cogitoergosum
2010-04-22 22:57:47 UTC
Proto-Indo-European language: Sid Harth
Proto-Indo-European language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"PIE" redirects here. For the pastry, see Pie. For other uses, see PIE
(disambiguation).
This article contains characters used to write reconstructed Proto-
Indo-European words. Without proper rendering support, you may see
question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode
characters.
Indo-European topics
Indo-European languages (list) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Albanian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language
Armenian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language
Baltic . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages
Celtic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages
Germanic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
Greek . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language
Indo-Iranian . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages
(Indo-Aryan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages
Iranian) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages
Italic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages
Slavic . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages
extinct:
Anatolian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages
Paleo-Balkans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Balkan_languages
(Dacian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language
Phrygian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_language
Thracian) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language
Tocharian . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages
Indo-European peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_people
Europe:
Balts · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts
Slavs · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples
Albanians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians
Italics · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_peoples_of_Italy
Celts · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Germanic peoples · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
Greeks · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
Paleo-Balkans
(Illyrians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians
Thracians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians
Dacians) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
Asia:
Anatolians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolians
(Hittites, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
Luwians) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwians
Armenians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians
Indo-Iranians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians
(Iranians· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples
Indo-Aryans) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans
Tocharians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians
Proto-Indo-Europeans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
Language · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
Society · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
Religion . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion
Urheimat hypotheses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
Kurgan hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
Anatolia · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
Armenia · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis
India · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory
PCT . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory
Indo-European studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested,
reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken
by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been
accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is far
advanced and quite detailed.
Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language
(before divergence began) around 4000 BC, though estimates by
different authorities can vary by more than a millennium. The most
popular hypothesis for the origin and spread of the language is the
Kurgan hypothesis, which postulates an origin in the Pontic-Caspian
steppe of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. In modern times the
existence of the language was first postulated in the 18th century by
Sir William Jones, who observed the similarities between Sanskrit,
Ancient Greek, and Latin. By the early 1900s well-defined descriptions
of PIE had been developed that are still accepted today (with some
refinements).
As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all
knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later
languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method
and the method of internal reconstruction. PIE is known to have had a
complex system of morphology that included inflections (adding
prefixes and suffixes to word roots, as is common in Romance
languages), and ablaut (changing vowel sounds in word roots, as is
common in Germanic languages). Nouns used a sophisticated system of
declension and verbs used a similarly sophisticated system of
conjugation.
Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic
languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain
controversial.
Discovery and reconstruction
Classification of Indo-European languages. (click to enlarge)
Historical and geographical setting
Main article: Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
There are several competing hypotheses about when and where PIE was
spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis is "the single most popular" model,[1]
[2] postulating that the Kurgan culture of the Pontic steppe were the
hypothesized speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European
language. However, alternative theories such as the Anatolian urheimat
and Armenian hypothesis have also gained acceptance.
The satemization process that resulted in the Centum-Satem isogloss
probably started as early as the fourth millennium BC[3] and the only
thing known for certain is that the proto language must have been
differentiated into unconnected daughter dialects by the late 3rd
millennium BC.
Mainstream linguistic estimates of the time between PIE and the
earliest attested texts (ca. nineteenth century BC; see Kültepe texts)
range around 1,500 to 2,500 years, with extreme proposals diverging up
to another 100% on either side. Other than the aforementioned,
predominant Kurgan hypothesis, proposed models include:
the 4th millennium BC (excluding the Anatolian branch) in Armenia,
according to the Armenian hypothesis (proposed in the context of
Glottalic theory);
the 5th millennium BC (4th excluding the Anatolian branch) in the
Pontic-Caspian steppe, according to the popular Kurgan hypothesis;
the 6th millennium BC or later in Northern Europe according to Lothar
Kilian's and, especially, Marek Zvelebil's models of a broader
homeland;
the 6th millennium BC in India, according to Koenraad Elst's Out of
India model;
the 7th millennium BC in Ariana/BMAC according to a number of
scholars.
the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (the 5th, in the Balkans, excluding
the Anatolian branch), according to Colin Renfrew's Anatolian
hypothesis;
the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (6th excluding the Anatolian
branch), according to a 2003 glottochronological study;[4]
before the 10th millennium BC, in the Paleolithic Continuity Theory.
History
Main article: Indo-European studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and
propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance
to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he
suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed
they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic
languages, as well as to Persian.
His third annual discourse before the Asiatic Society on the history
and culture of the Hindus (delivered on 2 February 1786 and published
in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as the
beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies. This
is Jones' most quoted passage, establishing his tremendous find in the
history of linguistics:
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful
structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin,
and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them
a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of
grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong
indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without
believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps,
no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so
forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though
blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.
This common source came to be known as Proto-Indo-European.
The classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads
from Franz Bopp's Comparative Grammar (1833) to August Schleicher's
1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's Grundriss published from the
1880s. Brugmann's junggrammatische re-evaluation of the field and
Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal theory may be
considered the beginning of "contemporary" Indo-European studies.
PIE as described in the early 1900s is still generally accepted today;
subsequent work is largely refinement and systematization, as well as
the incorporation of new information, notably the Anatolian and
Tocharian branches unknown in the 19th century.
Notably, the laryngeal theory, in its early forms discussed since the
1880s, became mainstream after Jerzy Kuryłowicz's 1927 discovery of
the survival of at least some of these hypothetical phonemes in
Anatolian. Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
(1959) gave an overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated until the
early 20th century, but neglected contemporary trends of morphology
and phonology, and largely ignored Anatolian and Tocharian.
The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the
20th century (such as Calvert Watkins, Jochem Schindler and Helmut
Rix) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake
of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, understanding of the ablaut. From the
1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its
relationship to PIE; see also Indo-Hittite.
