Revision as of 10:32, 18 December 2009 editSpettro9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,864 edits moved worldwide IE speaking statistics out of Grouping and into intro after similar info← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:20, 28 December 2024 edit undoCharlesWain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,555 edits Correction, Punjabi have much less first language speakers compared to others in the list. French and German do not have over 100 million fast language speakers.Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Language family native to Eurasia}} | |||
{{redirect|Indo-European}} | |||
{{Redirect|Indo-European|Eurasian people living in or connected with Indonesia|Indo people|other uses}} | |||
{{Infobox Language family | |||
{{Pp-move|small pp=yes}} | |||
|name = Indo-European | |||
|region = Before the 15th century, ], and ], ] and ]; today worldwide. | |||
{{Use Oxford spelling|date=April 2022}} | |||
|familycolor = Indo-European | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2022}} | |||
|family = One of the world's major ] | |||
{{Infobox language family | |||
|proto-name = ] | |||
| name = Indo-European | |||
<!-- Examples in parentheses are the top 20 Indo-European languages (see "Ethnologue_list_of_most-spoken_languages"). Please don't change the examples without good reason. --> | |||
| region = Worldwide | |||
|child1 = ] | |||
| familycolor = Indo-European | |||
|child2 = ] <small>(e.g. Hittite)</small> | |||
| |
| family = One of the world's primary ] | ||
| protoname = ]?{{indent|1}}{{*}}] | |||
|child4 = ] <small>(e.g. Russian, Lithuanian)</small> | |||
| child1 = ]?{{indent|1}}{{*}}]{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}} | |||
|child5 = ] <small>(e.g. Irish, Welsh)</small> | |||
| |
| child2 = ] {{Extinct}} | ||
| child3 = ] | |||
|child7 = ] <small>(e.g. Greek)</small> | |||
| |
| child4 = ] | ||
| child5 = ] | |||
|child9 = ] <small>(e.g. French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish)</small> | |||
| |
| child6 = ] | ||
| child7 = ]?{{indent|1}}{{*}}]{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}} | |||
|iso2=ine | |||
| child8 = ] | |||
|iso5=ine | |||
| |
| child9 = ] | ||
| child11 = ] {{Extinct}} | |||
|map_caption={{legend|green|Countries with a majority of speakers of IE languages}} | |||
| child12 = Unclassified or poorly attested:{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}]? {{Extinct}}{{indent|1}}{{*}}] {{Extinct}} | |||
{{legend|lime|Countries with an IE minority language with official status}} | |||
| iso2 = ine | |||
| iso5 = ine | |||
| glotto = indo1319 | |||
| glottorefname = Indo-European | |||
| map = Indo-European Language Family Branches in Eurasia.png | |||
| mapcaption = Present-day distribution of Indo-European languages in Eurasia: | |||
{{legend|#00CCFE|] (])}} | |||
{{legend|#7F007F|]}} | |||
{{legend|#3d6098|] (])}} | |||
{{legend|#007F00|]}}{{legend|#FEA600|] (] and ])}} | |||
{{legend|#D30000|] (] and ])}} | |||
{{legend|#FEDC55|] (])}} | |||
{{legend|#00007F|]}} | |||
{{legend|#751eb4|]}} | |||
{{legend|#587f00 |]}} | |||
{{legend|#967F12|] (])}} | |||
{{legend|#BEBEBE|Non-Indo-European languages}} | |||
Dotted/striped areas indicate where ] is common (more visible upon full enlargement of the map). | |||
| glottoname = | |||
| notes = {{ublist|{{Extinct}} indicates this branch of the language family is extinct}} | |||
| ancestor = | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Indo-European topics|wide=300px}} | |||
The '''Indo-European languages''' are a ] (or ''phylum'') of several hundred related ]s,<ref>It is composed of 449 languages and dialects, according to the 2005 ] estimate, about half (219) belonging to the ] sub-branch.</ref> including most major languages of ], ], and ], and historically also predominant in ] and ]. Attested since the ], in the form of ] and ], the Indo-European family is significant to the field of ] as possessing the longest recorded history after the ] family. | |||
The '''Indo-European languages''' are a ] native to the northern ], the ], and the ]. Some European languages of this family—], ], ], ], ], and ]—have expanded through ] in the modern period and are now spoken across several continents. The Indo-European family is divided into several branches or sub-families, of which there are eight groups with languages still alive today: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]; another nine subdivisions are now ]. | |||
Today, the individual Indo-European languages with the most native speakers are English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, ], ], ], and ]; many others are small and in danger of extinction. | |||
The languages of the Indo-European group are spoken by approximately three billion native speakers, the largest number for recognised languages families. Of the ] contemporary languages in terms of ''native speakers'' according to ], 12 are Indo-European: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], accounting for over 1.6 billion native speakers.<ref>308 languages according to SIL; more than one billion speakers (see ]). Historically, also in terms of geographical spread (stretching from the ] to ]; c.f. ])</ref> | |||
In total, 46% of the world's population (3.2 billion people) speaks an Indo-European language as a ]—by far the highest of any language family. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to an estimate by '']'', with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=2-16|title=Ethnologue report for Indo-European|publisher=Ethnologue }}</ref> | |||
