[1. estragar < *stragare: strages. 2. sesgar < *sesecare (defended against Spitzer and Ullrich). 3. simado, sima: σιμός. 4. sosegar < *insulsicare.]

Since the extant prose (with the exception of slavish glosses) is by its very nature closer to the vernacular than the poetry, we should probably not expect to encounter in it as large a proportion of those constructions associated with compact, synthetic speech as might be found in the poetry. Also, if there is a progression or a shifting with respect to any phenomenon in the language, we might reasonably expect to find it reflected in the prose rather than in the poetry. And so, the decline of our case-construction in OE speech is probably more accurately indicated by its use in prose writings.

[Genitives in -ais (and -ai) from io-stems are assumed to contain *-ois, the ending of the IE i-stems. Attention is directed to the same meta-plasm in Oscan-Umbrian. Messapian -aihi, etc., may continue *-ois-i, and contain a double genitival ending, if the last syllable is to be connected with the genitival -ī of Latin and Celtic.]

[Discussion of the terms ‘linguistics’ and ‘philology’ as used in American English.]

[Sketch of the use of this term. Marty's understanding of it, while not coinciding with v. Humboldt's usage, is an important contribution to linguistic thought. However, in Marty's sense it is better to speak of ‘bridge meanings’. The various other meanings that have been attached to the phrase ‘inner form’ had better be expressed by less ambiguous terms.]

A study of the case of comparison would not be complete without taking into account the remarks that scholars, beginning with Grimm, have made about a possible genitive or an instrumental of comparison. One cannot read a grammatical treatise touching upon comparison without encountering rather annoying hints about the possibility of a true genitive of comparison in Germanic.

The material in the foregoing chapters has been presented with a view to advancing our knowledge of comparison in Germanic and particularly in English. It therefore seems desirable to sum up briefly those points in grammar that have been the subject of demonstration, or that may be said to be better understood because of the light thrown upon them i1n the course of the present study. This investigation was begun solely through a kind of intellectual curiosity aroused in the course of a previous study, and so there is no thesis to defend or hypothesis to justify.