Search

This article exemplifies LANGUAGE-INTERNAL EXPLANATION. It seeks to document and to explain the inability of Russian impersonal clauses to be infinitival. We argue that this gap is the consequence of two independent facts of Russian grammar: a case restriction on a silent expletive pronoun and the requirement that subjects of infinitival clauses be dative. These clash in infinitival contexts, which explains the gap. The explanation is language-internal in that it relies on no putatively universal principles. At the same time, each type of device posited is needed independently in the grammars of other languages. Our result bears on the issue of what language-particular properties expletives may have, on the issue of whether silent expletives exist, and on the more general theoretical issue of whether clauses are required to have subjects universally.

s the spatial aspect by freezing the object in the singular (on fate) and not allowing it to be determined, hence removing it from association with a particular person or group of people. The next step is seen where the object of the preposition is an abstract noun, as in the phrase and on swilche wise 'and in such a way' (Ancrene Wisse). L-N wishes to apply the term 'grammaticalization' to such a development. To me, however, 'idiomatization' would be more appropriate, because no actual grammatical category is involved (contrast the 'grammaticalization' of to in the Modern English infinitive construction). A subsidiary point made by L-N is that prepositional phrases may have played the role of a Trojan horse in the establishment of SVO word order in English subordinate clauses. For once one could say ser he acenned wses of Marian 'before he was begotten of Mary', with extraposition of the prepositional phrase to the right of the main verb, the firm constraint that the main verb had to appear in final position was weakened, which in turn could have set in motion other changes in the verb-final order of subordi

Indo-European offers a wide variety of infinitive formations, many of which are shared by several of the dialects, and all of which appear to reflect earlier verbal nouns. The literature includes considerable discussion on the etymological origins of individual infinitive endings, but little on intermediate developments which may account for the disparate systems of the historical languages. This paper suggests that at least two separate classes of infinitives are to be noted among the infinitive types which occur cross-dialectally, and that these two classes reflect chronologically distinct occurrences in the history of IE infinitival development. This distinction is most clearly demonstrable in Vedic, but parallel evidence exists in several other dialects.*

The syntactic behavior of sequences like easy to please and hard to read contrasts sharply with that of sequences like easy for us to please and hard to try to please. Only the former may occur prenominally, and only they participate in certain lexical transformations. Moreover, only those strings which consist of an easy-type adjective followed by a single infinitive may freely undergo movement. This behavior is explained if such sequences are analysed as being structurally ambiguous, having lexical as well as syntactic derivations.

Every Serbo-Croatian verb form' consists of the constituents listed in Table 1.2 While prefixes are optional, every verb form has a stem and at least one inflectional element. The stem consists of at least a root.3 Every verb paradigm has a thematic vowel in some or all of its forms, though some forms of some paradigms are without this. The remaining stem constituents are optional. The constituents always occur in the order given in Table 1. A given Serbo-Croatian verb has the following sets of forms, which constitute

