Lingua 21 (1968) 417-428, © North-Holland Publ~ shi,'~g Co.

, Amsterdam
Not to I)e wproduced by photoprint or microfilm without written p ~rmission from the publisher

OPERA VIRORUM OMNIUM

BONORUM VETERUM*)

H. E C H U I , T I N K

In 1922, now nearly half a century ago, Otto Jespersen wrote:

'If we compare a group of Latin words, inch as opera virorum o:nnium
bonorum veterum, with a corresponding group in a few other hm-
guages of a less fiexional type: OE. ealra godra ealdra man na weorc;
Danish al!e gode gamle intends vcerker; ModerlL English all g o d old
men's works, we perceive by analyzing: the id.~as expres~ed by the
several words that the Romans said really: work,' plural, nomi-
native, or accusative + 'man,' plural, mascu]ine, genitive + 'all,'
plural, genitiw~ + 'good,' plural, masculine, genitive + 'old,' plural,
masculine, l) genitive. Leaving opera m t of consideration, we find
that plural number is expressed four ff,mes, genitive case also four
times, and masculine gender twice; in Old English the signs of
number and case are found four times each, while there is no indi-
cation of gender; in Danish the plural number is marked four times
and the ca,~e once. And finally, in Modern E~glish, we find each idea
expressed once only; ... Mathematicalb~ the different ways of render-
ing the same thing might be represented by the formulas: anx +
+bnx+cnx= (an+bn+cn)x= (a+b+c)nx' (1954: 350-
351).
Fo'.ilowing his Danish compatriot, Louis Hjelmzlev in 1956 as.-
signed the structurc aax i- bnx + cnx to both the expression and
the content of virorum om..ium bonorura veterum, but, unlike Jesper-
sen, lie assigned the same formula also to, the content of the English

*) [ a m very grateful to Mr. R. P. B o t h a for his valuable c o m m e n t s on this

artich~ a n d for i m p r o v e m e n t s of m y English style. All faults, of course, are
mi~xe.
t) Obviously, this word masculine has to be deleted. Cf. Jespersen, 1954:
350 fa. 1.

417
418 H. S C H U L T I N K

word-group all ~ood old men's (1956c" 4). E ~glish 'epithets' like all,
good and old Hjelmslev considers as representing 'un syncr6tisme
tetal (exprim6 par z6ro) des formes casuelles et des nombres gram-
~naticaux quires tent distincts' in a noun su4 :h as men's (1956c: 15).
His reason for preferring the solution aax + bnx + cnx (I) to
(a + b + c)nx ([I) with regard to the content of virorum omnium
bonorum veterum and of ~//good old men's, Hjelmslev discusses in
detail in 1956c, cf. Siertsema, 1965: 265-267. Different and inde-
pendent syncretisms in the paradigms of nouns and 'epithets' play
the leading part in his argumentation. 'Une troisi~me possibilit6
peut 8~re 6cart~6e par avance" celle qui consisterMt ~ consid6rer le
g~nitif pluriel comme caract6risant le terme primaire seul (uirfrum,
men's), et les epithbtes comme des bases nues, d6nu~.es de cas et de
nombre. Une teUe interpr6tation ne rendrait pas compte du fair
essentiel que c'est ou bien l'ensemble (la jonction enti~re) ou bien
la somme de ses parties (des bases nominales) qui doit 6tre entendu
comme 6tant au g6nitif pluriel" sans rendre compte de ce fait on
tortc, rerait le sens de l'~nonc6' Ill956c" 3).
~[n an addendum to his article Hjelmslev remarks that Zellig S.
Harris decides in favour of description II: (a + b + c) nx, even in
tht: case of Latin phrases. In the passage quoted Harris, indeed,
de,;cribes ... us... us in/ilius bonus 'good son' as constituting a single
morpheme. Similarly . . . i x . . . a in victrix bona 'good victor (f.)' ur
... a . . . a in mensa parva 'small table' constitute one discontinuous
.~rpheme. But while he attributes the meaning 'male' to ... u s . . . us
in filius bonus, and 'female' to ... ix... a in victrix bona, Harris does
not assign a meaning, or in any case not the meanings 'male' and
'female' to similar morphemes in other words such as hortus parvus
'small garden', mensa parva 'small table' (1951' 165-166; cf., how-
ever, 306-309).
Anton Reichling differentiates - correctly in our opinion .- be-
tween, on the one ha,nd, torrnal word segments systematically corre-
sponding with semantic elements, and on the other haad systemati-
aily occurr/.'ng formal word segments not corresponding with
semantic elements. An example of a formal element with both
grammatical and semantic value, as Reichling calls it, is the -s in
Eng'lish plural nouns like books, chairs etc. An example of such a
fornml element with only grammatical value is the -e in Dutch een
stout-e ]ongen 'a naughty boy' beside een stout kind 'a naughty child'
 OPERA VIRORUM OMNIUM BONORUM VETERUM 419

