dif[t]o[n]z v[e]rid, b[u]t bek[w]z h[i] wisht tu indik[e]t that the antes[i]dents ov _ái_ and _áu_ wer diferent from th[o]z ov _aí_ and _aú_. In Go[t]ik _faíhu_, (Sk. pa_s_u, pecu), _aí_ iz _a_ shortend tu _i_, and br[o]ken bef[o]r _h_ tu _ái_; in Go[t]ik _váit_ (Sk. veda, οἶδα), _ai_, iz radikal _i_ stre[n][t]end tu _ái_. In Go[t]ik _daúhtar_ (Sk. duhitar θυγάτηρ), _aú_ iz radikal _u_ br[o]ken tu _aú_; in _aúhna_ [u]ven (Sk. a_s_na, ἰπνο=ἰκνο=ἀκνο), the _au_ iz _a_, darkend tu _u_, and br[o]ken tu _áu_; hweil in Go[t]ik _báug_ (πέφευγα), _áu_ iz orijinal _u_ stre[n][t]end tu _áu_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _ê_ and _ô_ in Go[t]ik w[i] s[i] _â_, j[u]st az w[i] s[i] Dorik _ā_ beheind Eionik η. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _canis_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _s_; hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _cruor_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _k_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r γ in γένος, w[i] s[i] [A]rian _g_; hwen w[i] h[i]r γ in φλέγω w[i] s[i] [A]rian _z_. Th[i]z fiu il[u]str[e]shonz wil ekspl[e]n, ei h[o]p the esenshal diferens in the aplik[e]shon ov f[o]netiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil sh[o] that in the former our br[u]sh m[u]st ov nesesiti be br[w]d, hweil in the later it m[u]st b[i] fein. It iz bei miksi[n] [u]p t[úe] separ[e]t leinz ov reserch, [i]ch heili important in itself, that s[o] m[u]ch konfiu[z]on haz ov l[e]t b[i]n ok[e][z]ond. The valiu ov piurli f[o]netik obzerv[e]shonz shud on no akount b[i] [u]nderr[e]ted; b[u]t it iz nesesari, for thát veri r[i]zon, that deialektikal az wel az filolojikal f[o]netiks shud b[i] konfeind tu th[e]r proper sf[i]r. The filolojist haz m[u]ch tu lern from the f[o]netishan, b[u]t h[i] shud never forget that h[i]r, az elshw[e]r, hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz az important and az seientifikali akiuret az hwot iz miniút and speshal. Hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz often m[o]r akiuret [i]ven than hwot iz miniút and speshal. It meit b[i] posibel, for instans, bei a f[o]tografik proses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the t[u][n] and the inseid w[w]lz ov the mou[t] hweil w[i] pronoúns the Italian vouel _i_. B[u]t it wud b[i] the gr[e]test mist[e]k tu s[u]p[o]z that this imej givz [u]s the [o]nli w[e] in hwich thát vouel iz, and kan b[i], pronoúnst. Th[o] [i]ch individiual m[e] hav hiz [o]n w[e] ov plesi[n] the t[u][n] in pronoúnsi[n] _i_, w[i] hav [o]nli tu trei the experiment in order tu konvins ourselvz that, with s[u]m efort, w[i] m[e] v[e]ri that pozishon in meni w[e]z and yet prodiús the sound ov. _i_. Hwen, th[e]rfor, in mei “Lektiurz on the Seiens ov La[n]gwej,” ei g[e]v piktiurz ov the pozishonz ov the vokal organz rekweird for pronounsi[n] the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk gr[e]t k[e]r tu m[e]k them tipikal, thát iz, tu l[i]v them r[u]f skechez rather than miniút f[o]tografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei f[i]l on this point than bei kw[o]ti[n] the w[u]rdz ov Hæckel:—