Search

1. OVERVIEW OF A THEORY OF AGREEMENT. Any treatment of morphosyntactic agreement must face those aberrant cases of HYBRID or MIXED agreement. In certain situations for example a noun triggers one set of agreement features on adjectives but the NP headed by that noun triggers a different set of agreement features on verbs or coreferential pronouns; or a noun triggers masculine features on adjectives and pronouns but belongs to the declension class normally reserved for feminine nouns, and so on. These exceptional cases also shed light on regular agreement processes. We present a theory of agreement and apply it to Serbo-Croatian, which, like its Slavic relatives, is richly endowed with regular and hybrid agreement. The mixed agreement patterns that are predicted by the theory, and no others, are attested in that language. Our theory may be summarized as follows. An inflected noun has two different feature sets that determine the agreement values it triggers: CONCORD features (case, number, and gender, for Serbo-Croatian); and the person, number, and gender features of the REFERENTIAL INDEX (Pollard & Sag 1994).1 The concord feature of gender for a given noun is closely related to that noun's declension class, as schematized in 1.

La distinction anime/inanime n'est que l'une des nombreuses distinctions pouvant etre faites le long d'un continuum allant de soi vers l'autre. Depuis le slave commun tardif, les langues slaves ont developpe des distinctions diverses et richement articulees le long de cette echelle (ex : viril vs non viril, anime vs inamine, entite vs cadre). Ces distinctions ont ete implantees morphologiquement a travers l'extension analogique du genitif-accusatif et a travers la diffusion de l'accusatif pluriel -y vers le nominatif pluriel, et la diffusion des desinences de l'ancienne racine u. L'A. explore ici l'evolution de ces distinctions et de leurs desinences morphologiques

1. Introduction / Philip R. VanderMeer and Robert P. Swierenga -- 2. Declension, gender, and the "new religious history" / Harry S. Stout and Catherine A. Brekus -- 3. Sinners are turned into saints in numbers / Gerald F. Moran -- 4. Enthusiastic piety /Marilyn J. Westerkamp -- 5. The spirit in the flesh / Linda K. Pritchard -- 6. Sex and the second Great Awakening / Terry D. Bilhartz -- 7. Women, feminism, and the new religious history / Margaret Susan Thompson -- 8. Religion and immigration behavior /Robert P. Swierenga -- 9. Seating and the American synagogue / Jonathan D. Sarna -- 10. Religious divisions and political roles / Philip R. VanderMeer.

IN 1801 Yale College President Timothy Dwight reflected on the enormous changes that the nation had undergone during the previous century. "In the year 1700," Dwight told his student audience, "five of the United States were mere forests, without a civilized inhabitant." From such humble roots the nation had stretched and changed in ways that stunned Dwight. The intervening hundred years had transformed that "mere forest" into "an independent empire" boasting a flourishing commercial economy and an exploding population. Increasing in both size and prosperity, the young United States found itself suddenly "possessing a considerable influence in the great affairs of mankind."' For Dwight, who fashioned himself the first native-born Ameri

One aim of any description of Russian noun morphology should be to provide the student with the information he needs in order to produce correctly all the possible forms of any given noun, i.e., such information as gender, declension type, vowel/zero alternation, and stress pattern. Unfortunately, this kind of information is seldom provided efficiently, and often it is not provided at all. Regarding information about noun stress, there are only two American textbooks for learners of Russian which attempt to provide a clear and complete presentation of the stress patterns of the Russian noun.' I shall first summarize these two presentations and then offer an alternative which I hope will be simpler and more attractive pedagogically.2 Both Bloomfield and Lunt divide nouns into eight basic stress patterns. The two analyses differ primarily in how they designate these patterns. Since designation of stress pattern is central to the alternative I wish to propose, I will begin with an analysis of the designations used by Bloomfield and Lunt. The eight stress patterns for regular nouns in Russian are these

