Syntax has received major attention in recent linguistic study, with many efforts at formalization. Publications have taken data largely from earlier treatments characterized as traditional. In spite of claims for theoretical advances, no treatments of syntax have been produced to replace the earlier, supposedly outmoded treatments. Rather, theoretical claims, such as those advanced on the advantages of a generative approach and formah'sm, have been dismissed by leading figures in the field. More recent grammars, like Mitchell's for Old English and Engel's for modern German, generally observe the traditional approach. Among problems, those for older periods lack the historical approach, as of expression for reflexivization. Investigations into these and other syntactic categories are needed. Further, outstanding works of the past, such as those by Delbruck, should be made available. In addition, specific handbooks, as on Old High German syntax, should be undertaken; in preparation, some texts of the time require reediting.

Although modern commentators readily acknowledge Stevin's significance as a creator of Dutch technical vocabulary, his linguistic theories are generally either ignored, or are dismissed as naive or confused nonsense. These theories were, however, the basic motivation for Stevin's considerable efforts in vocabulary creation, and they were taken seriously and literally by his contemporaries; Stevin's theories were of fundamental significance to the Dutch “language patriots” of the early seventeenth century.

The modern history of Germanic and English (synchronic and diachronic) linguistics reveals two main types of scholarly approach to language data: positivism (labelled ‘God's truth’) and theoreticism (labelled ‘hocus-pocus’ by American structuralists). The latter seems to have been dominant in the last decade.

The influence of IE laryngeal segments and their physical presence in early Germanic have frequently been adduced to explain some five classes of problematic phenomena of the early Gmc. languages. These problems are: first, that of the past forms of the seventh-class strong verbs; second, the so-called Verschärfung; third, the Gmc. ē2-vowel; fourth, the e-to-i change; and finally, various Gmc. etymologies. The laryngeal explanations of these five phenomena are deficient and alternative explanations are preferable. Therefore, there exists no hard evidence for the presence of laryngeal segments in later pre-Gmc. Indo-European nor in early Germanic.

Investigations of vowel lengthening and shortening in German have sought to identify either the ultimate cause of these changes, e.g., the need to achieve an ideal and uniform word length, or the specific conditions for them, e.g., open vs. closed syllable. Little light has been shed on the problem since Paul's formulation of 1884. Typically absent are references to real evidence that might be adduced from Middle and Early New German orthographic practices.

With an IBM-AT with 30 megabyte hard disk and eight-color plotter, significant configurations were uncovered among an ensemble of linguistic and sociolinguistic factors immediately accountable for the variable weak/strong inflection in a given set of contemporary German verbs. A spreadsheet produced matrices which show, in nine figures, the intersection of linguistic data with demographic data such as length of Bay Area residency, occupation, education, sex, geographic origin, as well as differential results based on two distinct methods of fieldwork data elicitation. Twenty-six native speakers of German residing in the San Francisco Bay Area served as informants.

An IE root *bhel(ə)- ‘strike, hit, hew, chop’, although not included in the standard IE etymological dictionaries, is shown to underly a number of etymologically obscure Germanic words, such as OHG bolz(o) ‘bolt’, Go. bliggwan ‘to beat’, OIcel. bella ‘to hit’, blak ‘slap, blow’, OHG blast ‘a throwing to the ground’, OHG bloh, bloc ‘block of wood’, and possibly OHG balko ‘beam’. Since related words can be found in Italic, Celtic, Baltic, and perhaps also Slavic and Greek, there would seem to be sufficient justification for the addition of this root to the inventory of recognized IE roots.

Subsequent to publication of his article “The velar stops and fricatives in the languaes of MSS A, B, C of the Niebelun-genlied” (AJGLL 1,1: 1989, 67–87), William G. Moulton has provided the following to substitute for the final paragraph and table on p. 78(bottom).

The publication of Batts 1971 (the actual scribal spellings in MSS A, B, C of the Nibelungenlied) and of Bäuml-Fallone 1976 (A concordance to the Nibelungenlied) for the first time have provided access to scribal spellings as the most direct evidence for the phonological structure of Middle High German (at least in this important work). This study is limited to the velar stops, affricates, fricatives. The scribal spellings together with historical eveidence and the modern dialects suggest the full structure of the velars. Finally, it is shown that the “normalized spelling” is in three respects misleading, at least for the Nibelungenlied.

In the production of written German, the spelling system and the writing process are distinct but interdependent. The system of spelling depends upon the writing process for its manifestations; the process of writing depends upon the spelling system for its substance.