ingenium, in Capt. 371 tute tibi tuopte ingenio prodes plurimum; thence to other abstract nouns, as in Trin. 313 istaec ego mi semper habui aetati3 integumentum meae and Bacch. 1083 nimi' nolo desidiae ei dare ludum; and finally to an abstract noun of action, as Bacch. 439 magistro desinebat esse dicto oboediens. There is reason to believe that partitive apposition was much commoner at an early stage of the language than later. It abounds in Hittite.32 As examples with the dative may be cited Al. 4.45 (Friedrich, Vert. 2.82) nu-kdn A-NA DUTU-SI SU-i an-da a-a?-?u lu-z~-lu a-ui 'and in my Majesty's hand (i.e. protection) behold goodly prosperity',33 Instr. 1.20 (Sturtevant, Chr. 148) nam-ma-kdn pi-di KA-as li-e ti-ya-zi 'let him not approach the place, the doors', i.e. 'the doors of the place'. Other cases are commoner than the dative. agent instead, as in Trin. 632 ut sic odio esses mihi. This exception seems to be the rule with one special type of noun of action, the verbal noun (really a dative supine) in -tui or -sui, as in Curc. 501 bono usui estis nulli. 29 Of course partitive apposition in Latin is by no means confined to the dative. See Hofmann's extremely interesting discussion and collection of examples, Syntaktische Gliederungsverschiebungen im Lateinischen infolge Erstarrung urspriinglich appositioneller Verhiiltnisse (IF 42.81-5). Hofmann cites numerous examples not only of the dative (84-5) but also of the nominative (85-6) and of the accusative (81-4), a few of the ablative (85) and of prepositional phrases (86), but none of the genitive; however, he suggests (85 fn. 2) that the construction lucis tuendi (discussed above, fn. 27) may exemplify this type. I formerly doubted this (see TAPA 74.282); but I now realize, as I have just said, that the fundamental relationship of the verbal noun to the substantive which it accompanies may be viewed as in origin one of quasi-apposition. 30 Some might term mihi a dative of agent, but actually the so-called dative of agent is essentially a dative of reference. 31 On the use of this particular noun in partitive apposition in the dative, cf. its similar use in the accusative, illustrated below, fn. 34. 32 For discussion and examples, see Friedrich, ZA 1.175 and 2.47, Vert. 1.43-5 and 2.24, El. 1.69; Sommer, Bil. 106. 33 It is hardly possible to render this literally. The force of the dative A-NA DUTU-SI must be 'with reference to my Majesty' and that of SU-i 'with reference to (my Majesty's) hand', but the adverb or postposition anda adds a locative notion 'in, within' at least to SU-i and perhaps to A-NA DUTU-SI also. (It must not be forgotten that the Hittite dative case serves as a locative as well.) This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:14:16 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 250 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3 Many constructions owe their genesis to early instances of partitive apposition. For instance, the accusative so used34 may have given rise to the so-called accusative of specification and accusative used as object of the middle voice3" met both in Greek authors and in Latin poets (like Vergil) who imitate Greek. Of course such an accusative must have started as the object of an active verb, but by a misunderstanding of the original construction remained as an accusative with a passive verb or an adjective, the transition possibly being achieved through the use of a middle verb, since this might be equivalent to an active verb with an accusative reflexive. The scheme of part and whole as we know it usually involves concrete nouns, generally denoting, as we have already mentioned, a person and a part of his body. But we have seen in our Latin examples the possible introduction, as the member representing the part, of an abstract noun, one signifying a quality or even, as in Bacch. 