In spite of numerous suggestions' and recurrent discussions, the "bewildering profusion and confusion of conflicting and overlapping grammatical terms used in the teaching of German"2 are still unresolved problems in our profession and in language teaching in general. This confusion is not surprising when we remember the diverse origins and ages of the most frequently used terms in the inventory of our grammatical terminology. Roman grammarians translated Greek terms and adapted them to Latin, yet not always correctly. "Accusative," for example, is a two-thousand year old mistranslation.3 The advantage of Latinbased terminology is its internationality, but many terms are not descriptive enough and have become fossilized, as, for instance, "article" from Latin articulum meaning 'little joint.' While the terms continued to be used, grammatical theory underwent a number of changes. 18th century grammarians, for example, considered the "noun" (< Latin nomen'name') as the most important part of speech (therefore it is das Hauptwort, Nennwort, Dingwort and capitalized in German), but today we view the "verb" (< Latin verbum 'word') as the core of German syntax. Another source of terms used in German textbooks are English translations of German coinages, primarily of those by Jacob Grimm (17851863) who created, for example, the dichotomy of "stark" 'strong' and "schwach" 'weak' to name classes of verbs as well as types of nominal and adjectival inflections. These terms were contradictory from their very inception: "Strong" verbs are characterized, among other features, by len/ at the end of the past participle, while "weak" denotes nouns and adjectives inflected with /(e)n/.4 Thirdly, structural, applied and generative linguists have suggested numerous words during the last fifty years, such as "(noun) determiner," "limiting word," "primary" and "secondary" adjective declension or "verb phrase" and "noun phrase." These terms have, however, only been sporadically used in textbook descriptions of German morphology and syntax. It is not surprising that teachers and students alike are frustrated in such a terminological labyrinth. This article is a plea for another attempt to improve and streamline the grammatical terminology in German pedagogy. In a society where scientific investigation and electronic communication predominate, outsiders of our profession may, with some justification, accuse us of being steeped in tradition, unscientific and incapable of describing our own professional field: language. Inside our profession, communication is quite often hampered by the lack of agreement on the most appropriate terminology. We readily accept the fact that the German language has changed during the course of its history as is evidenced by glossaries for relatively recent works, such as those by Goethe. We also, even if

W ITHIN a more general concept of criticism as meditation, I wish to put forth here some meditations on discourse that is decadent, decadentistic, or high modern-where "high" is understood both in a chronological sense and in the sense of register or level of performance. These meditations are grounded in the powerful opus of Gabriele D'Annunzio, an opus symbolic of decadent discourse at its peak in Europe and still in need of an adequate critical revision.1 Out of the complex and nobly articulated structure of D'Annunzio's work, I choose the dramatic genre, and specifically the tragedy entitled Fedra. What follow are nodes/notes for meditation. A meditation on the decadent which does not wish to remain ri

s, they were at times conflated, e.g., Tocharian B ymiye (and also yamo*?). (When used as agent nouns or as adjectives this class shows replacement of the nominative singular by the accusative.) There are other nouns of this class in both Tocharian languages which show Back Vowel Umlaut and manifest no trace of original palatalization of the root final consonant, e.g., B sopiye* "net," olyiye* "ship," molyiye* "struggle" (both with superficial palatalization of /1/ before /i/, see Adams, forthcoming), or B proskiye [ A praskil " fear." It is possible that such nouns show a Proto-Indo-European *-uHen-. The loss of laryngeals left *-iHenand *-uH nas *iyenand *uwen-. At that time *-iyencould be segmented as *-i-yenrather than *-iy-enand such an analysis would lead to the replacement of *-uwenby *-uyen-. The latter develops regularly to [AB] -ibut with no palatalization of the preceding consonant and backing and rounding of any susceptible preceding vowel. A trace of the original u(H)stem may be seen in B prari "finger" (from *p(e)roruyen< *p(e)riruHen-) but plural nominative praroi (from *p(e)rrruHnes). Tocharian A shows this word without a n-extension, i.e., sg. prar (< *p(e)riru), pl. praru* (< *p(e)rorwd). As an adjective we have B arkwi [A arkil "white," pl. nom. arkwimn (for *arkwih), pl. acc. arkwindarn, all from *arguyen(< *arguHen-, cf. Latin argatus "clear, significant") with the accusative singular again as a nominative. (Proto-Indo-European *u gives Tocharian B /o/ when subject to Back Vowel Umlaut, /wd/ when absolutely initial or after /k/, and /a/ elsewhere.) 8 Except in adjective stems in -r-, the -m is (secondarily ?) lost. 9 The final -e (in Tocharian B) from Proto-Indo-European *-oH is surprising. One might more readily have expected *-a This content downloaded from 207.46.13.159 on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 04:41:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 442 Journal of the American Oriental Society 100. 4 (1980) When we turn our attention to n-stem adjectives in Tocharian, we find that, aside from small, residual examples (see notes 7 and 10), there is abundant evidence for two formerly productive types: one corresponding to our nominal class (2), and one to class (5). The evidence is most explicit for class (2) which includes several adjectives in Tocharian B and one or two in Tocharian Aall based on Proto-IndoEuropean *-mon-/-men-, e.g., Tocharian B klyomo [A klyomj "noble." In Tocharian B the vowel *-6of the nominative singular has been extended throughout the masculine paradigm. In Tocharian A, though the declension has been assimilated to that of the ntstems, we see traces of Proto-Indo-European *-ein, for instance, the acc. sg. m. klyomant. The feminine in both languages is also based on ProtoIndo-European *-men-, with the addition of *-ain Tocharian A and of *-yain B, e.g., B klyomfia, A klyomi .M. Class (5) adjectives, however, appear to have been the productive "weak" declension in Proto-Tocharian and, insofar as they survive, they have become assimilated to their thematic (i.e., "strong") counterparts. The usual result of this conflation of strong and weak for the masculine adjective was the retention of the strong nominative singular (i.e., no preceding palatalization) and the weak accusative singular (i.e., with preceding palatalization and, in Tocharian B, the extension of the vowel -e[from either PIE *-eor *-o-] at the expense of-a[from PIE *-e-] ). Thus, in the singular, we have the following developments: SINGULAR Proto-Tocharian Toch. Toch.

