Review published in:
Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 2:2 (1978) ► pp. 429452
References

Bibliography

Bloomfield, L.
1917 “Tagalog texts with gramm. analysis,” Univ. of Ill. Stud. in Lang. III,3.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K.
1886–1900Grundriss der vergleich. Gramm.Google Scholar
Buck, C.
1933Comp. Gramm. of Greek and Latin.Google Scholar
Caldwell, R.
1913Comp. Gramm. of the Dravidian Lang London.Google Scholar
Codrington, R.
1885Melan. Lang. Oxford.Google Scholar
Deck, N. C.
1933Journ. of the Polynes. Soc., XLII1.Google Scholar
1934Journ. of the Polynes. Soc., XLIII1.Google Scholar
Deimel, A.
1939Sümer. Gramm. Roma.Google Scholar
Dumézil, G.
1932Etudes compar. sur les langues caucas. du Nord-Ouest. Paris.Google Scholar
Foley, J.
1977Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gallis, A.
1946Etudes sur la comparaison slave. Norsk Videnskaps Akad. n° 3.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J.
1921Pathologie et thérapeutique verbales, III1. ParisGoogle Scholar
Gross, M.
forthcoming. “On the failure of generative grammar”, Language.
Hall, B.
1973 “Syntax and semantics of quotation,” Festschrift for Morris Halle.Google Scholar
Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hoijer, H.
(ed) 1946Ling. Struct of Native Amer. N.Y.: Viking Fund Pub. in Anthrop. No. 6.Google Scholar
Holt, J.
1941 “Les noms d’action en Etudes de ling. gr . (Acta Jutlandica XIII, 11). Copenhague.Google Scholar
Homburger, L.
1941Les langues négro-africaines. Paris.Google Scholar
Ivens, W. G.
1918Dict. and Gramm. of the Lang. of Sa’a and Ulawa, Solomon Islands Washington.Google Scholar
Jestin, R.
1946Le verbe sumérien, II1. Paris.Google Scholar
Jochelson, W.
1905 “Essay on the gramm. of the Yukaghir lang,” Amer. Anthropologist VII1, 369–424.Google Scholar
Kennard, E.
1935 “Mandan gramm.,” UAL 9:1, 1–43.Google Scholar
La Flesche, F.
1932Dict, of the Osage Lang. Bureau of Amer. Ethnology, Bull. 1091.Google Scholar
Leenhardt, M.
1935Vocab. et gramm. de la langue Houailou. Paris.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P.
1955Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Univ. of Texas Press & L. S. A.Google Scholar
1958 “On earlier stages of the Indo-European nominal inflection,” Lg 34:2, 179–202.Google Scholar
1967Reader in 19th Century Hist. Indo-European Linguistics. Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1974Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightner, T.
1972Problems in the Theory of Phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
1975 “Role of DM in generative gramm.,” Lg 51:3, 617–38.Google Scholar
1976a “Review of Goals of Linguistic Theory, ed. S. Peters,” Lg 52:1, 179–201.Google Scholar
1976b “A note on McCawley’s review of SPE” UAL 42:1, 79–82.Google Scholar
1976c “Review of Story of Latin and the Romance Languages by Mario Pei,” PIL 9:1–2, 213–20.Google Scholar
Lorimer, D.
1935The Burushaski Lang., I. Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B.
1920 “Classificatory particles in the lang., of Kiriwina,” Bull. of the School of Orient. Stud., I1, 33–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malzac, V.
1926Gramm. malgache 2. Paris.Google Scholar
Meillet, A.
1934Introd. à l’étude comp. des langues i.-e. 7 Google Scholar
Meinhof, C.
1909Lehrb. der Nama Spr. Berlin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstierne, G.
1942 “Archaisms and innovations in Pashto morphology,” Norsk Tidsskr. for Sprogvid., XII1, 88–115.Google Scholar
Poebel, A.
1923Grunzüge der sumer. Gramm.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
1877a “La transformation latine de *tt en ss suppose-t-elle un intermédiaire *st?” MSL HI. Reprinted in Recueil des publ., 370–5 (1970).Google Scholar
1877b “Le suffixe -t- ,” MSL HI. Reprinted in Recueil, 339–52.Google Scholar
1878Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues i.-e. Reprinted in Recueil, 1–268.Google Scholar
1889 “Sur un point de la phonétique des consonnes en i.-e.,” MSL VI. Reprinted in Recueil, 420–32.Google Scholar
1892 “Les formes du nom de nombre ≪six≫ en i.-e.,” MSL VII1. Reprinted in Recueil, 435–39.Google Scholar
Sethe, K.
1916Von Zahlen und Zahlworten beiden alten Ägyptern. Strassburg. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Small, G.
1929The Ger. Case of Comparison. Lang. Monographs IV1.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris
1946 “South Greenlandic (Eskimo),” in Hoijer (ed), 30–54.Google Scholar
Swanton, J.
1924 “The Muskhogean connection of the Natchez lang.,” UAL 3:1,46–75.Google Scholar
Thalbitzer, William
1911 “Eskimo,” Hdb. of Amer. Ind. Lang., 967–1069. Washington: Govt. Printing Office.Google Scholar
Thureau-Dangin, F.
1932Esquisse d’une hist, du système sexagésimal. Paris.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C.
1938A Concise Blackfoot Gramm. Verhandelingen der Koninkl. Nederl. Akad. XLI. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vogt, H.
1940The Kalispei Lang. Oslo.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J.
1930Altind. Gramm., III1. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Walker, D.
1975 “Non-syntactic constraints on a transformational rule,” PIL 81.1–2, 199–201.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
1946 “The Hopi Lang., Toreva dial.,” in Hoijer (ed), 158–83.Google Scholar