(Reichling, 1965" 47). 2) A similar formulation is given by A. W. fie

Groot" 'Other morphemes have no meaning, but have a syntactic
function. Morphemes with a syntactic function we call 'syntag-
memes'. Examples are gender, number and case of the adjectives in
Latin. In the combination bonarum/eminarum neither the feminine
gender, nor the plural, nor the genitive of bonarum has any meaning.
They only denote that the word bonarum is an attribute of a feminine
substantive in the genitive of the plural. Neither is there a difference
in meaning between kleine and kl,'ines in German; cf. das kleine
M~del, ein kleines Mi~del. Categories of this kind are mere 'syntag-
memes' (1948" 442; cf. De Groot, 1964: 19, 2'2-23, 69).
We have already seen, how emphatically I=~jelmslev rejected this
-- t, i a : : , , ~ -- ,3~.a:t.tli~,ai, J. a l t . , a k . o l , o~,aJ, i,.~ ,'o'i I.lllo ICJFbLIUJLI (:ILJL~; ~ILLJLLI~ c~LSllt2 ~

understandable. Acceptance of this analysis is counter to one of

the fundamental principles of his linguistic theory. Hjelmslev at-
tempts to define his -]ements of content - just like all other objects
within his theory - purely formally. Such formal defiuitions of lin-
guistic obiects result from 'anchoring them relatively in respect to
other obj~.cts, similarly defined or premised as basic' (1963" 21).
Only those formally defined elements of content that are related to
elements; (f content outside the word in which the former elements
occur, are called morphemes (Hjelmslev, 1938" 142). In this way
Hjelmsh:v distinguishes among other things number, gender and
case-morphemes.
Before being formally defined, however, all sign-contents must
be set u:p. Hjelmslev establishes the sign-.contents using the so-
c,'flled commutation test: 'two units are commutable if the replace-
mere of one by the other in the same paradigm (environment) is ca-
pable of e n t ~ i n g a change in the other plane of the language'
(Fischer-.J0rgensen, 1956: 141). The two p!anca or language are its
expression layer and its content layer. Many linguists use the com-
mutation test to set up phonemes and other elements of expression.
Hjemslev also uses this test in analysing the content plane. He
posits two di2ferent invariant elements in the content plane if, and
only if, replacement of one of these two elements by the other entails
a change: in the expression plane. Pet and pat, for instance, are two

2) F o r his d e s c r i p t i o n of c o n s t r u c t i o n s like all good old mer~'s work cI.

Reichling, 1 9 3 5 : 3 7 4 ft.
420 H. S C H U L T I N K

invariants in the content plane because in a spoken or written text

replacement of the sign-content 'pet' by the sign-content 'pat' en-
tails a change in the expression plane: ]pet] becomes/p~et/. Notice
that in order to distinguish such invariants below the word-level, it
is not necessary that there exists a systematically determined corre-
spondence between these elements of content and elements of ex-
pression. The content-entity 'she' is established both in the German
Ki~ni:~¢-in and in the English queen. Since the commutation test has
to take p!ac,e not between the formal layers but between the sub-
stanc~ layer.,; of language (cf. Hjelmslev, 1954: especially 171-:172),
Hjehnslev is obliged to assign content-substance (i.e. meaning) to all
morphemes. To do this is particularly difficult in the case of gender-
morphemes the content of which he attempts to define in terms of
'con,,istency' (Hjelmslev, 1956a and b). For the same reason he
ca~. ~ot operate with 'syntagmemes' without 'semantic value'.
,ks far as I know, Reichling has never stated explicitly whether the
gender and case forms of nouns have a semantic value. 'As regards
gender,' De Groot (1948: 460-461, cf. 450-451) remarked with
reference to the semantic system of the nouns in classical Greek,
'1:he masculine and the feminine together are opposed to the
neuter. The neuter has an element lacking in th,~ other genders
namely 'lifdessness'. The masculine lacks an element which the
feminine has, namely the female sex.' 'A case system', the same
author wrote in 1956: 188 (cf. De Groot, 1964: 253), 'is defined as the
sum total of similarities and dissimilarities of meanings between the
cases, i.e., 1:he sum total of oppositions between the cases'. The efforts
of De Groot, Roman Jakobson and Hjelmslev to specify the seman-
tic content of the different types of case forms are also weli-known.