439, an action. If a verbal noun of the type of dicto can be placed in apposition with the substantive denoting the person uttering the dictum, why not, at an early stage, any verbal noun whatsoever with the substantive denoting the person or thing in some way connected with the action denoted by the verbal noun, whether as performing the action involved ('subject') or as receiving it ('object')? This possibility throws fresh light on all the Vedic infinitives and all the Latin gerunds. It is now easy to see why the construction that we have been studying is not confined to the double dative type. Just as Latin possesses a genitive and an ablative use of the gerund-gerundive construction, so Vedic possesses a combination of the genitive infinitive beside a genitive substantive and of the ablative infinitive beside an ablative substantive, parallel to the double dative.36 It is possible that the double accusative also enters into the picture. Vedic infinitives differ from Hittite infinitives in two important respects. (1) They include accusative forms37 as well as datives;38 these have two main uses, as the object of an auxiliary verb, like the Latin infinitive after it lost its dative force, and in expressions of purpose with a verb of motion, like the Latin ac34 As in Homer, Il. 7.14-6 'IUlvoov AXe bovpL t' ov, and Plautus, Rud. 1345-6 te Venus eradicet caput atque aetatem tuam. With the latter instance of apposition of part and whole, contrast their coordination in the same play 486 Neptuno credat sese atque aetatem suam; and for the appositional use of the accusative aetatem, cf. the similar use of the dative aetati in Trin. 313, already cited above (see fn. 31). 36 The constructions to which these names are given seem to me to be essentially the same, except that with a verb or a participle (e.g. Vergil, Aen. 1.561 voltum demissa) either name can be applied, and with an adjective (e.g. ib. 320 nuda genu) only that of an accusative of specification. It is significant that both usually indicate a part of the body, or, by an extension (as in Vergil, Ecl. 1.53-4 saepes apibus florem depasta), some portion of a whole. 36 For examples, see Gdr. 2.3.919. Brugmann adds to his Vedic instances parallel examples from Avestan, and then goes on to cite examples from Greek (920-1) and from Balto-Slavic (921-2). 7 Rather oddly, these are the only ones that survived into the classical period. 38 In Hittite, there is a supine in -wan which is regularly classed as a suffixless dative (or locative), but which I have sometimes been tempted to regard as an accusative; it is restricted to a very limited use in combination with not more than two or three auxiliary verbs, in the sense of 'begin'. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:14:16 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SOME HITTITE-SANSKRIT PARALLELS 251 cusative supine in -tum, with which the Sanskrit accusative infinitive is cognate. (2) They take an accusative object with far more freedom than the Hittite infinitive. Is there perhaps a connection between these two phenomena? Is it possible that the use of the accusative as the object of the infinitive had its genesis in an accusative substantive used in partitive apposition with an accusative infinitive, whence it spread to infinitives in other cases? Thus paian vicrtari vettha sarvdn, translated by Whitney (352) 'thou knowest how to loosen all bonds', would have originally meant 'thou knowest all bonds, (their) loosening', etc. There are still further implications. Since the verbal noun, being originally voiceless, may signify either an action performed by the accompanying substantive or one received by it, in other words since the substantive may have the relation of either subject or object to the verbal noun, we have the possibility that the double accusative construction may have a bearing on the development in Greek and Latin of the infinitive with subject-accusative.39 This is in line with the view of Ernout and Thomas, who believe that both the substantive that later became the subject of the infinitive, and the infinitive itself, were originally objects of the main verb. Thus they analyze sentio eum venire as a combination of sentio eum and sentio venire (271-2; cf. 274). However, on the whole this hypothesis seems to me dubious; would we not expect sentio veniendum (gerund)40 rather than sentio venire? It must not be forgotten that the Latin (and Greek) infinitives were originally datives, not accusatives; they show their dative force clearly in the construction iubeo (sino, cogo) eum venire, and it does not seem likely that they would have lost it so completely at so early a period in the construction scio (credo, dico) eum venire. Furthermore, though eum can be regarded as a possible object of scio,41 it seems hard to envisage it as an object of credo, and still more so as an object of dico; dico eum simply does not make