Several ] merge Indo-European with other major language families. | |||
All Indo-European languages are descended from a single prehistoric language, ] as ], spoken sometime during the ] or early ]. The geographical location where it was spoken, the ], has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the ], which posits the homeland to be the ] in what is now ] and ], associated with the ] and other related archaeological cultures during the 4th millennium BC to early 3rd millennium BC. By the time the first written records appeared, Indo-European had already evolved into numerous languages spoken across much of ], ], and part of ]. Written evidence of Indo-European appeared during the Bronze Age in the form of ] and the ] of ] and ]. The oldest records are isolated Hittite words and names—interspersed in texts that are otherwise in the unrelated ], a ]—found in texts of the ]n colony of ] in eastern ] dating to the 20th century BC.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bryce |first=Trevor |date= 2005|title=Kingdom of the Hittites |edition=new |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=37 |isbn=978-0-19-928132-9 }}</ref> Although no older written records of the original ] remain, some aspects of ] and ] can be reconstructed from later evidence in the daughter cultures.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mallory |first=J. P. |date=2006 |title=The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World|publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-928791-8 |pages=442}}</ref> The Indo-European family is significant to the field of ] as it possesses the second-longest ] of any known family, after the ] ] and ]. The analysis of the family relationships between the Indo-European languages, and the reconstruction of their common source, was central to the development of the methodology of historical linguistics as an academic discipline in the 19th century. | |||
The Indo-European language family is not considered by the current academic consensus in the field of linguistics to have any ] with other language families, although several ] propose such relations. | |||
==History of Indo-European linguistics== | ==History of Indo-European linguistics== | ||
{{ |
{{See also|Indo-European studies#History}} | ||
During the 16th century, European visitors to the ] began to notice similarities among ], ], and ] languages. In 1583, English ] missionary and ] scholar ] wrote a letter from ] to his brother (not published until the 20th century){{sfn|Auroux|2000|p=1156}} in which he noted similarities between Indian languages and ] and ]. | |||
Suggestions of similarities between Indian and European languages began to be made by European visitors to India in the 16th century. In 1583 Fr. Thomas Stephens, SJ, an English ] missionary in ], noted similarities between Indian languages, specifically ], and Greek and Latin. These observations were included in a letter to his brother which was not published until the twentieth century.<ref name="auroux">{{cite book|first=Sylvain|last=Auroux|title=History of the Language Sciences|page=1156|isbn=3110167352|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|location=Berlin, New York|date=2000|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yasNy365EywC&pg=PA1156&vq=stephens+sassetti&dq=3110167352&as_brr=3&sig=nOsHuf3fqPmzmjmGYk1UnvSiFAs}}</ref> | |||
Another account was made by ], a merchant born in ] in 1540, who travelled to the Indian subcontinent. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between ] and Italian (these included ''devaḥ''/''dio'' "God", ''sarpaḥ''/''serpe'' "serpent", ''sapta''/''sette'' "seven", ''aṣṭa''/''otto'' "eight", and ''nava''/''nove'' "nine").{{sfn|Auroux|2000|p=1156}} However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.{{sfn|Auroux|2000|p=1156}} | |||
In 1647 ] linguist and scholar ] noted the similarity among |
In 1647, ] linguist and scholar ] noted the similarity among certain Asian and European languages and theorized that they were derived from a primitive common language that he called Scythian.{{sfn|Beekes|2011|loc= }} He included in his hypothesis ], ], ], ], ], and ], later adding ], ], and ]. However, Van Boxhorn's suggestions did not become widely known and did not stimulate further research. | ||
Ottoman Turkish traveler ] visited Vienna in 1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission and noted a few similarities between words in German and in Persian. | |||
] and others had made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a thorough comparison of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek conjugations in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship between them, about 20 years before William Jones. | |||
] and others made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a thorough comparison of Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek ] in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship among them. Meanwhile, ] compared different language groups, including Slavic, Baltic ("]"), Iranian ("]"), ], ], "Hottentot" (]), and others, noting that related languages (including Latin, Greek, German, and Russian) must have separated in antiquity from common ancestors.<ref name=Lomonosov> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801211720/http://feb-web.ru/feb/lomonos/texts/lo0/lo7/lo7-5952.htm |date=1 August 2020 }}: | |||
