[It is well established that some assibilation of Germanic k occurred in Northumbrian as in other dialects of English, but the extent to which non-initial k was affected has remained open to question. A study of the complete place-name material indicates that in the north of England k was retained as a stop in final position. In the county of Northumberland only, medial k was assibilated before i/j, and in the sequence -ik- + palatal vowel; elsewhere in the North medial k was in all situations retained as a stop.]

[The theory is proposed that PMP D became Tg. d in initial and postconsonantal positions; that l appears instead of d in initial position as the result of analogy, and in postconsonantal position as the result of some secondary change.]

English phonetic theory has always recognized a dichotomy between simple or short vowels on the one hand and diphthongs and long vowels on the other. More recently phonemic theory has posed the problem whether the non-short syllabics are unit phonemes or sequences of two phonemes each. Both possible answers have been given: Trubetzkoy, for example, treated them as units; Trager and Bloch held that they are groups. I myself once considered the analytic treatment inconsistent with the facts, at least with reference to ‘General American’, but have since discovered that my previous conviction was based on an error. While I now agree with Trager and Bloch on the fundamental correctness of analyzing the diphthongs and long vowels, there are some aspects of the problem that they failed to consider or, in my estimation, treated incorrectly. It is therefore worth while to take up again the different phases of the question in order to determine what conclusions can now be drawn.

This paper presents evidence to show that in certain dialects of American Speech—in ‘General American‘—phonetic [Ii], [Uu], [eI], [oU] are not structurally parallel to [aI], [aU], [ɔI] (or [oI]), but that the first group act as phonetically complex single units (single phonemes), whereas the second group function as sequences of two units (two phonemes).

[The reconstruction of PMP Dewha explains the vowel of Jv. -ro ‘two’ and the first vowel of Tg. -lawà ‘two’, both heretofore considered to be irregular.]

The etymology of Sp. cosecha ‘harvest’, cosechar ‘to reap’ has been repeatedly debated; a satisfactory solution remains to be provided. The word family involved is relatively small. Col. cosechero ‘tobacco grower’ and Argent. cosechadora ‘reaping machine’ are historically irrelevant derivatives. The variant form cosecho, identified in Puerto Rico, is worth remembering, since the Antilles are known to harbor numerous lexical archaisms. No less noteworthy are Amer. Sp. cogienda ‘harvest’ (reminiscent in form of fazienda ‘property’, originally ‘business’, and of vivienda 'dwelling') and especially cosechana and cosecharroza, both signifying 'clearance of land' in the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico). Cogienda clearly indicates connection with coger ‘to grasp’ < Lat. colligere; cosechana and cosecharroza, explicitly defined as ‘the cutting and burning of virgin wood’, suggests relationship with Lat. *sectāre ‘to cut’, a reconstructed base believed, on good evidence, to have entrenched itself in the Astur-Leonese and the Galician dialect areas, originally as an intensive variant of secāre. Through the links which they suggest, these three American-Spanish formations introduce us to the intricacy of the etymological problem raised by cosecha and cosechar.

The most extensive body of evidence that is available on the Annamese lexicon is G. Cordier's Dictionnaire annamite-français à l'usage des élèves des écoles et des annamitisants. Elsewhere I have described the contents of this dictionary as valuable and very full, but only to be used with exactitude if a native speaker is available, since all periods, local dialects, and styles are included without any indication of the ascription of any particular word. During work on the language with two native speakers, a basic vocabulary of just over 2000 words was completely analyzed and has been used for various chapters of grammatical analysis, which it is hoped will be published in the near future.

The inflection of verbs in present-day colloquial English has been described in many works—most clearly and exhaustively, perhaps, by Sweet, Palmer, Curme, Fries, Jespersen, and Hockett. In view of the number and fullness of these descriptions, no new treatment can hope to add any facts hitherto overlooked: at most, a new treatment may be able to arrange the known facts more systematically than has been done before, or in a way that will be more useful to other linguists.

[Affixes and groups of bases, as well as alternants of these, are numbered. The method for showing the correlation between them is stated (0); all the affixes to be treated are given in a list (1); after an exhaustive listing of bases (2), the distribution of these two sets of morphemes and of their alternants is stated in formulae (3–8). A few major distributional classes emerge (9).]