Method
Main articles: Historical linguistics and Indo-European sound laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws
There is no direct evidence of PIE, because it was never written. All
PIE sounds and words are reconstructed from later Indo-European
languages using the comparative method and the method of internal
reconstruction. An asterisk is used to mark reconstructed PIE words,
such as *wódr̥ 'water', *ḱwṓn 'dog' (English hound), or *tréyes 'three
(masculine)'. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages
seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular sound changes
(e.g., Grimm's law).
As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system
diverged as well, according to various sound laws in the daughter
languages. Notable among these are Grimm's law and Verner's law in
Proto-Germanic, loss of prevocalic *p- in Proto-Celtic, reduction to h
of prevocalic *s- in Proto-Greek, Brugmann's law and Bartholomae's law
in Proto-Indo-Iranian, Grassmann's law independently in both Proto-
Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Winter's law and Hirt's law in Balto-
Slavic.
Relationships to other language families
Proposed genetic connections
Many higher-level relationships between Proto-Indo-European and other
language families have been proposed, but these hypothesized
connections are highly controversial. A proposal often considered to
be the most plausible of these is that of an Indo-Uralic family,
encompassing PIE and Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of
this consists in a number of striking morphological and lexical
resemblances. Opponents attribute the lexical resemblances to
borrowing from Indo-European into Uralic. Frederik Kortlandt, while
advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap between Uralic and
Indo-European is huge", while Lyle Campbell, an authority on Uralic,
denies any relationship exists.
Other proposals, further back in time (and proportionately less
accepted), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other
language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean,
Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo-Aleut, but
excluding Yeniseian (the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph
Greenberg's Eurasiatic), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to
Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian (the traditional form of the Nostratic
hypothesis), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family.
A more rarely mentioned proposal associates Indo-European with the
Northwest Caucasian languages in a family called Proto-Pontic.
Etruscan shows some similarities to Indo-European. There is no
consensus on whether these are due to a genetic relationship,
borrowing, chance and sound symbolism, or some combination of these.
Proposed areal connections
The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest
Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[5] or substratum
that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[6] This same type of
languages, featuring complex verbs and of which the current Northwest
Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by
Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological
reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic
substratum.[7]
Phonology
Main article: Proto-Indo-European phonology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology
Consonants
Labial Coronal Dorsal Laryngeal
palatal plain labial
Nasal *m *n
Plosive voiceless
*p *t *ḱ *k *kʷ
voiced *b *d *ǵ *g *gʷ
aspirated *bʰ *dʰ *ǵʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ
Fricative *s *h₁, *h₂, *h₃
Liquid *r, *l
Semivowel *y *w
Alternative notations: The aspirated plosives are sometimes written as
*bh, *dh, *ǵh, *gh, *gʷh; for the palatals, *k̑, *g̑ are often used;
and *i̯, *u̯ can replace *y, *w.
The pronunciation of the laryngeals is disputed, at least *h₁ might
not have been a fricative.
Vowels
Short vowels: *e, *o (and possibly *a).
Long vowels: *ē, *ō (and possibly *ā). Sometimes a colon (:) is
employed instead of the macron sign to indicate vowel length (*a:,
*e:, *o:).
Diphthongs: *ei, *eu, *ēi, *ēu, *oi, *ou, *ōi, *ōu, (*ai, *au, *āi,
*āu). Diphthongs are sometimes understood as combinations of a vowel
plus a semivowel, e. g. *ey or *ei̯ instead of *ei.[8]
Vocalic allophones of laryngeals, nasals, liquids and semivowels:
*h̥₁, *h̥₂, *h̥₃, *m̥, *n̥, *l̥, *r̥, *i, *u.
Long variants of these vocalic allophones may have appeared already in
the proto-language by compensatory lengthening (for example of a vowel
plus a laryngeal): *m̥̄, *n̥̄, *l̥̄, *r̥̄, *ī, *ū.
It is often suggested that all *a and *ā were earlier derived from an
*e preceded or followed by *h₂, but Mayrhofer[9] has argued that PIE
did in fact have *a and *ā phonemes independent of h₂.
Morphology
Root
Main article: Proto-Indo-European root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root
PIE was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships
between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually
endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical
meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of
desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words
(nouns or verbs). PIE roots are understood to be predominantly
monosyllabic with a basic shape CvC(C). This basic root shape is often
altered by ablaut. Roots which appear to be vowel initial are believed
by many scholars to have originally begun with a set of consonants,
later lost in all but the Anatolian branch, called laryngeals (usually
indicated *H, and often specified with a subscript number *h₁, *h₂,
*h₃). Thus a verb form such as the one reflected in Latin agunt, Greek
ἄγουσι (ágousi), Sanskrit ajanti would be reconstructed as *h₂eǵ-onti,
with the element *h₂eǵ- constituting the root per se.
Ablaut
Main article: Indo-European ablaut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut
One of the distinctive aspects of PIE was its ablaut sequence that
contrasted the vowel phonemes *o / *e / Ø [no vowel] within the same
root. Ablaut is a form of vowel variation which changed between these
three forms perhaps depending on the adjacent sounds and placement of
stress in the word. These changes are echoed in modern Indo-European
languages where they have come to reflect grammatical categories.
These ablaut grades are usually referred to as: e-grade and o-grade,
sometimes collectively termed full grade; zero-grade (no vowel, Ø);
and lengthened grade (*ē or *ō). Modern English sing, sang, sung is an
example of such an ablaut set and reflects a pre-Proto-Germanic
sequence *sengw-, *songw-, *sngw-. Some scholars believe that the
inflectional affixes of Indo European reflect ablaut variants, usually
zero-grade, of older PIE roots. Often the zero-grade appears where the
word's accent has shifted from the root to one of the affixes. Thus
the alternation found in Latin est, sunt reflects PIE *h₁és-ti, *h₁s-
ónti.
