs, and fixed word-order in the sentence: as in English, when compared with Latin.

[Many languages have their voiceless stops longer than the corresponding voiced ones, and no instance of the contrary is known. It is suggested that this may be a universal law, and possible interpretations of it are discussed. These considerations are offered in explanation of certain orthographic habits of Hittite (tt < **t, etc.) which have troubled Sturtevant unnecessarily.]

[Hittite verb-forms with suffix s fall into three classes: (1) verbs of the mi-conjugation, thematic or non-thematic; (2) preterites of the hi-conjugation with third sing. in sta [st]; and (3) preterites of the hi-conjugation with third sing. in s and normally with lengthened grade of the root or with a suffix containing an original long vowel. Verbs of the first type correspond in part to the Sanskrit s-aorist, sa-aorist, and iṣ-aorist. Preterites of the third type correspond in part to Indo-European aorists with lengthened grade of the root. The second type is in general due to contamination of the other two; it includes some forms that are similar to the Sanskrit siṣ-aorist.]

[From before the ablaut changes ablatives were formed with suffix tos. The nil-grade of this was ts, which lost its s under certain sandhi-conditions. The resultant t was in Hittite specialized as an instrumental suffix while ts formed ablatives. In Indo-European t is familiar as the ablative ending of o-stems. Indo-Hittite ts became Indo-European s, and this appears in Greek καλῶς, etc., and in ablatives of all declensions except the o-declension. Many Indo-European adverbs of place contain ablatival s, as is shown by such pairs as Greek ἀμφίς = Sanskrit abhítas ‘on both sides.’]

Greek etymology in general has received wide study in recent years, chiefly in the work of Boisacq. In the case of Greek dialectic words, not only are etymological studies by Meister, Brugmann, Kretschmer, Meillet, Hoffmann, and others available, but pertinent material is also to be found in the general works on Greek dialects by Ahrens, Meister, Hoffmann, Bechtel, Collitz, Buck, and Schwyzer. The study, however, of Greek dialectic words from the point of view of IE linguistics has been relatively neglected. This is regrettable in view of the significance of such study for our knowledge of both Greek and IE linguistics. It is my purpose here to fill in some of the gaps by the study of selected words and groups of words.

Indo-European consonantal noun-declension shows, as is well known, the following endings for the singular and plural (the dual is not discussed at this point):

[From Italo-Celtic *, a perfect injunctive, come both the Italic imperfect (Osc. fufans Lat. amābam, etc.) and the Irish b-future, which differ only in their semantic development. The Lat.-Fal. b-future is patterned on the imperfect, amābō:amābam = erō:eram.]

[See the introductory paragraphs]

In working through the various versions of the Kālakācārya legend of the Śvetāmbara Jains, preparatory to publishing a work on Kālaka and the cycle of stories associated with his name, I have noted a number of new or rare words in Sanskrit, Jāina Māhārāṣṭrī, and Apabhraṃśa, new meanings for words already recorded, meanings hitherto recorded only from lexical sources, and new formations from bases already listed.

Grammatical categories are so closely interlocked that a single grammatical concept can hardly be treated separately without certain important reservations. As regards the accusative case, which is by no means a universal category, it must be kept in mind that no case ever has the same range of application in any two given languages, and that, like any other grammatical term, the name of a case does not refer to a definite entity, but is merely a more or less adequate abstraction created for descriptive purposes. The syntactical functions of the accusative, according to the customary interpretation of the term, consist in designating (1) the immediate object of an action: I buy a house, I send a letter, (2) the intended result: I build a house, I write a letter, (3) the goal of a motion (= lative case): I reached my house, I walk home, urbem peto, and (4) the extent of an action: I walked two miles (two hours), I was bound hand and foot = τε πόδας τε. While no language clearly separates the functions (1) and (2) or entirely eliminates (3) and (4) from the domain of the accusative, there is a wide-spread tendency to express the purely concrete or local relations by other means. On the whole, this paper will be confined to the abstract-objective force of the case, especially in its connection with (I) the category of gender and (II) the grammatical device of word order.