Neither Jespe:sen, nor IIjelm.~lev, Harris, Reichling or De Groot

in'0mded to desc.dbe the above-named phenomena exhaustively in
terms of 'a system of explicit rules' (Chomsky, 1961: 220). In recent
times several attempts have been made to do this. For instance, in
his Writing Trans/orma~,ic,nal Grammars: an Introduction A. Kout-
~oudas devotes two chapters to respectively Co-occurrence relations
and Agreement (1966:95-129 and 131-172). Of more theoretical
importance are E. A. Gregersen's mnuograph Prefix and ,Pronoun in
Bantu (1967) and P. M. Postal's paper titled Mohawk P,e/ix Gener-
ation (1964b : 346-355). Especially Postal's description of Spanish
 O P E R A VIiRORUM O M N I U M B O N O R U M V E T E R U M 421

article-noun-adjective agreement (1964a: 43-50, cf. 67-70) deserves

attention. This description is a reaction to B. Elson's and V. B.
Pickett's (1960: 63-64, cf. 1964: 88-89) tagmemic treatment of these
phenomena, Instructive is finally, the comparison of different
types; of generative treatments of number and gender offered by
M. Gross and A. Lentin, 1967: 185-I 92.
In 1957:41 N~am Chomsky stated: 'discontinuities, cannot be
handled within [:',, F] grammars', 3) one of the main reascns to in-
corporate transfomational rules into his linguistic theory. Seven
year.~, later Postal demonstra.~r.,i that a description of agreement in
Spanish noun phrases could be given by non-transformational,
phrase structure, rules. In ~:he same paper he nevertheless argued
that an approach by mean., of transformational rules is preferable
for reasons of intuition, siraplicity and generality (1964a: 43-50).
G. H. Harman also tries to generate discontinuous phrases in the
framework of a kind of phras~ structure grammar without transfor-
mational rules (1963: 604-607). For this purpose he adopts rules of
a type suggested by V. H. Yngve (1960: 449). These rules have the
abstract form B := D + ... + E, and specify 'that after B + C
has resulted from the appl;,cation oi the rule A =-- B -b C, the result
of applying B = D + . . . + . E will be D + C + E . ' Chomsky
(1965: 210-211, 1966a: 24-30), J. Mey (1965: 7i-84' and R~ P.
Stockwell (1965: 161-162) have already iliustrated that Harman's
proposals are in more thaI~ one respect deficient.a)
Both Postal ar, d Koutsoudas use category symbols for the intro-
ductiion of entities such as numbei and gender. Whether these cate-
gories should be introduced in the form of only one constituent-type
or in. the form of a ~;equence of different constit~tent-types, e.g. as
G(ender) + Ca(se) -+ Nu(mber), depends on whether doing so will
simplify the transfc, mational rule(s) specifying agreement (Kout-
soudas, 1966: ',58). In any case~ Postal, describing Spanish noun
phrases, firstly gives ordered rewriting rules providing no gender or
n'amber morphemes for either adjective or article, such as

8) Compare, however, t h e methc,dologically i m p o r t a n t , additional foot-

n o t e on pp. 41-42.
4) We pass over Postal's justified criticism of - w h a t he cMls - t h e sub-
scrip* approach, a s y s t e m of phrase s t r u c t u r e rules s u p p l e m e n t e d by sub-
script,s (Postal, 1964a: 49-50).
422 H. SCHUI T I N K

NP ~ Article Noun (Adjective)

Noun --> Noun Stent Affix
Affix --> Gender (pl arM)
Noun Stem -> Noun Stem Fern, Noun Stem M asc
{ M in Noun Stem Masc--}
6ender -+ F

Agreement is effected by means of a transfo':mational rule"

Tagreemen~
Article, Noun Stem, Affix, (Adjective)
1 2 3 4

1... 4 ~ Article + Affix, Noun Stem, Affix, (Adjective + Affix).