Noun
Main article: Proto-Indo-European noun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_noun
Proto-Indo-European nouns were declined for eight or nine cases
(nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, ablative,
locative, vocative, and possibly a directive or allative).[10] There
were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
There are two major types of declension, thematic and athematic.
Thematic nominal stems are formed with a suffix *-o- (in vocative *-e)
and the stem does not undergo ablaut. The athematic stems are more
archaic, and they are classified further by their ablaut behaviour
(acro-dynamic, protero-dynamic, hystero-dynamic and holo-dynamic,
after the positioning of the early PIE accent (dynamis) in the
paradigm).
Pronoun
Main article: Proto-Indo-European pronoun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronoun
PIE pronouns are difficult to reconstruct owing to their variety in
later languages. This is especially the case for demonstrative
pronouns. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second person,
but not the third person, where demonstratives were used instead. The
personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had
two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular,
where the two stems are still preserved in English I and me. According
to Beekes,[11] there were also two varieties for the accusative,
genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.
Personal pronouns (Beekes)
First person Second person
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *h₁eǵ(oH/Hom) *wei *tuH *yuH
Accusative *h₁mé, *h₁me *nsmé, *nōs *twé *usmé, *wōs
Genitive *h₁méne, *h₁moi *ns(er)o-, *nos *tewe, *toi *yus(er)o-, *wos
Dative *h₁méǵʰio, *h₁moi *nsmei, *ns *tébʰio, *toi *usmei
Instrumental *h₁moí ? *toí ?
Ablative *h₁med *nsmed *tued *usmed
Locative *h₁moí *nsmi *toí *usmi
As for demonstratives, Beekes tentatively reconstructs a system with
only two pronouns: *so / *seh₂ / *tod "this, that" and *h₁e /
*(h₁)ih₂ / *(h₁)id "the (just named)" (anaphoric). He also postulates
three adverbial particles *ḱi "here", *h₂en "there" and *h₂eu "away,
again", from which demonstratives were constructed in various later
languages.
Verb
Main article: Proto-Indo-European verb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verb
The Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits
a system of ablaut. Verbs have at least four moods (indicative,
imperative, subjunctive and optative, as well as possibly the
injunctive, reconstructible from Vedic Sanskrit), two voices (active
and mediopassive), as well as three persons (first, second and third)
and three numbers (singular, dual and plural). Verbs are conjugated in
at least three "tenses" (present, aorist, and perfect), which actually
have primarily aspectual value. Indicative forms of the imperfect and
(less likely) the pluperfect may have existed. Verbs were also marked
by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination
of tense and mood, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and
adjectival formations.
Buck[12] Beekes[11]
Athematic Thematic Athematic Thematic
Singular 1st *-mi *-ō *-mi *-oH
2nd *-si *-esi *-si *-eh₁i
3rd *-ti *-eti *-ti *-e
Plural 1st *-mos/mes *-omos/omes *-mes *-omom
2nd *-te *-ete *-th₁e *-eth₁e
3rd *-nti *-onti *-nti *-o
Numbers
Main article: Proto-Indo-European numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals
The Proto-Indo-European numerals are generally reconstructed as
follows:
Sihler[13] Beekes[11]
one *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem- *Hoi(H)nos
two *d(u)wo- *duoh₁
three *trei- (full grade) / *tri- (zero grade) *treies
four *kʷetwor- (o-grade) / *kʷetur- (zero grade)
(see also the kʷetwóres rule) *kʷetuōr
five *penkʷe *penkʷe
six *s(w)eḱs; originally perhaps *weḱs *(s)uéks
seven *septm̥ *séptm
eight *oḱtō, *oḱtou or *h₃eḱtō, *h₃eḱtou *h₃eḱteh₃
nine *(h₁)newn̥ *(h₁)néun
ten *deḱm̥(t) *déḱmt
twenty *wīḱm̥t-; originally perhaps *widḱomt- *duidḱmti
thirty *trīḱomt-; originally perhaps *tridḱomt- *trih₂dḱomth₂
forty *kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *kʷetwr̥dḱomt-
*kʷeturdḱomth₂
fifty *penkʷēḱomt-; originally perhaps *penkʷedḱomt- *penkʷedḱomth₂
sixty *s(w)eḱsḱomt-; originally perhaps *weḱsdḱomt- *ueksdḱomth₂
seventy *septm̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *septm̥dḱomt- *septmdḱomth₂
eighty *oḱtō(u)ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₃eḱto(u)dḱomt-
*h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂
ninety *(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₁newn̥dḱomt-
*h₁neundḱomth₂
hundred *ḱm̥tom; originally perhaps *dḱm̥tom *dḱmtóm
thousand *ǵheslo-; *tusdḱomti *ǵʰes-l-
Lehmann[14] believes that the numbers greater than ten were
constructed separately in the dialects groups and that *ḱm̥tóm
originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one
hundred."
Particle
Main article: Proto-Indo-European particlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_particle
Many particles could be used both as adverbs and postpositions, like
*upo "under, below". The postpositions became prepositions in most
daughter languages. Other reconstructible particles include negators
(*ne, *mē), conjunctions (*kʷe "and", *wē "or" and others) and an
interjection (*wai!, an expression of woe or agony).
Sample texts
As PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts
are available, but since the 19th century modern scholars have made
various attempts to compose example texts for purposes of
illustration. These texts are educated guesses at best; Calvert
Watkins in 1969 observes that in spite of its 150 years' history,
comparative linguistics is not in the position to reconstruct a single
well-formed sentence in PIE. Nevertheless, such texts do have the
merit of giving an impression of what a coherent utterance in PIE
might have sounded like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Watkins
Published PIE sample texts:
Schleicher's fable (Avis akvasas ka) by August Schleicher (1868),
modernized by Hermann Hirt (1939) and Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav
Zgusta (1979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hirt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfred_Lehmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladislav_Zgusta
The king and the god (rēḱs deiwos-kʷe) by S. K. Sen, E. P. Hamp et al.