Certain linguistic items, capable of contrast in some environments, have the property of being apparently free variants in others. This can be accounted for, if in a given item, one or more semantic features can be regarded as 'latent', i.e. susceptible of being activated in some contexts and suppressed in others. The technique of 'forced-choice' selection testing was used to investigate the phenomenon, and the hypothesis was found to be valid in respect of (a) the two preterit forms of wet, (b) the infinitive and present participle in environments where both can occur, and (c) pairs of quasi-synonyms.

Variation in IE languages between morphemes containing o and yo is found in genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings, in four non-finite verbal formations, and in the sigmatic future. Suffixation with o was a frequent source of IE adjectives. If the o was added to a noun stem in i or to a locative form ending in i, the resulting yo through re-analysis could itself become a productive suffix. The yo so derived was the basis of three participial formations. The sigmatic future and the Vedic infinitive in -dhyai derived their y from present formations with stems in yo. The genitive singular and dative-ablative plural endings must be otherwise explained.

In discussing another problem, Monro 141-2 warns us against allowing ourselves to be led 'into the fallacy of thinking that relations which are distinct to us, because expressed by different language, were distinctly conceived by those who expressed them all in the same way;-the fallacy, in short, of supposing the distinctions of thought to be prior to the language which embodies them.' The warning seems to me of special value in dealing with my present problem. The usual approach' has been to assume as a matter of course that meanings expressed differently in English (him : himself), Latin (eum : se), and later Greek (awrvy : 4avr6v) were distinctly conceived by the poets of the Iliad, and must have produced in its language a similar manipulation of the pronouns. The assumption seems all the more natural because we can reconstruct for IndoEuropean a 'reflexive pronoun'2 *sewe, *s-we, *s-bhi, a continuant of which is found in the Iliad in 0F, F', aot. Nevertheless, the assumption is not justified. Apart from the fact that it is methodologically bad, it overlooks the possibility that this pronoun may have changed in meaning-ceasing entirely, or in part, to be 'reflexive'; while the later expression of such relationship (abr6b :' avr6v) is just beginning to emerge. The Iliad would then record a transitional stage in the development of the language. The first question to be asked is, To what extent can there be found in the Iliad constructions-definable in terms of language-to which the label 'reflexive' may conveniently be applied? Such would be (1) constructions containing an oblique case of a personal pronoun identical in meaning with the subject of the verb (not necessarily finite) of the clause or phrase in which the pronoun stands; and (2) constructions in which the pronoun stands in connection with an infinitive or a participle and is identical in meaning with the subject of the verb on which this form depends. (I hold the second of these types apart because it is customary to do so; but the distinction will prove of no value for the Iliad.) For the pronouns of the first and second person the examples are as follows: la. The pronoun is governed by the verb

[Latin before 170-150 B.C. shows regularly I in some terminations and El in others; I (except where of perspicuous origin) comes from pre-Latin ei, while ei is from earlier ai or oi. Notably the gen. sg. in -1 is (with Ehrlich) an original locative in -ei; the passive infinitive in -t had prim. IE -ei, being a dative of a consonant-stem or a locative of an -o-stem. The Latin dative in -I, older -EI, is not identical in ending with the Oscan dative in -ei. Older ie contracts to Latin 1. Defense of the older view that the active infinitive in -re is an -s-stem with locative -i, not (as Hirt thinks) with locative -ai.]

1 For convenience, I follow the practice of most scholars by including Hittite among the Indo-European languages and terming the Ursprache Indo-European rather than IndoHittite, although I am inclined to agree with Sturtevant that there is good reason not to do so. For the most recently published statements on this question, see the reprint of Sturtevant's earlier statement, Lg. 38.105-10, and Lane, Lg. 37.472, as well as Goetze apud Lane, ibid. fn. 12a. At all events the problem is irrelevant for the purposes of this paper. 2 These articles, to which the reader of the present one is referred for fuller discussions, with more numerous examples and more complete documentation, are as follows. In TAPA: 'Voice of non-finite verb forms in Latin and English', 74.269-306 (1943); 'Vestiges of partitive apposition in Latin syntax', 84.92-123 (1953); 'Partitive apposition in Homer and the Greek accusative', 85.197-289 (1954). In Lg.: 'Some Hittite-Sanskrit parallels: Part II. Double dative: Infinitive plus dative noun', 29.246-51 (1953). In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, Mass., 1962); 'Partitive apposition', 784-94. The last two articles are hereafter designated as Lg. 29 and Cong. respectively; references to volume number (74, 84, or 85), with or without following page number or numbers, are to the articles in TAPA. Other bibliographical data are to be interpreted as follows. AJP = American journal of philology. Bechtel = George Bechtel, Hittite verbs in -sk(Ann Arbor, 1936). Benfey = Theodor Benfey, Handbuch der Sanskritsprache, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1852-4). Brugmann = Karl Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen2 1-2, 2 vols. (Strassburg, 1897-1916). Buck = Carl Darling Buck, Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin, 4th impression (Chicago, 1948). Buck, OU = Carl Darling Buck, A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston, 1904). Clark = M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes, Philippicae I-XIV, ed. by Albertus Curtis Clark (Oxford, no date, preface dated 1900). CP = Classical philology. Delbriick = B. Delbriick, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen vols. 3-5, (Strassburg, 1893-1900). Ellis = Robinson Ellis, A commentary on Catullus2 (Oxford, 1889). Ernout and Thomas = Alfred Ernout and Frangois Thomas, Syntaxe latine (Paris, 1951). Friedrich (or Friedrich, El.) = Johannes Friedrich, Hethitisches Elementarbuch, 1st part (Heidelberg, 1940). Friedrich, Vert. = Johannes Friedrich, Staatsvertrige des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, 2 parts (Leipzig, 1926-30). Goodwin = William W. Goodwin, A Greek grammar, revised edition (Boston, 1895). Goetze, Hatt. = Albrecht Goetze, Hattusilis (Leipzig, 1925). Goetze, Madd. = Albrecht Goetze, Madduwattas (Leipzig, 1928). Goetze, NBr. = Albrecht Goetze, Neue Bruchsticke zum grossen Text des Hattusilis und den Paralleltexten (Leipzig, 1930). Grandgent = C. H. Grandgent, An introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston, 1907). Hofmann = Manu Leumann and Joh. Bapt. Hofmann, Stolz-Schmalz Lateinische Grammatik6 (Munich, 1928). JCS = Journal of cuneiform studies. Kent = Roland G. Kent, Old Persian (New Haven, 1950). Merrill = T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura, ed. by William Augustus Merrill (New York, 1907). Morris = The Captives and Trinummus of Plautus, ed. by E. P. Morris (Boston, 1899). Mueller = M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, ed. by C. F. W. Mueller, 4 parts, 10 vols. (Leipzig, 1889-98). Munro = T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura4, ed. by H. A. J. Munro, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1886). Ose = Fritz Ose, Supinum und Infinitiv im