The following is a historical and comparative study of the accentual alternations that go with inflection in the Indo-European languages which retain the old 'free' accent.l I will use the term 'inflection' in a narrow sense, referring to person and number in the arerb, to case and number in the noun. A thorough synchronic analysis of Sanskrit, Greek, or Lithuanian accentuation, even if limited in this way to inflectional processes, would be a major undertaking in itself. However, we do not have to wait for this work to be completed before starting our reconstruction. The outlines of the synchronic systems can be made sufficiently clear so that basic conclusions can be drawn about the proto-system that underlies them. My procedure will be to sketch a synchronic analysis of the inflectional accent of the three branches of IE that preserves the old accentual mobility, and in the process to draw whatever historical conclusions are possible. §1 provides a sketch of the classical Greek accent system, with special emphasis on the alternation between acute and circumflex in the declension. §2 gives an analysis of Sanskrit accentuation, and its complex interrelationship with ablaut and other segmental processes. §3 then outlines how the Balto-Slanc accent systems can be derived from the same system that underlies Greek and Sanskrit. §4 deals with the phonetic realization of accent, which turns out to have interesting systematic consequences, but has so far been unjustly neglected by comparativists. The IE accent systems show some pervasive systematic properties, explanation of which is a basic requirement for any theory of IE accentuation: (i) There is a definite relationship between accentual mobility ('free' accent) and the existence of contour accents ('intonation', i.e. the contrast between acute and circumflex accent). As Table 1 shows, distinctiare contour accents

1. In spite of the common practice of speaking of 'pronominal inflection' in explaining the origin of certain case endings in various Indo-European languages, and, in particular, when discussing the declension of adjectives in Germanic, it is generally recognized that the inflection of the pronoun, of all the categories of forms with which we have to deal in Indo-European grammar, is the most disparate and least tractable to reconstruction by the comparative method. It is indeed probable that there was no fixed pronominal declension in the parent speech-fixed, that is, to the same extent as the declension of the nouns. This too is generally recognized, especially in the instance of the personal pronouns of the first and second persons.l However, the same thing is only slightly less true of the demonstratives of the third person, and indeed of the demonstrative par excellence, Gk. ho, he, to, Skt. sa(s), sa, tad, Goth. sa, so, pata. The lack of agreement between the stems of the oblique cases of this pronoun in these three languages, especially between Greek on the one hand and Sanskrit or Gothic on the other, would seem to indicate clearly enough the striking lack of a settled inflection without need for further evidence-for example, the dative singular feminine, Gk. tii (