(1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_king_and_the_god
Notes
^ Mallory (1989:185). "The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been
accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total. It is
the solution one encounters in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the
Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse."
^ Strazny (2000:163). "The single most popular proposal is the Pontic
steppes (see the Kurgan hypothesis)..."
^ ".. the satemization process can be dated to the last centuries of
the fourth millennium." [1] THE SPREAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS -Frederik
Kortlandt.
^ Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence
times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426
(27 November 2003) 435-439
^ [2] Frederik Kortlandt-GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN
RECONSTRUCTION, 1993
^ [3] The spread of the Indo-Europeans - Frederik Kortlandt, 1989
^ [4] Peter Schrijver - Keltisch en de buren: 9000 jaar taalcontact,
University of Utrecht, March 2007.
^ Rix, H. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2 ed.).
^ Mayrhofer 1986: 170 ff.
^ Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture.
Blackwell Publishing. pp. 102. ISBN 1-4051-0316-7.
^ a b c Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics: An Introduction. ISBN 1-55619-505-1.
^ Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07931-7.
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and
Latin. Oxford University Press. pp. 402–24. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
^ Lehmann, Winfried P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European
Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 252–255. ISBN 0-415-08201-3.
See also
Look up Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots in Wiktionary, the
free dictionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots
Indo-European languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Laryngeal theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory
List of Indo-European languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indo-European_languages
Daughter proto-languages
Proto-Armenian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Armenian_language
Proto-Balto-Slavic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Balto-Slavic_language
Proto-Celtic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language
Proto-Germanic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language
Proto-Greek language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language
Proto-Indo-Iranian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language
Proto-Italic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Proto-Italic_language
References
Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An
Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-2150-2 (Europe),
ISBN 1-55619-504-4 (U.S.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._P._Beekes
James Clackson (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction
(Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-52165-313-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press
Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07931-7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Darling_Buck
Lehmann, W., and L. Zgusta. 1979. Schleicher's tale after a century.
In Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday, ed. B. Brogyanyi, 455–66. Amsterdam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfred_P._Lehmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zgusta
Mallory, J.P., (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans London: Thames
and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27616-1
Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986). Indogermanische Grammatik, i/2: Lautlehre.
Heidelberg: Winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Mayrhofer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg
Mallory, J. P.; Adams, D. Q. (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-
Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, ISBN 0199296682
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Mallory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Q._Adams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press
Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Indo-European Linguistics. New York: de
Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-017433-2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meier-Br%C3%BCgger
Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-
European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sihler
Szemerényi, Oswald (1996). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics.
Oxford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Szemer%C3%A9nyi
Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-
European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110116, March,
1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyacheslav_Vsevolodovich_Ivanov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gamkrelidze
Whitney, William Dwight (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Harvard University
Press. ISBN 81-208-0621-2 (India), ISBN 0-486-43136-3 (Dover, US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dwight_Whitney
Remys, Edmund, General distinguishing features of various Indo-
European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian,
Indogermanische Forschungen, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Band
112, 2007.
External links
Indo-European Dictionary by Gerhard Köbler (contains Indo-European
Grammar in Vorwort section) (German) http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html
A list of PIE etyma and their meanings from the Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary by Julius Pokorny (University of Texas)
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html
Database query for Pokorny's dictionary (includes comments and
searchable cognates) (Leiden University)
http://www.ieed.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny
Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo-
European (by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov) http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub
branches Loading Image...
Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands
Loading Image...
PIE theoretical grammar http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies01.html
Indo-European Etymological Dictionary database (Leiden University)
http://www.ieed.nl/
Indo-European Documentation Center at the University of Texas
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/iedocctr/ie.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin
"The Indo-Uralic Verb" by Frederik Kortlandt
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Kortlandt
Say something in Proto-Indo-European (by Geoffrey Sampson)
http://www.grsampson.net/Q_PIE.html
An Overview of the Proto-Indo-European Verb System (by Piotr
Gąsiorowski)
Many PIE example texts http://verger1.narod.ru/lang1.htm/
PIE root etymology database (by S.L.Nikolaev and S.A.Starostin)
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\piet&first=1
On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey by
Václav Blažek. Linguistica ONLINE. ISSN 1801-5336 (Brno, Czech
Republic)
http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/blazek/bla-003.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Bla%C5%BEek
http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic
v • d • e
Proto-Indo-European language
Phonology . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology
Accent · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_accent
Glottalic theory · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory
Laryngeal theory · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory
s-mobile · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile
Sound laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws
(Bartholomae's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomae%27s_law
kʷetwóres rule, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%CA%B7etw%C3%B3res_rule
Pinault's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinault%27s_law
Siebs', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebs%27_law
Sievers', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievers%27_law
Stang's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stang%27s_law
Szemerényi's), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szemer%C3%A9nyi%27s_law
Morphology
Ablaut · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut
h₂e-conjugation · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%E2%82%82e-conjugation_theory
Nasal infix · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_infix
Root · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root
Thematic/athematic stem . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_stem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athematic_stem
Parts of speech
Noun · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_noun
Numeral · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals
Particle · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_particle
Pronoun · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronoun
Verb . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verb
(copula) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
See also:
Proto-Indo-European religion · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion
Proto-Indo-European society · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
Indo-European studies . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
Categories:
Proto-Indo-European language | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Indo-European_language
Indo-European | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indo-European
Proto-languages | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proto-languages
Bronze Age | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bronze_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
http://bakulaji.typepad.com/blog/protoindoeuropean-language-sid-harth.html
...and I am Sid Harth
Proto-Indo-European language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"PIE" redirects here. For the pastry, see Pie. For other uses, see PIE
(disambiguation).