tions of the type Lo quiero ver , Quiero verlo, Lo estoy viendo , Estoy vidndolo, Lo vamos a tratar de hacer , Vamos a tratarlo de hacer ,, Vamos a tratar de hacerlo are of everyday occurrence; they have been counted and to some extent classified by Keniston.1 Detailed as Keniston's list is, however, it leaves some important questions unanswered: (1) Discontinuous constituents of the type Lo (quiero) ver, which we shall designate as D, are far less common than continuous constituents of the type (Quiero) verlo, which we shall designate as C. Shall we infer that D is used in the same situations as C but less frequently, or that D is used in fewer situations than C, or both? (2) If D is used in fewer situations than C, what are those situations? (3) Keniston supplies' a partial answer to (2) in the statement 'with verbs other than auxiliary verbs followed by a complementary infinitive ... the pronoun regularly follows the infinitive' (no exceptions are listed). But what is an auxiliary verb in Spanish? If it develops that the very flexibility of the pronoun is the only test, or the chief test, of the classification 'auxiliary', then a statement of this sort is circular. Spanish has no such neat formal test of auxiliaries as the use of an infinitive without to in English (He made me come vs. He forced me to come, Come see us vs. Come to see us, and the like); all complementary infinitives are the same.

The Hitt. suffix -tar gen. -nnas appended to verb stems forms action nouns. Examples are a-4a-tar dat. a-sa-an-na beside e-el-zi 'sets' pl. a-ga-an-zi midd. e-4a e-4a-ri (with reflexive -za) 'seats himself' pl. e-4a-an-da e-4a-an-ta-ri, and t-wa-tar dat. ui-wa-an-na beside a-u?-zi 'sees' pl. i-wa-an-zi midd. u-wa-it-ta u-wa-it-ta-ri 'appears'. Benvenistel has pointed out the etymology of the suffix; it is identical with a hitherto unrecognized IE suffix -ter -tnos. One difficulty remains to be cleared up;2 and some additional material on the IE side can be supplied. Hence the present paper. The IE suffix -ter -tnos survives into historic times in Lat. iter, whose genitive is evidently a contamination of prehistoric Lat. inherited itinis and analogical iteris, and in Toch. ytar 'road'. Lat. gluten 'glue' beside Gk. yXotLb 'gum, thick oil' shows the common extension of the n-stem into the nom.-acc. (cf. Skt. udan beside Gk. i5"6wp 'water'). The OP infinitive ending -tanaiy (e.g. cartanaiy 'to make', kantanaiy 'to dig') contains the n-stem. The Ved. infinitives in -tart (e.g. etari 'to go', dhartari 'to hold') may, as Benveniste thinks, be the nom.-acc. with a particle -4. Indo-Iranian has a few nouns formed with a suffix -tna-, which appears to be a thematization of the -tnthat must be assumed as the basis of Hitt. genitival -nnas. Thus Skt. cyautnam 'a shaking' and Av. yao0na'action' stand beside Skt. cyavati 'causes to move', and Skt. ratnam 'gift' beside rdti 'he gives'. Gk. XrkKT&h'V 'a wreath' and Pora0v 'fodder' show the corresponding feminine. The same suffix forms adjectives, (e.g. Skt. cyautnas 'stimulating', pratnas 'ancient', nitanas 'present', Svastanas 'of tomorrow', hyastanas 'of yesterday', Lat. diitinus