'This transformation adjoins the Affix of a Noun to the Article
constituent ~tltU
- - ~ ~-
L( t ~
t h^
e / - x~t /~:--~:
J t 3 t S t l .V.~. .U. t.3.I ' ~"'~
L I L.H
. .~.I I~L 11
:~ Ollt~
- - - 1~
: . .p. l.e.S.t.2.I l t ' ~'*"
YU . .S.t ., ~ 'I ,
1964a: 46-47).
In his A spects o/the Theory o/Syntax (1965" 170-184) Chomsky ap-
proaches, what he calls, Inflectional processes in a new, paradigmatic
way. He demonstrates that morphemic analysis -- e:speciaUy in
terms of a sequence of different constituent-types - is 'clumsy for a
grammar based on rewriting rules or transformations' (Chomsky,
1965- 173). A typical example of such an analysis is the segmenta-
tion of virorum into the constituent-types
vir"DCz ( = second Declensional Class) ~'M asculine" Plural"Genifive.
In a paradigmatic formulation problems like zero-elenlents, sutrple-
tion, internal modification, irrelevant morphemic representation in
grammatical rules and order generally do not crop, up. ]n a tra-
ditional German or Latin grammar, for instance, 'a particular occur-
rence of a Noun would be described in terms of its place in a system
of paradigms defined b y certain inflectional categorie.,;, namely the
categories of gender, number, case, and declensional type' (Chomsky,
1965: 170-171). Such a paradigmatic description is directly re-
statable in terms of syntactic features, as developed by Chcmsky in
§ 2.3 of his Aspects. In this way the noun virorum, just like the Ger-
man noun Br~der in the phrase der Briider, w~,lld be characterized
as masculine, plural, genitive and as belon~ng to a certain declen-
sional class. Accordingly, associated with the occurrence of virorum
in opera virorum omnium bonorv~ ~:eto,.~;~,;¢here will be a so-called
 OPERA VIRORUM OMNIUM BONORUM VETERUM 423

feature matrix specifying that virorum is assigned among other things

to the categories [ 1 Gender], [2 Number], [2 Case] and [2 DQ. In the
same way opera is assigned to the categories [3 Gender], [2 Number],
[1 or 4 Case] and [3 DC].
Chomsky differentiates between the features [~ Gender] and [~
DC], which are inherent to the norms virorum and opera, and [~
Number] and [7 Case] introduced b 3 grammatical rules (e, ~, y and
being variables that range over intt,gers), s) The former, [~¢Gender]
and [~ r~C], ~c~m in the teature specification of the lexical entry,
i.t they 'are essentially idiosyncrati: <and> will be specified in the
!e~icoa' (C.homsky, 1965: 87). In mo~t cases the feature [~ Number]
is imroduced by a context-free rule of the base applying to Nouns',
and :in m o s t c a s e s too the feature ~¥ Case] 'is introduced by a r u b
that does not belong to the base subcomponent of the syntax at
all'.~) If this is the case, then o:[ xhe fc,ur given features only [2
Number] will be a feature of the preteralinal symbol for which vir
c r opus is substituted by the iexicat rule, and all but [2 Case] will
appear in the termhm] string generated by the base rules (Chomsky,
L965,: 172;. It follows that the transformational component must
,:ontai I rules that alter and expand a feature matrix. Thas, rules
~.,ecifying case features belong to the transformational component.
These rules add to a phrase-marker specified features that e~ter
into [,articular Iormatives, dominating their phonological matri-
ces.~')
So do rules of agreement. As an example Chomsky gives again
the German noun phrase der Bri~der. In this case the gramli,_ar :must
con~tain agreement rules -- analogous to 1:he rules of assimilation of
the phonological component - 'that assign to the Article all of the

a) M. Bierwisch assumes ' t h a t all syntactic and morphological features are

bina.ry, i.e. t h a t l~hey assume one of t h e ealues ' 4 - or '-'. This a s s u m p t i o n
of col~rse implies t h a t categories with more t h a n two elements are character-
iz~ I by more titan one feature. Thus case a n d ge21der, for instance, require
two or more syntactic features in m a n y languages (Bierwisch, 1967 243).
~) F o r a discussion of the concept case of. Chomsky, 1965:221-.222 and
1966b: 44-45.
~) Bierwisch suggests t h a t this d o m i n a t i o n should t a k e place iT,.directly
tl-,rough a so-called r e a d j u s t m e n t c o m p o n e n t , a special set of morphological
rules operating b e t w e e n t h e syntactic a n d t h e phonological comp~ment of the
g r a m m a r (1967: 241-270).
424 H. S C H O L T I N K

feature specificatkms for [Gender], [Number], and (Case] of the

Neun it modifies. Thu~ we must have a rule that might be given in
the form"

(...) Article --~

whero Article ... N is an NP.