This article contains characters used to write reconstructed Proto-
Indo-European words. Without proper rendering support, you may see
question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode
characters.
Indo-European topics
Indo-European languages (list) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Albanian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language
Armenian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language
Baltic . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages
Celtic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages
Germanic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
Greek . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language
Indo-Iranian . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages
(Indo-Aryan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages
Iranian) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages
Italic · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_languages
Slavic . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages
extinct:
Anatolian · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages
Paleo-Balkans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Balkan_languages
(Dacian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language
Phrygian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_language
Thracian) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language
Tocharian . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages
Indo-European peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_people
Europe:
Balts · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts
Slavs · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples
Albanians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians
Italics · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_peoples_of_Italy
Celts · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Germanic peoples · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
Greeks · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
Paleo-Balkans
(Illyrians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians
Thracians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians
Dacians) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
Asia:
Anatolians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolians
(Hittites, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
Luwians) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwians
Armenians · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians
Indo-Iranians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians
(Iranians· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples
Indo-Aryans) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans
Tocharians . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians
Proto-Indo-Europeans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
Language · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
Society · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
Religion . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion
Urheimat hypotheses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
Kurgan hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
Anatolia · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
Armenia · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis
India · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory
PCT . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory
Indo-European studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested,
reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken
by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been
accepted by linguists for over a century, and reconstruction is far
advanced and quite detailed.
Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language
(before divergence began) around 4000 BC, though estimates by
different authorities can vary by more than a millennium. The most
popular hypothesis for the origin and spread of the language is the
Kurgan hypothesis, which postulates an origin in the Pontic-Caspian
steppe of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. In modern times the
existence of the language was first postulated in the 18th century by
Sir William Jones, who observed the similarities between Sanskrit,
Ancient Greek, and Latin. By the early 1900s well-defined descriptions
of PIE had been developed that are still accepted today (with some
refinements).
As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all
knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later
languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method
and the method of internal reconstruction. PIE is known to have had a
complex system of morphology that included inflections (adding
prefixes and suffixes to word roots, as is common in Romance
languages), and ablaut (changing vowel sounds in word roots, as is
common in Germanic languages). Nouns used a sophisticated system of
declension and verbs used a similarly sophisticated system of
conjugation.
Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic
languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain
controversial.
Discovery and reconstruction
Classification of Indo-European languages. (click to enlarge)
Historical and geographical setting
Main article: Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses
There are several competing hypotheses about when and where PIE was
spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis is "the single most popular" model,[1]
[2] postulating that the Kurgan culture of the Pontic steppe were the
hypothesized speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European
language. However, alternative theories such as the Anatolian urheimat
and Armenian hypothesis have also gained acceptance.
The satemization process that resulted in the Centum-Satem isogloss
probably started as early as the fourth millennium BC[3] and the only
thing known for certain is that the proto language must have been
differentiated into unconnected daughter dialects by the late 3rd
millennium BC.
Mainstream linguistic estimates of the time between PIE and the
earliest attested texts (ca. nineteenth century BC; see Kültepe texts)
range around 1,500 to 2,500 years, with extreme proposals diverging up
to another 100% on either side. Other than the aforementioned,
predominant Kurgan hypothesis, proposed models include:
the 4th millennium BC (excluding the Anatolian branch) in Armenia,
according to the Armenian hypothesis (proposed in the context of
Glottalic theory);
the 5th millennium BC (4th excluding the Anatolian branch) in the
Pontic-Caspian steppe, according to the popular Kurgan hypothesis;
the 6th millennium BC or later in Northern Europe according to Lothar
Kilian's and, especially, Marek Zvelebil's models of a broader
homeland;
the 6th millennium BC in India, according to Koenraad Elst's Out of
India model;
the 7th millennium BC in Ariana/BMAC according to a number of
scholars.
the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (the 5th, in the Balkans, excluding
the Anatolian branch), according to Colin Renfrew's Anatolian
hypothesis;
the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (6th excluding the Anatolian
branch), according to a 2003 glottochronological study;[4]
before the 10th millennium BC, in the Paleolithic Continuity Theory.
History
Main article: Indo-European studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and
propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance
to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he
suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed
they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic
languages, as well as to Persian.
His third annual discourse before the Asiatic Society on the history
and culture of the Hindus (delivered on 2 February 1786 and published
in 1788) with the famed "philologer" passage is often cited as the
beginning of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies. This
is Jones' most quoted passage, establishing his tremendous find in the
history of linguistics:
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful
structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin,
and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them
a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of
grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong
indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without
believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps,
no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so
forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though
blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the
Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.
This common source came to be known as Proto-Indo-European.
The classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads
from Franz Bopp's Comparative Grammar (1833) to August Schleicher's
1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's Grundriss published from the
1880s. Brugmann's junggrammatische re-evaluation of the field and
Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal theory may be
considered the beginning of "contemporary" Indo-European studies.
PIE as described in the early 1900s is still generally accepted today;
subsequent work is largely refinement and systematization, as well as
the incorporation of new information, notably the Anatolian and
Tocharian branches unknown in the 19th century.
Notably, the laryngeal theory, in its early forms discussed since the
1880s, became mainstream after Jerzy Kuryłowicz's 1927 discovery of
the survival of at least some of these hypothetical phonemes in
Anatolian. Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
(1959) gave an overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated until the
early 20th century, but neglected contemporary trends of morphology
and phonology, and largely ignored Anatolian and Tocharian.
The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the
20th century (such as Calvert Watkins, Jochem Schindler and Helmut
Rix) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake
of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, understanding of the ablaut. From the
1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its
relationship to PIE; see also Indo-Hittite.