On the subject as to what endings (weak or strong) should be used following the above-named words there has been much controversy. This problem is not new, but during the course of centuries usage has favored more and more the weak endings for adjectives that follow alle, beide, mancher, saimtliche, solcher, and welcher. In the case of alle the weak ending is generally the one accepted today. In the older periods of the language the strong declension was used. For example, Fiietrer says mit aller guter iibung' as listed by Behaghel, who as well as Wilmanns gives many such examples. A few such endings still occurred in the 18th century where Lessing writes alle rechtschaffene Christen," and Herder alle alte Schriftsteller'. However, the leading grammarians agree that the weak form is the standard form today. The weak declension of an adjective after alle has recently been affirmed in an article dealing with this topic and published in this journal.4 The 1957 edition of Duden states: "Ausnahmslos folgt auf alle und keine die schwache Beugung'"5 and alle ehrlichen Menschen is given as an example. Among modem authors confirming this usage I quote: alle andern,6 des Dankes aller .... Beteiligten,7 die GroBmachtstellung aller europdischen Staaten,8 ohne alle scherzhaften Wendungen.9

THERE has been, in the last two decades, a disheartening tendency among a few teachers of German to treat grammar mincingly. They say: Why drill on the subjunctive and the passive? The student does not grasp the former, and the latter is not much used. They say: Suppose the student is minded to come up with der Messer, die Liffel, das Gabel? He can after all get such food as he needs in a restaurant, or at the campus cafeteria, if the institution sponsors a German table.

IN THEIR TREATMENT of noun inflection our textbooks for the study of German are burdened with over-systematization. In these books the inflectional structure of the noun is divided into the 'strong declension' (which is in turn subdivided into three classes-really declensions), the 'weak declension,' and the 'mixed declension.' For each of these five declensions, paradigms are cited that represent the two or three genders concerned and which, where conditions permit, illustrate the presence or absence of vowel mutation, and also certain other variations of type, with four cases for the singular and four for the plural. Usually there is also given some information as to what kinds of nouns belong in each category-information which, except as it concerns the 'first class strong,' is mostly unsatisfying, and which in any event is more readily assimilable if presented gradually or if acquired through the process of analogy. Often five, or the greater part of five, lessons are devoted to the presentation of the declensions.' The encounter with these convinces the learner, at the very outset, that German has indeed a complicated system of inflection. When the student has learned all the paradigms, together with the accompanying details, he feels that he knows the noun, and unfortunately for him the teacher is too often of the same opinion. And yet, when this system has been mastered, the learning of the noun, even for the most elementary purposes, has been only begun. For the acquired knowledge has but trivial value if the student does not know to which declension this, that, and the other noun belongs. The correct placement of the great majority of nouns-numerous as they are-must be learned for one word at a time. From this there is no escape. The student needs to know the principal parts of all the nouns encountered, or at least those of the more important ones, which are to form his active vocabulary. But this is not at all a hopeless task. For, after all, only a relatively small number of nouns has to be learned during the first

IF there is one part of German grammar that should be given first place as a trouble maker, it is the declension of adjectives. After repeating the weak or strong endings without a mistake, a student will in the very next breath use an "e" instead of "es." The paradigm has apparently no relation to the German sentence. If such mistakes, like children's diseases, carried with them any hope of future immunity, one would not be utterly discouraged. But one is tempted in desperation to ally himself with those who ignore such unimportant matters as adjective endings. As they say, the student in reading German can usually hit the meaning without knowing anything about them. But since I have never been able to satisfy my New England conscience with this short cut, I determined this year to see what could be accomplished by giving my students a great amount of intensive practice in the use of adjectives. First I suggested that each one write a description of some one in the room, giving the class an opportunity to guess the subject. The following is typical of those written: Dieses Midchen ist in diesem Zimmer. Es hat kurzes, braunes Haar und helle Augen. Es hat rote Wangen, weil es gesund ist. Es spielt ,, basketball." Ich denke, es glaubt den guten Rat von Franklin

