Note on the HanOley- Allen Grammar. 95 



plain. Later ou, when -w; became -m in dative forms, etc., this 

 "yod"Avould naturall}' drop altogether; for, while graphically 

 the two endings were the same, phonetically they may be repre- 

 sented as follows: 

 Final -w; of -a-cw; final -w; of dat. ''""xjj : : final ": of »}/■(>'. : final 



-"; of <ny.(<'.. 

 That is, the final letter of Ia-4<u) is probably the weaker of the 

 two,* being about equivalent to an English -y, while in the 

 second case the -; is really a vowel. This explanation is sug- 

 gested merely as a possible one which seems to meet the pecular 

 difficulties of the case. These nouns were treated a few years 

 ago in one of the German periodicals; but the writer of this 

 note has never seen the article and it is not at present available. 

 It only remains to be said that while such nouns as Sanskrit 

 sina, voc. sene may throw some light on these formations, it 

 seems rather doubtful on the whole, 



* See American Journal of Philology, IX, 25. If it be true that the 

 final -01 of oiKot is really -oy,the reason for its being short in determining 

 accent becomes clear at once. Moreover, in such lines as Horn. II. 

 B. 136 



al 6i- 770V jj^erepai 7' o/,ojo< koI vi/Tzia rtKva 



it will not be necessary to fall back upon the ictus as a reason for the 

 long final -ai\- and -w; but the final -/ plus the following consonant being 

 equal to -y plus a consonant will make position and so cause a long 

 syllable. 