Method
Main articles: Historical linguistics and Indo-European sound laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws
There is no direct evidence of PIE, because it was never written. All
PIE sounds and words are reconstructed from later Indo-European
languages using the comparative method and the method of internal
reconstruction. An asterisk is used to mark reconstructed PIE words,
such as *wódr̥ 'water', *ḱwṓn 'dog' (English hound), or *tréyes 'three
(masculine)'. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages
seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular sound changes
(e.g., Grimm's law).
As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system
diverged as well, according to various sound laws in the daughter
languages. Notable among these are Grimm's law and Verner's law in
Proto-Germanic, loss of prevocalic *p- in Proto-Celtic, reduction to h
of prevocalic *s- in Proto-Greek, Brugmann's law and Bartholomae's law
in Proto-Indo-Iranian, Grassmann's law independently in both Proto-
Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Winter's law and Hirt's law in Balto-
Slavic.
Relationships to other language families
Proposed genetic connections
Many higher-level relationships between Proto-Indo-European and other
language families have been proposed, but these hypothesized
connections are highly controversial. A proposal often considered to
be the most plausible of these is that of an Indo-Uralic family,
encompassing PIE and Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of
this consists in a number of striking morphological and lexical
resemblances. Opponents attribute the lexical resemblances to
borrowing from Indo-European into Uralic. Frederik Kortlandt, while
advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap between Uralic and
Indo-European is huge", while Lyle Campbell, an authority on Uralic,
denies any relationship exists.
Other proposals, further back in time (and proportionately less
accepted), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other
language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean,
Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo-Aleut, but
excluding Yeniseian (the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph
Greenberg's Eurasiatic), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to
Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian (the traditional form of the Nostratic
hypothesis), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family.
A more rarely mentioned proposal associates Indo-European with the
Northwest Caucasian languages in a family called Proto-Pontic.
Etruscan shows some similarities to Indo-European. There is no
consensus on whether these are due to a genetic relationship,
borrowing, chance and sound symbolism, or some combination of these.
Proposed areal connections
The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest
Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[5] or substratum
that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[6] This same type of
languages, featuring complex verbs and of which the current Northwest
Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by
Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological
reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic
substratum.[7]
Phonology
Main article: Proto-Indo-European phonology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology
Consonants
Labial Coronal Dorsal Laryngeal
palatal plain labial
Nasal *m *n
Plosive voiceless
*p *t *ḱ *k *kʷ
voiced *b *d *ǵ *g *gʷ
aspirated *bʰ *dʰ *ǵʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ
Fricative *s *h₁, *h₂, *h₃
Liquid *r, *l
Semivowel *y *w
Alternative notations: The aspirated plosives are sometimes written as
*bh, *dh, *ǵh, *gh, *gʷh; for the palatals, *k̑, *g̑ are often used;
and *i̯, *u̯ can replace *y, *w.
The pronunciation of the laryngeals is disputed, at least *h₁ might
not have been a fricative.
Vowels
Short vowels: *e, *o (and possibly *a).
Long vowels: *ē, *ō (and possibly *ā). Sometimes a colon (:) is
employed instead of the macron sign to indicate vowel length (*a:,
*e:, *o:).
Diphthongs: *ei, *eu, *ēi, *ēu, *oi, *ou, *ōi, *ōu, (*ai, *au, *āi,
*āu). Diphthongs are sometimes understood as combinations of a vowel
plus a semivowel, e. g. *ey or *ei̯ instead of *ei.[8]
Vocalic allophones of laryngeals, nasals, liquids and semivowels:
*h̥₁, *h̥₂, *h̥₃, *m̥, *n̥, *l̥, *r̥, *i, *u.
Long variants of these vocalic allophones may have appeared already in
the proto-language by compensatory lengthening (for example of a vowel
plus a laryngeal): *m̥̄, *n̥̄, *l̥̄, *r̥̄, *ī, *ū.
It is often suggested that all *a and *ā were earlier derived from an
*e preceded or followed by *h₂, but Mayrhofer[9] has argued that PIE
did in fact have *a and *ā phonemes independent of h₂.
Morphology
Root
Main article: Proto-Indo-European root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root
PIE was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships
between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually
endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical
meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of
desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words
(nouns or verbs). PIE roots are understood to be predominantly
monosyllabic with a basic shape CvC(C). This basic root shape is often
altered by ablaut. Roots which appear to be vowel initial are believed
by many scholars to have originally begun with a set of consonants,
later lost in all but the Anatolian branch, called laryngeals (usually
indicated *H, and often specified with a subscript number *h₁, *h₂,
*h₃). Thus a verb form such as the one reflected in Latin agunt, Greek
ἄγουσι (ágousi), Sanskrit ajanti would be reconstructed as *h₂eǵ-onti,
with the element *h₂eǵ- constituting the root per se.
Ablaut
Main article: Indo-European ablaut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut
One of the distinctive aspects of PIE was its ablaut sequence that
contrasted the vowel phonemes *o / *e / Ø [no vowel] within the same
root. Ablaut is a form of vowel variation which changed between these
three forms perhaps depending on the adjacent sounds and placement of
stress in the word. These changes are echoed in modern Indo-European
languages where they have come to reflect grammatical categories.
These ablaut grades are usually referred to as: e-grade and o-grade,
sometimes collectively termed full grade; zero-grade (no vowel, Ø);
and lengthened grade (*ē or *ō). Modern English sing, sang, sung is an
example of such an ablaut set and reflects a pre-Proto-Germanic
sequence *sengw-, *songw-, *sngw-. Some scholars believe that the
inflectional affixes of Indo European reflect ablaut variants, usually
zero-grade, of older PIE roots. Often the zero-grade appears where the
word's accent has shifted from the root to one of the affixes. Thus
the alternation found in Latin est, sunt reflects PIE *h₁és-ti, *h₁s-
ónti.