0. The purpose of this article is twofold: to examine the various patterns of declension found in Russian and establish the MORPHEMES in them; and, by this presentation, to exemplify a possible method of morphemic analysis. The procedure involves the identification of the MORPI-IS that occur, and their assignment as ALLOMORPHS to morphemes. The methods used are summarized and exemplified in the author's treatment of English.' Some additional explanation is in order. The forms that occur are examined in phonemically isolated words (?0.1). They are compared and then segmented mechanically at points that leave partials which recur in more than one form. Thus the forms ruka (see ?0.3 for the orthography), ridku, rdki, rukax enable us to segment into ruk-, -', -, and the partials -a, -u, -i, -ax; these can be compared with noga, ndgu, n6gi, nog'x, and are thus established as recurring; further comparison of rukax, rukam, rukamji establishes the recurring partial -a-, and the partials -x, -m, -mji; and the latter are established as recurring by comparison with n6vix, n6vim, n6vimji. After a tentative set of morphs has been established in this way, the forms are tested in comparable frames and sequences to determine which have identical functions: thus odnA + ruka, odnh + k6stj compared with odnby + ruki, odn6y + k6stji, establish the functional identity of -a in odna and in ruka, and of these instances of -a with the absence of a final vowel in k6stj, this absence being set up as a zero element, -0.1" We can then say that there is a morpheme which contains at least the allomorphs -a and -0; the morpheme can be symbolized by some arbitrary symbol, say V/-N (see ?0.3). That our segmentation is tentative can be shown by the fact that from odnby + ruki and odnby + k6stji alone we could only conclude that -oy and -i are allomorphs of a single morpheme, whereas the introduction of further evidence makes it clear (as will be shown below) that odn6y has to be analyzed as odn-0-6y-0, and that it is the final -0 that goes with -i in a morpheme V-G. In this connection it is emphasized that no zero morphemes exist, but only zero allomorphs of morphemes whose other allomorphs are not zero. Stress patterns are separate morphs, forming suprasegmental morphemes. The constant aim in this procedure is to obtain the smallest possible number of different morphemes, with one morpheme for each category throughout the analysis, and to arrive at the results wholly by inspection and commutation in similar structural frames, without the use of meaning. Since the structural

so . . . (In late O.S. . . . the mod. form soy begins to appear. The yis difficult of explanation. Some refer it to an intermediate soe, i.e. soe, found in Leonese, whose e is likewise not easily explained; . . . Possibly the form arose in the cases of inversion, i.e. when the order was so yo > soyo and with backward and forward action of the palatal > soy yo. But? The y appears in mod. Sp. also in voy and doy. Cf. ser.) (Op. cit., voc., p. 290) The Latin verbs do, su(m), sto were quite special in being monosyllables, and therefore in their V.L. forms were stressed on the vowel of the declension rather than on a preceding stem as was the case in the polysyllabic verbs. In a medieval Spanish combination do yo, so yo, esto yo (joined also by vo < vao < vado), the stress would tend to concentrate upon the verb form, whether the yod of yo created another twin yod as a glide vowel or not.

which are characterized by m, n (written -.m when final), and s (alternating with s). Compare SSS' 168 ff., who rightly maintain that these three paradigms go back to a single kernel. It is also clear that this kernel is the IE stem *to*tdwith s-forms in the nom. sing. masc. *so, fem. *sd. On the other hand the interpretation of the three characteristic consonants as being added particles (SSS 28 f.) cannot be upheld when it is realized that some of these forms correspond in their entirety to IE forms of the same meaning. Thus tdm, the fem. oblique of the first series, is identical with the IE acc. fem. *ta-m; and to?,2 the nom. pl. fernm. of the third series, is the IE *tas of Skt. tdh, Goth. frss, Lith. tos. Instead of seeing particles in these elements -m and -s, which from the Tocharian point of view seem secondary additions, we must therefore interpret as IE inheritances as many of the entire forms as possible, and then the others can be understood as formed analogously to these. However, the more precise history of these paradigms can be understood only in the light of the history of the Tocharian nominal declension, for the demonstrative paradigms are the result of the influence of Tocharian nominal paradigms on the inherited pronominal forms of the nominative and accusative (Toch. oblique). Bearing in mind therefore that also the cases of Tocharian nouns are divided into primary inherited cases (nom., obl., gen.), and new cases made by the addition of prepositions or particles (SSS 36), we shall deal with the demonstrative pronouns analogously. First will be considered the history of the nominative and

[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 KaXCO, 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 wis~sp = Sanskrit abhitas 'on both sides.']