Ei Case _j 1_~ Case 1
~ Gender
Number I / - - ' " | a Number '
_

This rule is interpreted as asserting that in a string analyzable as

(X, Article, Y, N, Z), where the second p'.us third plus fourth ele-
ments c6nstitute an NP, the second element is to be assigned to the
categories [0c Gender3, [~ Number], and [7 Case] if the fourth ele-
ment is of these categories, ... This rule thus asserts that the Article
agrees with its Noun in Gender, Number and Case.' In particular, the
given rule assigns to the definite article 'the features [1 Gencier],
[2 Number], [2 Case]. This formative, so ca.~egorized, would be con-
.-er*. ~ to/der] by rules of the phonology' (Chomsky, 1965: 174-175).
Obviously, such a description of Latin words without inherent
gender, like omnium, bonorum and veterum, is in two respects more
complicated than that of a German article. Firstly, ~.he given Latin
'epithets', as well as other attributive adjectives, are usually derived
by means of transformational rules from an underlyiug string of the

Noun~"Copula~Adj ective;
cf. Chomsky, 1957: 72. Because of the fact that gender and number
will be introduced into the Latin attribute after the nominalizing
transformation has applied, this introduction takes place simul-
taneously with the introduction of the feature [~, Case], just as in
the case of the German article. Secondly, among others, the features
[~ DC] are inherent to tb~ attributes om~,ium, bonorum and vavrum
too. This only means that: the independent feature matrices of these
lexical items are more comprehensive than the corresponding matri-
ces of German articles.

An examination of the rules accounting for comparative con-

structions suggests 'that it may not be correct to regard a formative
simply as a set of features, some inherent and some added by trans-
formation and as a consequence of insertion into a Phrase-marker'
 OPERA VIRORUM OMNIUM BONORUM VETERUM 425

(Chomsky, 1965: 179). 'Formally, we can say that a formative must

be regarded as a pair of sets of features, one member consisting of
the "inherent" features of the lexical entry or the sentence position,
the ,other member consisting of the 'noninhere~,f' features intro-
duce.d by transformation' (Chomsky, i 965 : 182). In B~ierwisch's
tei~ninology gender and declensional class are 'lexicon inherent
features' of nouns, number a 'base rule inherent feature' of nouns,
case a 't:ransformationally introduced feature' (1967: 241). 'Non-
inherent' features, Chomsky remarks, 'make no independent contri-
bution to sentence interpretation' (1965: 182).
Stating this, Chomsky makes a claim about the semantic aspects
of case, number and gender which is far more explicit than earlier
ones made by Postal, Koutsoudas or other transformationa!ists.
Using concepts of both Reichiing's and Chomsky's theories, it can
be maintained that the category case, and the features number and
gender of 'epithets' have only a grammatical valae. The feature [~
Nuraber] of nouns, in turn, has in addition ~Loa grammatical value
a semantic value too. The semantic status of the feat~lre gender of
nouns does not become quite clear in Chom~k3's exposition. Bier-
wisch states in thi,; connexion: for a noun such as/f'~t,~r/the 'lexicon
inherent' 'feature [ + Masculine] may be predicted on semantic
grounds, but not in the same way for nouns as/kern/, /hilt/, etc.'
(1967: 241). Mternatively, gende~ can be introduced into nouns, as
in the case of the Latin ones/ill-us, vict-rix and the German one
. _ ~ . . . . . . . j to i,~a,
K6nig-in related r~,~+~.~l,. ~"" vzctor and K~nig, by means of
a categoria! base ~:ule.S)
We must, however, be c,~utious. Obviously, the feature [~ Num-
ber! of nouns does not always make an independent contribution to
sentence interpretation. Berwisch hints at ~ingularia and plura!ia
tantum (1967" 242 fn. l l" cf. Lakoff i965: C5-7). Furthermore,
Chomsky demonstrates that, when functioning as the Fr~dieate of a
sentence, noun phrases are not assigned a 'base rule i~herent fea-
ture' [~ Numher] but a transformationally introduced one. This is
done by means of an agreement trans.formation. He remarks that
we cannot have *They are a lawyer, *Bill is several lawy,~'s but only
They are several lawyers and Bill is a lawyer. This differeace between