Noun
Main article: Proto-Indo-European noun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_noun
Proto-Indo-European nouns were declined for eight or nine cases
(nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, ablative,
locative, vocative, and possibly a directive or allative).[10] There
were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
There are two major types of declension, thematic and athematic.
Thematic nominal stems are formed with a suffix *-o- (in vocative *-e)
and the stem does not undergo ablaut. The athematic stems are more
archaic, and they are classified further by their ablaut behaviour
(acro-dynamic, protero-dynamic, hystero-dynamic and holo-dynamic,
after the positioning of the early PIE accent (dynamis) in the
paradigm).
Pronoun
Main article: Proto-Indo-European pronoun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronoun
PIE pronouns are difficult to reconstruct owing to their variety in
later languages. This is especially the case for demonstrative
pronouns. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second person,
but not the third person, where demonstratives were used instead. The
personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had
two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular,
where the two stems are still preserved in English I and me. According
to Beekes,[11] there were also two varieties for the accusative,
genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.
Personal pronouns (Beekes)
First person Second person
Singular Plural Singular Plural
Nominative *h₁eǵ(oH/Hom) *wei *tuH *yuH
Accusative *h₁mé, *h₁me *nsmé, *nōs *twé *usmé, *wōs
Genitive *h₁méne, *h₁moi *ns(er)o-, *nos *tewe, *toi *yus(er)o-, *wos
Dative *h₁méǵʰio, *h₁moi *nsmei, *ns *tébʰio, *toi *usmei
Instrumental *h₁moí ? *toí ?
Ablative *h₁med *nsmed *tued *usmed
Locative *h₁moí *nsmi *toí *usmi
As for demonstratives, Beekes tentatively reconstructs a system with
only two pronouns: *so / *seh₂ / *tod "this, that" and *h₁e /
*(h₁)ih₂ / *(h₁)id "the (just named)" (anaphoric). He also postulates
three adverbial particles *ḱi "here", *h₂en "there" and *h₂eu "away,
again", from which demonstratives were constructed in various later
languages.
Verb
Main article: Proto-Indo-European verb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verb
The Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits
a system of ablaut. Verbs have at least four moods (indicative,
imperative, subjunctive and optative, as well as possibly the
injunctive, reconstructible from Vedic Sanskrit), two voices (active
and mediopassive), as well as three persons (first, second and third)
and three numbers (singular, dual and plural). Verbs are conjugated in
at least three "tenses" (present, aorist, and perfect), which actually
have primarily aspectual value. Indicative forms of the imperfect and
(less likely) the pluperfect may have existed. Verbs were also marked
by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination
of tense and mood, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and
adjectival formations.
Buck[12] Beekes[11]
Athematic Thematic Athematic Thematic
Singular 1st *-mi *-ō *-mi *-oH
2nd *-si *-esi *-si *-eh₁i
3rd *-ti *-eti *-ti *-e
Plural 1st *-mos/mes *-omos/omes *-mes *-omom
2nd *-te *-ete *-th₁e *-eth₁e
3rd *-nti *-onti *-nti *-o
Numbers
Main article: Proto-Indo-European numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals
The Proto-Indo-European numerals are generally reconstructed as
follows:
Sihler[13] Beekes[11]
one *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem- *Hoi(H)nos
two *d(u)wo- *duoh₁
three *trei- (full grade) / *tri- (zero grade) *treies
four *kʷetwor- (o-grade) / *kʷetur- (zero grade)
(see also the kʷetwóres rule) *kʷetuōr
five *penkʷe *penkʷe
six *s(w)eḱs; originally perhaps *weḱs *(s)uéks
seven *septm̥ *séptm
eight *oḱtō, *oḱtou or *h₃eḱtō, *h₃eḱtou *h₃eḱteh₃
nine *(h₁)newn̥ *(h₁)néun
ten *deḱm̥(t) *déḱmt
twenty *wīḱm̥t-; originally perhaps *widḱomt- *duidḱmti
thirty *trīḱomt-; originally perhaps *tridḱomt- *trih₂dḱomth₂
forty *kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *kʷetwr̥dḱomt-
*kʷeturdḱomth₂
fifty *penkʷēḱomt-; originally perhaps *penkʷedḱomt- *penkʷedḱomth₂
sixty *s(w)eḱsḱomt-; originally perhaps *weḱsdḱomt- *ueksdḱomth₂
seventy *septm̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *septm̥dḱomt- *septmdḱomth₂
eighty *oḱtō(u)ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₃eḱto(u)dḱomt-
*h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂
ninety *(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₁newn̥dḱomt-
*h₁neundḱomth₂
hundred *ḱm̥tom; originally perhaps *dḱm̥tom *dḱmtóm
thousand *ǵheslo-; *tusdḱomti *ǵʰes-l-
Lehmann[14] believes that the numbers greater than ten were
constructed separately in the dialects groups and that *ḱm̥tóm
originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one
hundred."
Particle
Main article: Proto-Indo-European particlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_particle
Many particles could be used both as adverbs and postpositions, like
*upo "under, below". The postpositions became prepositions in most
daughter languages. Other reconstructible particles include negators
(*ne, *mē), conjunctions (*kʷe "and", *wē "or" and others) and an
interjection (*wai!, an expression of woe or agony).
Sample texts
As PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts
are available, but since the 19th century modern scholars have made
various attempts to compose example texts for purposes of
illustration. These texts are educated guesses at best; Calvert
Watkins in 1969 observes that in spite of its 150 years' history,
comparative linguistics is not in the position to reconstruct a single
well-formed sentence in PIE. Nevertheless, such texts do have the
merit of giving an impression of what a coherent utterance in PIE
might have sounded like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Watkins
Published PIE sample texts:
Schleicher's fable (Avis akvasas ka) by August Schleicher (1868),
modernized by Hermann Hirt (1939) and Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav
Zgusta (1979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schleicher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hirt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfred_Lehmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladislav_Zgusta
The king and the god (rēḱs deiwos-kʷe) by S. K. Sen, E. P. Hamp et al.
