Abstract: 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. Today there meet here two entirely distinct branches of the Indo-European family; in the west the Germanic which belongs to the centum group; in the east the Slavic and the Baltic which belong to the satam group. We know that Germanic was established here only during the late Middle Ages by colonisation of territory that had previously been Slavic or Prussian. Before the birth of Christ-a period still prehistoric for this part of the world-there lay south of the Baltic East Germanic languages (those of the Goths, Gepidae, Heruli, etc.) which vanished from this region after the migration to the Black Sea of the Goths and the tribes that went with them. Eastern neighbors of the Goths were (on the testimony of Ptolemy the geographer) the Galindae and the 'Sudauer', that is Prussian peoples. This district remained Prussian until the 17th century when this member of the Baltic branch was absorbed by the Germans on one side, by the Lithuanians

Abstract: The Albanian language constitutes a distinct branch in the Satem division of the Indo-European languages. It is the direct descendant of the ancient Illyrian of Roman times, together with some Thracian influences. Since Albania is an isolated and mountainous region, and there has been no attempt at standardizing a literary language until very recent years, the number of local dialects, varying in grammar and syntax, in vocabulary, and in phonetic structure, is enormous. At the present time, two principal dialectal divisions exist, Geg or Northern, and Tosk or Southern, which are more or less mutually intelligible. The inhabitants of Albania number one million, and at least another million speakers of the language live in the surrounding countries or across the seas.

Abstract: In an article entitled 'The Development of the Stops in Hittite', JAOS 52. 1-12, E. H. Sturtevant offers a proof of the following thesis: 'While the original distinction between voiced and voiceless stops was not maintained, the original voiceless stops were regularly written double, wherever the cuneiform system made this possible, and other stops were not'. Knowing nothing about Hittite, I can only take Sturtevant's statement at its face value, and I have not the slightest doubt that he is right as far as the facts are concerned. But he seems to have had some trouble with the phonetic explanation of these facts, and here I hope to be able to help. He writes:

Abstract: [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.']

Abstract: The traditional theory of the Indo-European origin of Greek intonations is founded on the comparison of Vedic with Greek and on the comparison of Lithuanian with Greek. As to Slavonic, it seems to present a development more recent than Lithuanian and therefore its testimony regarding intonations is hardly to be accepted as an independent one (cf. my article, Le probl~me des intonations balto-slaves, in Rocznik Slawistyczny 10. 1-80). Streitberg thought that certain phenomena concerning abbreviation or conservation of final long vowels in Germanic were related to the corresponding phenomena in Lithuanian and were to be explained by original differences of intonation. But if, as has been shown in the article just quoted, these Lithuanian phenomena have nothing to do with intonation, although this language offers a distinction between two intonations, the existence of similar phenomena in Germanic, even if complete parallelism between Germanic and Lithuanian has been proved, does not involve the existence of intonations in Protogermanic. It is possible that the rather complicated treatment of final vowels in Germanic depends not only upon the phonetic circumstances (whether the vowel is short, long, or a diphthong, whether it is final or followed by a consonant, whether this consonant is an occlusive, s, or a sonant), but also upon the functional value of the phonetic elements in question (accounting for secondary arrangements). In his book Sprachkorper und Sprachfunktion, Horn has shown how differences of phonetic treatment are to be explained by different degrees of functional value. This, however, does not interest us for the moment. The chief point is that there are so many principles explaining the differentiation of finalvowels that to introduce a new and a problematic one is to complicate the matter still further.

Abstract: imperfect represented by Osc. fufans and Latin ibam, dabam, amdbam, and the like, was patterned after a pre-italic reduplicated pluperfect *bhu-bhyd-nt for *bhe-bh~d-nt,1 which, after suffering phonetic change became Italic *fu-fdnt, Osc. fufans, was re-analyzed so as to find the root in *fu-, the original reduplication, and thus the syllable -fdwas left as the bearer of the meaning of past time. In my discussion of this theory I confined myself to the imperfect with a brief note on the f-perfect of Oscan-Umbrian; but, as was pointed out by Manu Leumann, Glotta 18.258, I did not consider the relation of the Latin (also Faliscan) bo-future. Although at the time the inference to be drawn seemed to me obvious, I now recognize various complicating factors which are the subject of the present discussion. It has been recognized quite widely that the relation of e.g. Lat. ?-bam impfct. : i-bo fut. is completely analogous to that of the corresponding forms of esse, which do not show the labial, sc. er-am : er-o. Putting it in the form of a proportion, ibam : ibo = eram : ero. What was the history of the two latter forms is also clear: that ero is a short vowel subjunctive of the root *es'be' (Brugmann Gr.2 2. 3. 528); and that eram received its d by being patterned after the older IE *bh(u)yam (e.g. Leumann, IF 42. 72). Consequently, if we know which of the two btenses in Latin is the earlier, the other is easily derived from it after the

Abstract: iKKXriCa etc.' To be sure, the matter of the ultimate provenience of these loan words, especially the Greek, whether coming directly, or thru the medium of the Latin, has by no means been settled. Streitberg2 says: 'Dass die gotische Bibel an Entlehnungen aus dem Griechischen reich ist, kann nicht befremden. Aber so gross deren Zahl ist, tiberall handelt es sich um gelehrte Fremdw6rter, nirgends zeigt sich ein volkstiimliches Geprige. Wo griechische W6rter den Eindruck des Volkstiimlichen machen, wie etwa aggilus, aikkljsj5, aiwaggqlj5 u.a., oder wie die Namen Makidanja, Asia usw., ist deutlich die Spur r6mischer Vermittlung zu erkennen'. Jellinek3 asks 'Aus welcher Sprache stammen diese Wdrter? Alle sind sowohl lateinisch wie griechisch. Auch daimanareis geh6rt hierher. Es ist keine got. Ableitung mit Suffix -arjasondern eine leichte Umbildung von 8atpovwdptos oder daemoniarius. Das Wort hatte offenbar vulgdiren Klang, deshalb kommt es in der Literatur ganz selten vor. Die meisten W6rter sind ihrer Herkunft nach zweideutig. In Marja ist die Zuriickziehung des Akzents sicher got., ebenso ist das i von aggilus jedenfalls gotischer Lautersatz ffir e, das got. in nachtoniger Silbe nicht vorkam; es bleibt also unsicher, ob Mapla