Представимъ долготу времени, которою сіи языки раздѣлились. ... Польской и россійской языкъ коль давно раздѣлились! Подумай же, когда курляндской! Подумай же, когда латинской, греч., нѣм., росс. О глубокая древность! Kurlandic! Think when Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!]</ref> | |||
The hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when ] first lectured on the striking similarities among three of the oldest languages known in his time: ], ], and ], to which he tentatively added ], ], and ],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Poser |first1=William J. |last2=Campbell |first2=Lyle |date=1992 |chapter=Indo-European Practice and Historical Methodology |title=Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Place of Morphology in a Grammar |volume=18 |issue=1 |publisher=Berkeley Linguistics Society |pages=227–8 |doi=10.3765/bls.v18i1.1574 |access-date=7 December 2022 |url=http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1574 }}</ref> though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions.<ref>{{cite book |author=Roger Blench |date=2004 |chapter=Archaeology and Language: methods and issues |editor=John Bintliff |title=A Companion To Archaeology |location=Oxford |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |pages=52–74 |chapter-url=http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/CH4-BLENCH.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060517091902/http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/CH4-BLENCH.pdf |archive-date=17 May 2006 |access-date=29 May 2010 }} Blench erroneously included ], ], and ] in the Indo-European languages, while omitting ].</ref> In one of the most famous quotations in linguistics, Jones made the following prescient statement in a lecture to the ] in 1786, conjecturing the existence of an earlier ancestor language, which he called "a common source" but did not name: | |||
The hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when ] first lectured on similarities between four of the oldest languages known in his time: ], ], ], and ]. It was ] who first used the term ''Indo-European'' in 1813,<ref>In ''London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi 1999:12, footnote 6</ref> which became the standard scientific term (except in Germany<ref>In German it is ''indogermanisch'' 'Indo-Germanic' which indicates the east-west extension. That term was first recorded in use in French original as ''indo-germanique'', in 1810 by ], a French geographer of Danish descent.</ref>) through the work of ], whose systematic comparison of these and other old languages supported the theory. Bopp's ''Comparative Grammar'', appearing between 1833 and 1852, counts as the starting point of ] as an academic discipline. | |||
{{Blockquote | |||
|text=The Sanscrit {{sic}} 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 ] could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.{{notetag|The sentence goes on to say, equally correctly as it turned out: "...here 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."}} | |||
|author=Sir William Jones | |||
|title=Third Anniversary Discourse delivered 2 February 1786 | |||
|source=ELIOHS<ref name=Jones-1807>{{cite web |title=The Third Anniversary Discourse |last1=Jones |first1=William |url=http://www.eliohs.unifi.it/testi/700/jones/Jones_Discourse_3.html |date=2 February 1786 |website=Electronic Library of Historiography |publisher=Universita degli Studi Firenze |postscript=,}} taken from: {{cite book |title=The Works of Sir William Jones. With a Life of the Author |last1=Shore (Lord Teignmouth) |first1=John |date=1807 |volume=III |publisher=John Stockdale and John Walker |pages=24–46 |oclc=899731310 }}</ref> | |||
}} | |||
] first used the term ''Indo-European'' in 1813, deriving it from the geographical extremes of the language family: from ] to ].<ref> | |||
==Classification== | |||
{{cite book | |||
{{see|List of languages by first written accounts}} | |||
| author=Robinson, Andrew | |||
| title=The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, the Anonymous Genius who Proved Newton Wrong and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, among Other Surprising Feats | |||
| publisher=Penguin | |||
| year=2007 | |||
| isbn=978-0-13-134304-7 | |||
| url-access=registration | |||
| url=https://archive.org/details/lastmanwhoknewev00robi | |||
}} | |||
</ref><ref>In ''London Quarterly Review'' X/2 1813.; cf. {{harvnb|Szemerényi|Jones|Jones|1999|loc=p. 12 footnote 6.}}</ref> A synonym is '''Indo-Germanic''' (''Idg.'' or ''IdG.''), specifying the family's southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches. This first appeared in French (''indo-germanique'') in 1810 in the work of ]; in most languages this term is now dated or less common than ''Indo-European'', although in German ''indogermanisch'' remains the standard scientific term. A ] have also been used. | |||
] was a pioneer in the field of comparative linguistic studies.]] | |||
] | |||