(1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_king_and_the_god
Notes
^ Mallory (1989:185). "The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been
accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total. It is
the solution one encounters in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the
Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse."
^ Strazny (2000:163). "The single most popular proposal is the Pontic
steppes (see the Kurgan hypothesis)..."
^ ".. the satemization process can be dated to the last centuries of
the fourth millennium." [1] THE SPREAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS -Frederik
Kortlandt.
^ Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence
times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426
(27 November 2003) 435-439
^ [2] Frederik Kortlandt-GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN
RECONSTRUCTION, 1993
^ [3] The spread of the Indo-Europeans - Frederik Kortlandt, 1989
^ [4] Peter Schrijver - Keltisch en de buren: 9000 jaar taalcontact,
University of Utrecht, March 2007.
^ Rix, H. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2 ed.).
^ Mayrhofer 1986: 170 ff.
^ Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture.
Blackwell Publishing. pp. 102. ISBN 1-4051-0316-7.
^ a b c Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics: An Introduction. ISBN 1-55619-505-1.
^ Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07931-7.
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and
Latin. Oxford University Press. pp. 402–24. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
^ Lehmann, Winfried P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European
Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 252–255. ISBN 0-415-08201-3.
See also
Look up Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots in Wiktionary, the
free dictionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots
Indo-European languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Laryngeal theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory
List of Indo-European languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indo-European_languages
Daughter proto-languages
Proto-Armenian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Armenian_language
Proto-Balto-Slavic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Balto-Slavic_language
Proto-Celtic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language
Proto-Germanic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language
Proto-Greek language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language
Proto-Indo-Iranian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language
Proto-Italic language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Proto-Italic_language
References
Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An
Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-2150-2 (Europe),
ISBN 1-55619-504-4 (U.S.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._P._Beekes
James Clackson (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction
(Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-52165-313-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press
Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07931-7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Darling_Buck
Lehmann, W., and L. Zgusta. 1979. Schleicher's tale after a century.
In Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday, ed. B. Brogyanyi, 455–66. Amsterdam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfred_P._Lehmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zgusta
Mallory, J.P., (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans London: Thames
and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27616-1
Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986). Indogermanische Grammatik, i/2: Lautlehre.
Heidelberg: Winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Mayrhofer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg
Mallory, J. P.; Adams, D. Q. (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-
Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, ISBN 0199296682
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Mallory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Q._Adams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press
Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Indo-European Linguistics. New York: de
Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-017433-2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meier-Br%C3%BCgger
Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-
European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sihler
Szemerényi, Oswald (1996). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics.
Oxford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Szemer%C3%A9nyi
Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-
European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110116, March,
1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyacheslav_Vsevolodovich_Ivanov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gamkrelidze
Whitney, William Dwight (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Harvard University
Press. ISBN 81-208-0621-2 (India), ISBN 0-486-43136-3 (Dover, US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dwight_Whitney
Remys, Edmund, General distinguishing features of various Indo-
European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian,
Indogermanische Forschungen, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Band
112, 2007.
External links
Indo-European Dictionary by Gerhard Köbler (contains Indo-European
Grammar in Vorwort section) (German) http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html
A list of PIE etyma and their meanings from the Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary by Julius Pokorny (University of Texas)
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html
Database query for Pokorny's dictionary (includes comments and
searchable cognates) (Leiden University)
http://www.ieed.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny
Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo-
European (by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov) http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub
branches Loading Image...
Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands
Loading Image...
PIE theoretical grammar http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies01.html
Indo-European Etymological Dictionary database (Leiden University)
http://www.ieed.nl/
Indo-European Documentation Center at the University of Texas
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/iedocctr/ie.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin
"The Indo-Uralic Verb" by Frederik Kortlandt
http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Kortlandt
Say something in Proto-Indo-European (by Geoffrey Sampson)
http://www.grsampson.net/Q_PIE.html
An Overview of the Proto-Indo-European Verb System (by Piotr
Gąsiorowski)
Many PIE example texts http://verger1.narod.ru/lang1.htm/
PIE root etymology database (by S.L.Nikolaev and S.A.Starostin)
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\piet&first=1
On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey by
Václav Blažek. Linguistica ONLINE. ISSN 1801-5336 (Brno, Czech
Republic)
http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/blazek/bla-003.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Bla%C5%BEek
http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic
v • d • e
Proto-Indo-European language
Phonology . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology
Accent · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_accent
Glottalic theory · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory
Laryngeal theory · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory
s-mobile · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile
Sound laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws
(Bartholomae's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomae%27s_law
kʷetwóres rule, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%CA%B7etw%C3%B3res_rule
Pinault's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinault%27s_law
Siebs', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebs%27_law
Sievers', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievers%27_law
Stang's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stang%27s_law
Szemerényi's), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szemer%C3%A9nyi%27s_law
Morphology
Ablaut · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut
h₂e-conjugation · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%E2%82%82e-conjugation_theory
Nasal infix · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_infix
Root · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root
Thematic/athematic stem . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_stem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athematic_stem
Parts of speech
Noun · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_noun
Numeral · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals
Particle · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_particle
Pronoun · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronoun
Verb . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verb
(copula) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
See also:
Proto-Indo-European religion · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion
Proto-Indo-European society · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_society
Indo-European studies . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
Categories:
Proto-Indo-European language | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Indo-European_language
Indo-European | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indo-European
Proto-languages | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proto-languages
Bronze Age | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bronze_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
http://bakulaji.typepad.com/blog/protoindoeuropean-language-sid-harth.html
...and I am Sid Harth