¹ Rev. Ling. Rom. 2. 30–45. E. C. Hills quotes a well-known scholar, whom he does not name, as suggesting that the preservation of cl-, fl-, and pl-, in Gaul, while weakened in other Romance districts, may have been due to Germanic influence (Hispanic Studies 213, Hispania Monograph Series, 1929).

² Der Einfluss der germanischen Sprachen auf das Vulgärlatein 1 (Heidelberg, 1913).

³ Lectures l⁶. 86.

⁴ TAPA 12. 18, 20.

⁵ Linguistique historique et linguistique générale 84, 86, 87 (Paris, 1926).

⁶ Language 219–20 (Harcourt Brace and Co., 1921).

⁷ This thought recurs throughout Vossler's Frankreichs Kultur in Spiegel seiner Sprachentwicklung (Heidelberg, 1929).

⁸ Charles Bally, Traité de Stylistique Française² 1. 23 (Heidelberg).

⁹ Lit. f. germ. rom. Phil. 4. 236.

¹⁰ Prinzipien d. Sprachgeschichte³ 365 (Halle, 1898).

¹¹ Verhandl. d. kön. sachs.-Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. 1897. 101–126.

¹² Le Langage 341–2 (Paris, 1921).

¹³ Language 214 (Holt, 1922).

¹⁴ For Windisch see note 11.

¹⁵ H. F. Muller, ‘A Chronology of Vulgar Latin’, Z. f. rom. Phil., Beiheft 78.126 (1929).

¹⁶ The present article is a reduction from a larger unpublished study in which I examined with some detail the actual relations between the Germanic invaders and the Gallo-Romans.

¹⁷ E. du Méril, Essai sur la Formation de la Langue française 235–8 (Paris: Franck, 1852).

¹⁸ Diez, Grammaire des Langues Romanes 1. 65; 3. 12₁ (Franck, 1874).

¹⁹ Meyer-Lübke, Gramm, d. rom. Spr. 3. 698, and thereafter J. Klapperüch in his Bedingungss. im Altfranz. 3. 64.

²⁰ H. Reis, Z. f. deut. Phil. 33. 214. Reis says that in observing the characteristics of early German syntax ‘können daher nur solche Stellen berücksichtigt werden in denen der Übersetzer von dem Text der lateinischen Vorlage abweicht’.

²¹ H. F. Muller, 85 (Poitiers, 1912).

²² K. Vossler in Geist u. Kultur in der Sprache 56–83 (Heidelberg, 1925) undertakes to formulate this ‘drift’ of Latin into Romance.

²³ The importance of the psychological factor, over against historical investigation, in syntax, is stressed by many investigators of to-day. It is a matter of opinion; but Lucien Foulet, who is sympathetic to the descriptive school of syntax, gives no psychological explanation for the phenomenon which we examine shortly.

²⁴ Vendryes, Rev. Ling. Rom. 1. 265–6, Mém. Soc. Ling, de Paris. 17. 338; Bergayne in Mém. Soc. Ling, de Paris 3. 51.

²⁵ V. S. Clark, The Latinity of the Middle Age and of the Renaissance 4–5 (1908); D. S. Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vêtus Latina cxxxiv (1925).

²⁶ Taylor Starck in Collitz Studies 190–202 (1930).

²⁷ Z. f. deut. Altertums 46.141, 144.

²⁸ Reis in Z. f. deut. Phil. 33. 217; 41. 222, 221. This fixity tended to disappear in the MHG period (F. Maurer in Behagel Festschrift 183).

²⁹ A great deal has been written on Latin word-order since the days of H. Weil (De l'ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes, Paris 1844). For bibliography consult Marouzeau, L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine ix-xvi (Paris 1922).

³⁰ The page references are to Sievers' edition of Tatian.

³¹ L. Foulet, Petite Syntaxe de l'Ancien Français ³ 316 (1930).

³² Ibid. 351.