1. Among the types of weak verbs occurring in Germanic, none has provoked more difference of opinion than that of Class III, and no other has so consistently eluded a believable analysis. As might be expected, most discussions of the subject lean heavily on the evidence provided by Gothic. In Gothic weak verbs of Class III, the most noticeable feature is the occurrence of a in some inflectional forms beside ai in others. Thus the present indicative active of the verb 'have' has sg. 1 hab-a but 2 hab-ais and 3 hab-aip, pi. 1 hob-am and 3 haband but 2 hab-aif. Similarly, the imperative has sg. 2 hab-ai and pi. 2 -air but pi. 3 -andau. On the other hand, a always appears in the infinitive (haban), in the present participle (habands), and throughout the passive indicative (e.g. pi. 1-3 habanda). Conversely, ai occurs in all forms of the preterit (e.g. ind. sg. 1 habaida, p.p. habaiks) and in nearly all optative forms, the sole exception being pres. act. 1 habau. 2. Attempts to explain this apparently arbitrary assignment of a and ai have been numerous. A long list of publications on the subject, together with bibliographical details, has already been given by Hermann Flasdieck in an exhaustive study relating principally to Old English, Untersuchungen uiber die germanischen schwachen Verben III. Klasse (unter besonderer Beruicksichtigung des Altenglischen), Anglia 59.1-192 (1935). Here, in the interest of brevity, older conflicting opinions will be merely summarized according to type, documentation being reserved for works that are either cited individually or have appeared since 1935. Following Bartholomae, some scholars (e.g. Streitberg, Hirt, Loewe) posit an originally athematic conjugation of Class III and assume that the Gothic a-forms represent IE e, as in L videre 'see' beside Go. witan 'observe', Lith. mineti beside Go. munan 'think'. Others (e.g. Osthoff, Kieckers, Flasdieck) object that pres. ind. act. p1. 3 -enti would produce Go. *-ind rather than -and, while still others reply that -entwould indeed become -indin initial syllalbes, as in wentos > Go. winds 'wind', but -and in unstressed noninitial syllables (e.g. H. Krahe, Hist. Lautu. Formenlehre des Got. ?93 [Heidelberg, 1948]). Inasmuch as athematic pres. ind. act. sg. 1 -e-mi would not produce Go. -a, most proponents of the e-theory ascribe this ending to the influence of the corresponding -o > -a of thematic verbs: hab-a 'I have' like bair-a 'I bear'. Other suggested interpretations would trace Go. sg 1 -a to -em with the secondary (!) ending -m (Hirt) or would explain all Gothic a-forms as transfers from thematic verbs (Brugmann, followed by E. Prokosch, Comp. Gc. Cr. 212 [Philadelphia, 1939]). 3. When the aias well as the a-forms are taken into consideration, the confusion becomes worse confounded. Even if it is conceded that -ewith an athematic ending might somehow appear as a in Go. pres. ind. act. sg. 1 haba beside pl. 1 habam, 3 haband, there still remains an awkward question: how could the same -ealso produce ai in such forms as sg. 2 habais and 3 habait? A few scholars

The original meaning of forbeodan was also 'to command'. It is the only meaning of Gothic faurbiudan. The meaning 'forbid' seems to have been a West Germanic development. It occurs only when forbeodan is followed by an accusative of the thing forbidden, or (in rare cases) by an infinitive. The meaning 'forbid' with the accusative construction is common in Old English since the beginning of the eighth century. It occurs four times in Otfrid. OS uarbudun glosses Latin vetuerunt in the Strassburger glossen' of c. 1000 A.D. Where forbeodan is followed by a clause, it means 'to command' and is interchangeable with OE bebeodan. The clause may be affirmative or prohibitive. If prohibitive, it is generally introduced by the negative particle ne, Gothic ni. The same construction holds for OE bebeodan. *Bibiudan does not occur in Gothic; but Gothic anabiudan bears the same relation to Gothic faurbiudan that OE bebeodan bears to OE forbeodan. Both OE bebeodan and Gothic anabiudan primarily mean 'to command'.