a) Cf. also W. L. Chafe, 1967:253 and, with regard to Banit:t, Gregersen,

196'7: 16-17.
426 H. SCHULTINK

several lawyers and a lawyer is on par with the difference in number

and gender between the adjectives of the French sentences Ces
hommes sont inteliigents and Marie, est intelligente. It fonows - ac-
cording to Chomsky - that predicate nominals are neutral with
regard to number (1965" 180-181). In brief, whether the feature
[9 Number] of Latin nou.ns contributes to the semantic interpre-
tation of a sentence or not, depends on the way in which this feature
is inserted into the sentence.
It is possible that this state of affairs points out a general con-
dition on the structure of transformational generative grammar.
Latin verbs generally have a 'base rule inherent feature' tense, but
in the so-called consecutio temporum the tense of the verb of cer-
tain subordinate clauses has to be introduced transformationally,
~.L3Cbltl~ald~y+ t3y a~tCcltl~tzl. LZaXtO~ZZtX~VXLO. .L,it,tO, I.**~.OU vu*v., **..~.

be neutral with regard ~to tense. Similarly in Fxench and other Ro-
mance languages, verbs generally have a 'base rtd~ inherent feature'
mood, but in certain embedded sentences, which are constituents of
a VP, the presence of a subjunctive is obligatory again.
On the other hand, it should be detemfined whether the features
gender in adjectives and case may sometimes make an independent
contribution to the meaning of a sentence and in this case belong to
deep structure. Concerning the latter we have in mi'ad Latin loca-
tives such as Romam 'to Rome', Roma 'from Rome', Romae 'in
Rome', dora6 'from home', dotal 'at home'. In addition Bierwisch
mentions instrumentals and elatives having semantic characteristics
of the same kind (1967" 2,',2 In. 12). Finally, with regard to the
adjectival feature [7 Gender] we attempted to make a similar
distinction. In some special cases the difference between Dutch
adjectives with and without final -e, such as stout a.nd stoute, does
not reflect a difference in gender or a difference in other transfor-
mationally introduced features, but indicates a difference in sema:a-
tic value (Schultink, 1962: 64--72)P)

One aim of this article has been to point out some of the similari-
ties (and dissimilarities) in the ways linguists during the last fifty
years have treated certain inflectional phenomena. Linguistics ~ d

9) For another kind of description of what ~s apparently a similar Swahili

'epithet' cf. Gregerseu, 1967: 9-1(3.
 OPERA VIRORUM OMNIUM BONORUM VETt'RUM 427

not start yesterday, in 1957 or in 1922. This has also always been
one of the main themes in professor Reichling's long, important and
fnfitful teaching activities.

Uni,versity o/Utrecht
A m',hor's address" Van Diepenburchstraat ~28, The Hague,
The Netherlands

REFERENCES

BIERWISCH, M , 1967. 'Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of

so-called pronominal inflection in German'. In: To ho,~or Roman Jakobson,
essays on tke occasion o/his seventieth birthday I. The Hague, Paris, 239-270.
CaAFE, W. L., 1967. Review of: J. J. Katz, 1966. The philosophy o/language,
I J A L 33, 248-254.
CHOMSKV, N., 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague.
CHOMSKV, N., 1961. 'Some methodological remarks on generative grammar',
Word 17, 219-239.
CHOMSKV, N., 1965. Aspects o/the theory o/syntax. Cambridge, Mass.
CHOMSKV, N., 1966a. 'Topics in the theory of generative grammar'. In : T. A.
Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics t I I , Theoretical/oundatio~. The
Hague, Paris, 1--60.
CHOMSKV, N., 1966b. Cartesian linguistics, a chapter in the history o/rationalist
thought. New York, London.
Dr: GROGT, A. W,, 1948. 'Struc,tural linguistics and word zlasses', Lingua 1,
427-500.
D~** GROOT, A. W., 1956. 'Classification of cases and use,~ of cases'. In: M.
Halle, H. G. Lunt, H. McLean, C. H. van Schooneveld (eds.), For Roman
Jakobso~, essays on the occasion o/hi~ s~xtieth birthday. The Hague, 187-
194.
DE GROOT, A. W., 19649., Inleiding tot de algemene taalwetenschap, te~wns in-
k~iding tot de grammatica van het hedendaagse Nederlands. Groningen,
ELSON, B. and V, B. PICKETT, 1960. Beginning morphology-syntax. Sant;.x Ana,
Calif.
ELSON, B. and V. PICKETT, 19643. A n introduction to morphology and .,yntax.
Saata Ana, Calzif.
FIS,2HER-JORGENSEN, E., 1956. 'The c o m m u t a t i o n test and its applic,-l:ion to
phonemic analysis'. In: M Halle, H. G. Lunt, H. McLean, C. t-[. van
Schooneveld (edls.), For Roman Jakobson, ess~zys on the occa.¢ion oi his
sixSeth birthday. The Hague, 140-151.
GR~.G~RSEr~, E. A., 1967. Pre/ix and pro~oun in Bantu. Memoir 21 of the
UAL.
GROSS, M. et A. LENIIN, 1967. Notions sur les grammaires /ormelles~ Paris.
HARMAN, G. H., 1963. 'Generative gramma::s without transformation rules:
a defense of phrase structure', Lg 39, 597-616.
428 H. SCItULTIN K