One of the topics neglected in our German instruction is that of foreign nouns, especially those of masculine and neuter gender. The feminine foreign nouns are easily recognized because of their relatively frequent endings (-ie, -ik, -ion, -tilt, -age, etc.), and their plural offers no difficulties since it conforms to the general scheme of the feminines (-en). It is, however, helpful to emphasize that practically all foreign nouns of masculine and neuter gender belong to the -e declension (usually called the second declension) and to the fourth (weak) and mixed declensions.

Although I believe that the Finnish so-called long vowels are phonemically geminate clusters, I think that the term 'short-vowel stem' is a convenient designation for declensional or 'conjugational stems ending in a single vowel. In the following, when I speak of me-stems, se-stems, te-stems, etc., these are to be understood only as varieties of e-stems. Every declined word in Finnish has a vowel stem to which all or most of the case endings are suffixed in the singular. Many words also have a consonant stem; many do not: neither type can properly be said to predominate. Those words that do have a consonant stem form the partitive singular on that instead of on the vowel stem, occasionally also an alternative essive singular form. The other words build the entire singular paradigm on the vowel stem, except, sometimes, for the nominative. Among dissyllabic stems this exception applies only to e-stems and pronouns. The plural declension need not be considered in this paper. If there is no consonant stem in the singular there is none in the plural. Every vowel in the language occurs as stem vowel in the dissyllabic shortvowel stems. Except among the e-stems, there is no consonant stem; and (neglecting the pronouns) the nominative singular is the same as the stem: paita 'shirt', genitive paidan,' partitive paitaa; hdntd 'tail', hdnndn, hantad; viikko 'week', viikon, viikkoa; tytt6 'girl', tyt6n, tytt6d; lintu 'bird', linnun, lintua; myrsky 'storm', myrskyn, myrskyd; nyrkki 'fist', nyrkin, nyrkkid. Some two-syllable given names in -e and a very few other dissyllabic e-stems follow this pattern exactly: kolme 'three', kolmen, kolmea. So Aune, Kalle, Roope, etc.; also itse 'self', nukke (frequently irregular in the plural) 'doll', kaase (obsolete or extremely rare variant of kaaso) 'bridesmaid'. And there are about a hundred of the dissyllabic e-stems that follow the same pattern except for a change of final vowel to -i in the nominative: sormi 'finger', sormen, sormea. The rest use a consonant stem for the partitive, like the polysyllabic e-stems, or else they show variation between the two types of declension. The polysyllabic e-stems form a very large and important part of the Finnish vocabulary. Most of them are derived from shorter words by means of formative suffixes. They all have a consonant stem, which may or may not be identical with the nominative. Examples are joutsen 'swan', joutsenen, joutsenta;2 hapan 'sour', happamen, hapanta; vdsymys 'fatigue', vdsymyksen, vdsymystd

genitives, 'yovwos (from *gonwos) and yoVVaTOS (from *gonwatos); but Attic has only yOVaTOS. In Latin, the u-stem genit (fourth declension) can shift not only to an o-stem (second declension), as ablative geno, but also to an s-stem (third declension) as accusative genus, genitive genoris (for examples see Neue-Wagener 1.530). Nominative genus, as in Lucilius 162 (Marx), is ambiguous, since it may represent a masculine u-stem (like Hittite genus) or a neuter s-stem (cf. the possible masculine s-stem Hittite genusi genusus); Nonius 207.28-30 (Mueller) takes it as the former, Neue-Wagener (loc. cit.) as the latter. Admittedly, Greek does not particularly help us; but the Latin parallels to Hittite seem to me not without pertinence, whether they represent a common inheritance or merely a similar development.

