Of the nominal syntagms in modern Aramaic, the one in which one substantive is determined by another substantive is deserving of special notice. This kind of syntagm may be classified as follows: (1)a substantive determinedby another substantive in the genitive case; (2)a substantive determined byanother substantive with a relative particle; (3)a substantive determined by a possessive pronominal suffix and a relative particle with another substantive; (4)a substantive determined by another substantive with the aid of a pronominalsuffix; (5)a substantive determined by another substantive without recourse todot; any morphological element whatsoever.

An important phonological feature of many of the dialects of Arabia is the pronunciation of . This sound change is not confined to one dialect group, and unlike the affrication of and is non-conditioned. The evidence whether > in Classical Arabic or in the ancient dialects is rather inconclusive, and exceptin a few authors it is not categorically stated to be a sound change in the way that this is stated, for example, of 'aj'aja (iy[y] > ij[j] mainly in pause) for the dialect of the Tamīm.

The argument to be presented here proceeds from the analysis of a Sogdian word of uncertain orthography and disputed meaning. It first occurred, as by' / npšqty (apparently with word-division), in Soghd. Texte, I, 39.4, in a translation of Luke xii, 36, corresponding with Syriac bed meštūoā = (ÉK) Tŵv yáuwv; Müller gave ‘Gastmahl’, with an asterisk to denote his doubt. Later I published two Manichaean passages. One, hi the text I titled ‘A Job story’, speaks of a man who makes his way in the world and becomes rich and “takes to himself many wives and has by them many sons and daughters and gives wives to the sons and grooms to the daughters and makes a great By‘n’yšp / [']krty” : the context demands ‘marriage-feast’, in agreement with the Greek of Luke. The other is a Sogdian version of a Middle Persian verse, the original having been preserved by good fortune, ‘Hail to you, bridegroom, who hast made a marriage-feast for the sons’ : here By'ny / pškt'kw renders MPers. wdwdg'n ‘wedding’.

Since its début in 1881, when Charles Rieu's brief but masterly grammatical sketch appeared, the Gorānī koinĒ has become one of the Cinderellas of Iranian studies, literary and linguistic. Apart from a notice by E. B. Soane, of which more below, its only real outing has been in Professor Minorsky's compendious article on ‘The Gūrān’, containing an illustrated survey of all the epic, lyric, and religious verse then known in Gorānī. The surviving manuscripts acquired by Professor Minorsky he has since donated to the Leningrad branch of the Oriental Institute (Institut Narodov Azii AN), where they remain unpublished.

The turn of events in Tehran completely frustrated whatever chance there might have been for a loan from Britain in 1898. On 21 July Durand reported that Muzaffar al-Dīn had complained that the loan was not big enough. Hewanted §2,000,000 and he would not increase the security. The Amīn al-Sultān was ‘practically in power’ (he was reinstated on 12 August 1898 as Sadr-iA'zam), and was working vīgorously against the loan. This is partly explainedby his being himself a farmer of customs from whīch he drew an estimated§ 70,000 annually and so was against any foreign control. The sum which the Shah named could not be raised in London on the security offered. Besides,after the return to power of the Amīn al-Sultān the loan discussions betweenthe British and the Persians took on an air of unreality.

In his new work Presuppositions of India's philosophies, addressed as a textbook to the Western reader, Professor Karl H. Potter submits an interpretation of the key Indian concept of mokṣa, in which he draws an analogy with Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of Will to Power. The latter is invoked as typifying ‘a strand of thought which glorifies spontaneity and growth, which looks ahead to man's eventual success in overcoming the bonds which make him temporarily less divine, and which sees no exercise of power of which man is not in principle capable’(p. 2).

For over 2,000 years the Sun tzu has been considered the most authoritative work on the art of warfare, not only in China but also in the neighbouring countries to which Chinese cultural influence extended, particularly in Japan.In Europe the first translation appeared as far back as 1772, but this work by Father J. J. M. Amiot aroused little interest amongst professional sinologues and remained the only translation in the French language. In England, whilethere have been attempts to translate the work in more recent years, Lionel Giles's translation, though far from being satisfactory, has remained the most widely known since its publication in 1910. After half a century, a new attemptat translating this important work is naturally welcome. In the event, it isunfortunate that this new translation by General Samuel B. Griffith has turnedout to be so disappointing. The qualifications of the translator as an expert on the art of war may be taken for granted.

The publication of P'u-yi's autobiography is an occasion of great importance, not merely to sinologists and historians, but also to sociologists and political scientists, for the book contains a wealth of valuable information about the recent past of China, life in the Manchu court, particularly that of the author, and the technique of political education adopted by the Chinese Communists. The book itself is a unique document in two respects—it is the first autobiography of a Chinese monarch and this monarch's life spans the period from the medievalism of Aisin-Gioro to the Communism of Mao Tse-tung.

The field of the various regional theatres, ti-fang-hsi which represent a substantial part of the traditional Chinese theatre, still remains largely unexplored. It has always been outside the scope of the interest of Chinese and European scholars, who have paid most attention to Yüan-ch'ü the drama of the Mongol era, to the K'un-ch'ü theatre, and lately also to Ching-hsi or Peking opera. The Peking opera is in fact one of the regional theatres by origin, but it occupies an exceptional position because it is distributed throughout China and is not localized in a specific part of the country like other ti-fang-hsi.

It is argued that this work is a native Hausa tradition, and therefore a Hausa comment on history and the confrontation between Islam and paganism. This is important because our researches have hitherto been based almost entirely upon documents of the Fulani tradition, and Hausa comment has been scant. The fact that the song is written in Hausa is not of itself evidence of native Hausa origin, for certain of the Fulani are known to have composed in Hausa as well as Arabic and Fula. It is to the content and the imagery that we must look for this evidence.