In this paper∗ the writers will attempt to depict in their mutual relations the several types of verb-forms which evolve into the so-called medio-passive, deponent, etc. categories in the historical IE languages as these types seem to have existed in late IE times; and to indicate subsequent developments (e.g., growth of some types, decay of others) that appear to have occurred in the prehistory of the continuant languages. It is our purpose to confine ourselves more or less to descriptive morphology, avoiding, on the one hand, inquiry into the ultimate origin (non-finite verbal, substantival, etc.) of the forms here discussed; and, on the other, as far as possible, entanglement with semantic and syntactic dogma of every sort.

This article treats of Indo-European initial sl in relation to initial stl found in some of the derived languages. Since we discuss only the initial position that position will be understood whenever sl or stl is mentioned.

The theory is that sl is the original sound, retained by some languages, but which in some other languages became stl by a post-Indo-European intercalation of t.

The phonetic interpretation of the cuneiform sign in Hittite texts is a matter about which scholars have not yet reached an agreement. The Akkadian values that have been assumed at one time or another for Hittite words are be, pè, bat, pát, pít, and mit. The distinction between be and pè and between bat and pát is without meaning for Hittite orthography, since the b and p signs are in general employed indiscriminately, and it is now agreed that there is no good evidence for the value mit. There is, however, still difference of opinion as to the remaining three values, be, bat, and pít.

On June 26, 1935, the expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago found at Persepolis a number of inscribed stone tablets, made in the shape and fashion of clay tablets, and bearing an important document of King Xerxes. Two tablets bore the Old Persian text, one the Akkadian version, and one the Elamite. A translation with a certain amount of historical commentary was given out by the Oriental Institute as a newspaper release, appearing in The New York Times for Feb. 9, 1936, and also in The University of Chicago Magazine 28.4.23–5 (Feb. 1936). This formed the basis for my own remarks on the inscription, in JAOS 56.211–5 (June 1936). A photographic view of the tablets at the place of discovery, with some explanatory remarks by Eric F. Schmidt, of the Expedition, was given in the Illustrated London News for Feb. 22, 1936, page 328; an abstract of this was presented in Archiv für Orientforschung 11.91 (first semester 1936). The actual text in the original languages was not accessible until it was published by Ernst Herzfeld in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 8.56–77 (Nov. 1936); he had previously published in the Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 113.21–41 (Jan.–Feb. 1936) an address on Die Religion der Achaemeniden, originally delivered as an address at the Sixth Congress of the History of Religions at Brussels, Sept. 18, 1935, in which he drew upon the new material contained in these tablets. The latest bibliographic item which has come to my attention is a study by Hans Hartmann in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 40.145–60 (March 1937).