1. PAST PARTICIPLES brugSenn: drukkenn. The verbs bregSa 'to dart, brandish', brd : brugSum, brugSenn, and drekka 'to drink', drackk : drukkum, drukkenn belong to the 3rd ablaut series. The past participles brugSenn : drukkenn are phonetically irregular, in that we should expect here the a-umlaut of the radical vowel u > o: *brugSanaR > *brogSenn (cf. ONorw. brogqenn), *drunkanaR > *drokkenn (cf. *sunkwanaR > sokkenn 'sunk'). It is obvious that the radical vowel u in brugS'enn: drukkenn does not represent the original u, but a later analogical restoration of u in place of *o. This restoration has never been satisfactorily explained. One is tempted to explain it as borrowed from the preterit plural stem (brugS-um: drukk-um), but this hypothesis is unsatisfactory because it leaves unexplained the reason for a borrowing restricted to these two forms. Noreen1 and Bethge2 assume the borrowing theory in the case of drukkenn, but do not apply it to brugSenn, for which they give no explanation. It is difficult to understand this inconsistency, since in the two forms the phonetic conditions are apparently parallel so far as the a-umlaut of u > o is concerned. In Scandinavian studies 21.97-8 (1949) I attempted a different solution of the problem. I assumed that the u in brugqenn was due to proportional analogy after the pattern of two verbs in the nasal class of the 3rd ablaut series whose infinitive contained the irregular vowel e of the stem syllable, preceded by the liquid r, with u in the past participle: renna (earlier rinna) 'to run': runnenn; brenna (earlier brinna) 'to burn' : brunnenn; hence bregSa: brug&enn, which furnished the pattern for drekka: drukkenn. This explanation, based on proportional analogy, is vitiated by the fact that the type bresta 'to burst': brostenn, like bregSa and drekka, contains the radical vowel e preceded by the liquid r in the infinitive and hence would have favored the retention of the a-umlaut of u > *o in *brogSenn: *drokkenn. As regards drukkenn, Noreen and Bethge give no reason why the vowel u should have been borrowed from the preterit plural stem, contrary to the established pattern of the kk-verbs with phonetically correct o (s0kkva: sokkenn). Until we discover this reason, we must still consider the form drukkenn a 'non liquet'.2a As regards brug&enn, the phonetic conditions after the stem vowel u differ from those connected with drukkenn: in bru-gq-enn we have an anomalous consonant cluster -g&-, whereas the -kkin dru-kk-enn belongs to an already established pattern. The gg-verbs of the 3rd ablaut series also belong to an established pattern, and if the anomalous -g&in bru-gS-enn can be brought into relation with the geminate -gg-, we may have a reason for the u in brugSenn. I shall therefore

The concept of time in relation to action finds expression in the verbal forms of a great many, although not all, languages. ‘In English we have made up our minds that all action must be conceived of in reference to three standard times’,’-the present, the past, and the future. Of these three, the devices for the expression of the future-their origin, development, and present use-receive from our grammarians the least satisfactory treatment. The common school grammars of modern English usually give as the one means of indicating future time the combination of shall and will with the infinitive form of the verb and name it the future tense.2 Some give two forms of the future tense: one for simple futurity and another for detern~imtion.~ As a matter of fact, however, the use of the auxiliaries shall and will with the infinitive is but one of several important methods of expressing the future and certainly does not deserve the title ‘the future tense’. Some other combinations having a claim to be included in an English future tense are: (a) the verb to be + prepositional infinitive. (He i s to go with the committee.) (b) the verb to be-about + prepositional infinitive. (The man is about to dive from the bridge.) (c) the verb to be + going + prepositional infinitive. (They are going to go by automobile.) Then too, the present form of the verb frequently refers to future time both in subordinate clauses and in independent sentences when some other word than the verb, or the context in general, indicates the time idea. (He returns from his trip tomorrow.) On the other hand, the use of shall and will to express determination (sometimes called ‘the emphatic future’, or ‘the colored future’, or ‘the (If it rains, I cannot go.)