HARRIS, Z. S., 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago.

HJELMSLEV, L., 1938. 'Essai d'une th6orie des morphemes'. In: Acres du
quatri~mc congrds international de li ng'aistes. Copen hague, 140-151.
HJELMSLEV, L., 195~. 'La stratification du langage', Word 10, 163-18B.
H/ELMSLEV, L., 1956a. 'Ore numerus og genus'. It:: Festshri/t til Christen
MJ~ller. Kobenhavn, 167-] 90.
HJ ELMSLEV, L., 1956b. 'Atom6 et inanim6, personnel et non-personnel'. In:
Truvaux de l' J mtitut de linguistique I. Paris, 155-199.
HJEI..MSLEV, L., 1956c. 'Sur l'ind6pendance de l'6pithfte', K D V S Hist.-Filol.
Medd. 36, 5.
HJELMSLF.V, L., 1963L P~olegomena to a theory o/ language (translated by
F. J. XVhitfield). Madison.
JESPERSEN, O. 195410. Language. its nature, development and origin. London.
KOUTSOUDAS, A., 1906. Writing trans/ormational gra~ ,mars: an introduction.
New York, St. Louis, Saa Francisco, Toronto, London, Sydney.
LAKOFF, G., 1~65. On the ~ature o[ syntactic irregularity. Cambridge, Mass.
MEv, J., 1965. 'Pushdown stores and snbscripts', Zs. /. Phonetik, Sprach-
wissenscha/t und Kommunikations/orschung 18, 71-34.
POSTAL, P~, 19~4a. Con.~tituent structure: a stvdy o/ ,:ontemporary models o/
syntactic description. Publication 30 of the Indian t University Research
Center in .anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. The Hague.
POSTAL, P. M., 1964b. 'Mohawk prefix generation'. In: tl. G. Lunt (ed.),
Proceedings o/ the ninth internati?nal congress o/ linguists. London, The
Hague, Puffs, 346-355.
R~ZICnLmG, A. J. ]3. N., 1935. 1let r¢,oord een studie oral!rent de grondslag van
taal en taalgebruik. Nijmegen.
REICHLING, A., 1965. 'De ~:aal: haar wetten en haar wezen'. In: A. Reichling,
Vemamelde studies over 1~edendaagse probiemen &:r taalwetenschap a. Zwolle,
24--58.
SCHULTINK, H., 1962. De mor/ologische valentie van l~,et ongelede ad~ectic] i;:
modern Nederlands. Der, Haag. ,
SIERTSEMA, B., 1965a. .4 stt*,dy o/g!oss:,mat:7s, c,{tice! ~arvey o/its ]undamental
concepts. The Hague.
SXOCKWELL, R. P., 1965. Review of: ~. Reszkiewicz, 1963. In.ternal structure
o/clauses in English: an int.roduction to sentence pattern analysis, and of:
A. Reszkiewicz, 1962. Main ~entenee el,,ments ,n The book of Max'gery
Kempe: a sludy in major syntax, Lg 41, :55-166.
Y.~Gvz, V. H., 1960. 'A model and an hypothesis for language structure',
Proceedings o[ the American Philosophical Society 104, 444-466.