That the author has here fallen into error seems to me partly explicable from the fact that in order to proceed with the utmost caution and lay claim to no unwarrantable example, he has not ventured to regard certain propositions as subjectless, which, in truth, really are so. We saw that Miklosich expressed the view that the finite verb of subjectless propositions always stands in the third person of the singular, and, when the form admits a difference of gender, in the neuter. This was certainly too narrow a limit, a limit which he himself transgresses, though this appears in a much later passage. In the second part of his treatise he says: “In ‘es ist ein Gott,’ the notion ‘Gott’ is affirmed absolutely without a subject, and this is also the case in the proposition ‘_es sind Götter_’”; and he adds: The “ist” of the existential proposition _takes the place of the so-called copula “ist,”_ which in many, though by no means in all, languages, is indispensable to the expression of the judgment, and has the same significance as the termination of person in the finite verb as is clearly shown in the proposition “es ist Sommer, es ist Nacht” alongside the propositions, “es sommert, es nachtet.” “Ist” is accordingly not a predicate (p. 34; cf. also p. 21 above). As a matter of fact, if the proposition, “es giebt einen Gott,” is to be considered subjectless, so also must the proposition, “es ist ein Gott,” and therefore also, “es sind Götter”; and thus the rule previously laid down has proved to be too narrow. That the existential propositions and other analogous forms, which may be found, are all to be reckoned as subjectless propositions may serve to confirm what we have sought to show above, i.e. that no language exists, or can exist, which entirely dispenses with these simplest forms of propositions. Only certain special kinds of subjectless propositions therefore, am I able, with Miklosich, to recognize as the peculiar advantage of certain languages. These are the criticisms which I have thought it necessary to make. It will be seen that, if found to be justified, they do not in the slightest degree prejudice either the correctness or the value of the author’s main argument, but rather lend to it a still wider significance. And so I conclude by expressing once again the wish that this suggestive little work, which, on its first appearance did not meet with sufficient general recognition, may in its second edition--where individual points have been corrected, much extended, and particularly the critical objections of scholars like Benfey, Steinthal and others, refuted with a laconic brevity, yet rare dialectical power--find that interest which the importance of the inquiry and its excellent treatment deserve. APPENDIX II