Indo-Europeanists have often disagreed on the use of determinatives and root-determinatives in word-analysis; Persson's work was criticized by Bloomfield' and Hirt's later by Petersen.2 These criticisms were made from a diachronic standpoint. That axOoiaLt is longer by one element than x Benveniste used to advantage a synchronic study of the dh-determinative in his explanation of the Gk. infinitive in -oaea and the Indo-Iranian infinitive in -dhydi.6 This paper is a synchronic study of the IE dh-determinative in the Germanic languages.7 Persson defined determinatives as root-enlargements, either consonantal or vocalic, with no clearly recognizable meaning.8 But he did not differentiate between determinatives and nominal or tense formants. On the contrary he says: 'In den genannten Hinsichten eine Parallele zwischen den Tempusund Nominalformantien einerseits und den Determinativen anderseits zu ziehen, ist umsomehr berechtigt, als diese Elemente vielfach in einander iiberfliessen und offenbar in genetischem Zusammenhang stehen. .... Die Determinative lassen sich zum Teil als verallgemeinerte Tempussuffixe fassen. Zum Teil mag auch die Beschrinkung dieser Formantien auf ein bestimmtes Tempus sekundar sein.'9 Thus Persson admits a connection between determinatives and tense formants, and the possible development of a definite function for determinatives.

The state of confusion of our knowledge of the linguistics of Central America needs no better comment than the hodge-podge in that section of Les Langues du Monde, recently edited by Meillet. Oaxaca is a veritable tangle-knot of linguistic stocks. One is reminded of the Ca'ifornia of early days with its twenty-one unconnected families. Oaxaca is a comparatively small state, but there are fourteen tongues spoken within its borders. With the exception of Aztec not one of them has been seriously studied until now. As for the classifications, they vary all the way from Belmar, who reduces them all to three families, to Meillet, who has eight different stocks represented in the state, four of which would be made up of one single isolated language. I hope that the present paper will help to clear the situation. The material on which it is based was collected in the field, when I went to Oaxaca in 1922, at the behest of Manuel Gamio, the Director of Anthropology of Mexico, to collaborate as linguist in the Anthropological Survey of the Mexican Republic which he has planned. The monumental work on Teotihuacan, as typical of the Aztec culture, had just been completed and the field of investigation was now shifted to the Zapotecan region. Although the primary object of my work was to be a study of the Valley Zapotec proper I had made up my mind to have a look at the other languages if possible. Accordingly I first went to live at Teotitlan del Valle, close to the famous ruins of Mitla, and commenced my study of the language. It was not long before I realized that I was dealing with a type of language unfamiliar to me: a very sparse form; practically no treatment of the verb, that is to say, the verb reduced to a simple expression of the infinitive preceded by a semi-prefixed particle of temporal aspect and followed by a half-agglutinated, half-fused pronominal ending; the same pronominal ending added to any form of noun to express personal relation or possession; the burden of the expression of relation laid on word-order, except for a division of the world of objects into the

In modern French one of the pedagogical problems is the position of personal pronoun objects that are governed by another verb, e.g. je peux le voir, but je le fais faire. The latter word order was much more common in older phases of French; and in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries it was the rule, though the former is now the more common with most verbs. Among writers of the 17th century, however, even a superficial examination reveals considerable inconsistency, which was eventually resolved in favor of the word order that now prevails. The present article gathers a representative number of examples of this construction in the 17th century, to study the distribution of the position of the personal pronoun objects, to see if there was an order or method in the practice of the writers of that century, and finally to determine reasons that might have contributed to or retarded the change. The basis of this study is a group of 2832 examples of the construction made up of a verb governing an infinitive which has a dependent personal pronoun. The case of the prepositional pronoun infinitive will be taken up separately. The examples were gathered by reading in the works of 25 authors whose dates range from the very beginning of the 17th century to its last years. Enough text was