0. Introduction. The Finnish nominal declension has fourteen cases and two numbers. There is no distinction of gender. Case and number are separate formal entities, the case markers for eleven of the fourteen cases being identical in the singular and the plural. The genitive case is one instance in which the case endings are not the same in the two numbers. The other two are the illative and nominative.l A traditional statement of the genitive case, that given by Setaila,2 shows: sg. -n; pi. -en (-in), -den (-tten), -ten. For the genitive plural most paradigms show two forms: (1) with case ending added to a plural stem-(a) -en after short i and after j preceded by a short vowel, as in pieni-en, kirjoj-en; (b) -den elsewhere, optionally varying with -tten in all paradigms, as in mai-den or maitten, korkei-den or korkei-tten; and (2) with case ending added directly to the stem-(a) -en after short i, after other short vowels usually -in (arising from a combination of the -ewith the preceding vowel to form a diphthong in -i-), as in risti-en, kirja-in; (b) -ten after a consonant, as in pien-ten, las-ten. To section 2a of this statement Setala has a note, mentioning that stems in short i sometimes also have an ending -ein beside -ien, as in tallien or tallein.3 The form tallein, genitive plural of the noun stem talli'stable', presents one of the more complicated problems in Finnish morphology, involving not only the genitive plural but the interpretation of the i-stem noun class in combination with the plural morpheme. The following analysis is submitted as having more than routine interest.

The development of the original diphthongs in Hittite has seemed to be a peculiarly difficult problem; but evidence has gradually accumulated' until something like a system has emerged. We may now say that all the original short diphthongs appear in Hittite as monophthongs, whereas the original long diphthongs retain their diphthongal character. It is not always possible to distinguish with certainty between the several diphthongs; but it will promote clearness if I treat them separately, as far as possible. Primitive Indo-Hittite"l ai (ai) appears in the nominative plural neuter of the pronominal declension (kue 'quae', ke 'haec', ape 'illa', i, 8e 'ea', te ne 'et ea', udne 'countries') and in the medial ending -ti, which corresponds with Greek -rae and Sanskrit -te (op. cit. 144). Probably another example is afforded by the adjective idalu' 'bad', which I would connect with Gk. aZhaXos 'smoky flame', ailahX6M 'soil with soot', passive 'be laid waste by fire', Old Saxon Tdal, idil, Old English idel, Old High German ital 'idle'. The variation in orthography (e:i) will be discussed below.

In Czech as in Russian and the other Slavic languages the verb differs from other inflected categories in that its inflectional patterns are highly dependent upon the derivational structure of the verb stem. By contrast, the theme vowel which marked the various substantival declensions at some early stage of Proto-Slavic merged with either the declensional endings or the stem, so Slavic nouns are composed of only a single stem (containing all derivational affixes) and the inflectional endings. In the verbs, however, although certain derivational affixes are incorporated into the leftmost portion of the stem, for each verb there is a single derivational suffix (which may be zero) occurring between the left-hand portion of the stem and the ending. Since differences between these derivational suffixes may be used to represent differences in the inflectional patterns of the verbs, we may follow Isa'enko in calling this suffix a verbal classifier. When the verbal classifier is zero, we will term the verb NONSUFFIXED; when it is not zero, we will term it SUFFIXED. A classification which does not distinguish between suffixed and nonsuffixed verbs is still used in the Czech handbooks, where verbs are traditionally divided into five groups on the basis of the 3rd sg. form, e.g., (1) nese, (2) tiskne, (3) kryje, (4) prosi, (5) de'ld.1 Note that classes 1-3 correspond to the -et verbs of Russian and class 4 to the -it verbs, while Russian does not have verbs corresponding to those with contracted endings (class 5). In the classification which follows, this traditional ordering of verb classes is changed. This is to capture certain regularities and productive tendencies operating within contemporary standard Czech. Furthermore, we indicate places in the system which are at present subject to phonological or morphological analogy. These, incidentally, are the places where the student may hear so-called colloquial or even substandard forms. It might be helpful to begin with some phonological rules in Czech which have contributed to differences between Czech and Russian verbal types, specifically vowel contraction and so-called pfehlaska (the shift of a and u to 6 and i after palatal consonants). Note for example the homophonous -dt of the following Czech infinitives (3rd sg. form in parentheses)

The Russian declensional system has been one of the most thoroughly investigated sectors of Russian grammar. Research on the formal aspect of declension has recently culminated in the studies of Zaliznjak and Stankiewicz, which have set their sights on a definitive treatment of the subject.1 It is not altogether surprising to note, however, that several problems still await a satisfactory solution. One of these is that of the genitive plural desinences of the Russian substantive.