] wrote in 1816 ''On the conjugational system of the Sanskrit language compared with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic''<ref>{{cite book|title=Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache : in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache|author=Franz Bopp|location=Hildesheim|publisher=Olms|date=2010|edition=2|series=Documenta Semiotica : Serie 1, Linguistik|orig-year=1816}}</ref> and between 1833 and 1852 he wrote ''Comparative Grammar''. This marks the beginning of ] as an academic discipline. The classical phase of Indo-European ] leads from this work to ]'s 1861 ''Compendium'' and up to ]'s '']'', published in the 1880s. Brugmann's ] reevaluation of the field and ]'s development of the ] may be considered the beginning of "modern" Indo-European studies. The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the 20th century (such as ], ], and ]) developed a better understanding of morphology and of ] in the wake of ]'s 1956 ''Apophony in Indo-European,'' who in 1927 pointed out the existence of the ] ḫ.<ref>{{Cite book|chapter=ə indo-européen et ḫ hittite|editor1-last=Taszycki|editor1-first=W.|editor2-last=Doroszewski|editor2-first=W.|title=Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski |last=Kurylowicz|first=Jerzy |date=1927|volume=1|pages=95–104}}</ref> Kuryłowicz's discovery supported Ferdinand de Saussure's 1879 proposal of the existence of ''coefficients sonantiques'', elements de Saussure reconstructed to account for vowel length alternations in Indo-European languages. This led to the so-called ], a major step forward in Indo-European linguistics and a confirmation of de Saussure's theory.{{citation needed|date=May 2016}} | |||
{{Indo-European topics|310}} | |||
The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, given in the chronological order of their earliest surviving written attestations: | |||
==Classification== | |||
# ], earliest attested branch. Isolated terms in ] sources from the 19th century BC, ] from about the 16th century BC; extinct by ]. | |||
{{See also|Indo-European migrations}} | |||
# ], fragmentary records in ] ] from the late ] - early 14th century BC; ]ic traditions date to the 8th century BC. (See ], ].) | |||
The various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, listed below in alphabetical order: | |||
# ], born from a common ancestor, ] (dated to the late ]) | |||
* ], attested from the 13th century AD;<ref name="dictalit">{{cite encyclopedia | last=Elsie | first=Robert | author-link=Robert Elsie | title=Theodor of Shkodra (1210) and Other Early Texts| encyclopedia=Albanian Literature: A Short History |page=5 | publisher=] | location=New York/Westport/London |date=2005}}</ref> ] evolved from an ancient ], traditionally thought to be ], or otherwise a totally unattested Balkan ] that was closely related to Illyrian and ].<ref>In his latest book, ] supports the thesis that the Illyrian language belongs to the Northwestern group, that the Albanian language is descended from Illyrian, and that Albanian is related to Messapic which is an earlier Illyrian dialect ({{harvnb|Hamp|2007}}).</ref><ref name="De Vaan">{{Cite book |last=De Vaan |first=Michiel |author-link=Michiel de Vaan |chapter=The phonology of Albanian |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SuR8DwAAQBAJ&q=Ylli+Proto-Albanian&pg=PA1732 |title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics |editor-last=Klein |editor-first=Jared |editor-last2=Joseph |editor-first2=Brian |editor-last3=Fritz |editor-first3=Matthias |date=11 June 2018 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-054243-1 |pages=1732–1749}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1= Curtis|first1= Matthew Cowan|title= Slavic–Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence|url= https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546136|publisher= ProQuest LLC|access-date= 31 March 2017|page= 18|language= en|quote= So while linguists may debate about the ties between Albanian and older languages of the Balkans, and while most Albanians may take the genealogical connection to Illyrian as incontrovertible, the fact remains that there is simply insufficient evidence to connect Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian with any language, including Albanian|isbn= 978-1-267-58033-7|date= 30 November 2011}}</ref> | |||
#* ], attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of ]. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of ] (]). | |||
* ], extinct by ], spoken in ], attested in isolated terms in ]/] mentioned in Semitic ] texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, ] from about 1650 BC.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/researcharchive/index.php3-c=178.htm|title= The peaks and troughs of Hittite|date= 2 May 2006|website= www.leidenuniv.nl|access-date= 25 November 2013|archive-date= 3 February 2017|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170203061604/http://www.leidenuniv.nl/en/researcharchive/index.php3-c=178.htm|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/ar/61-70/65-66/65-66_CHD.pdf |title=The Hittite Computer Analysis Project |first=Hans G. |last=Güterbock |access-date=25 November 2013 |archive-date=2 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224845/http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/ar/61-70/65-66/65-66_CHD.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
#* ], attested from the late 15th - early 14th century BC in ] texts showing ]. Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of ] (]). The ] is assumed to preserve intact records ] dating from about the mid-] in the form of ]. | |||
* ], attested from the early 5th century AD. It evolved from the ] which, according to the ], developed ''in situ'' from the ] of the 3rd millennium BC.<ref>]; ] (1995). ''Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text. Part II: Bibliography, Indexes''. Walter de Gruyter. ] ].</ref><ref>Haber, Marc; Mezzavilla, Massimo; Xue, Yali; Comas, David; Gasparini, Paolo; Zalloua, Pierre; Tyler-Smith, Chris (2015). "Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations". ''European Journal of Human Genetics''. '''24''' (6): 931–6. ] 10.1101/015396. ]:10.1038/ejhg.2015.206. ] 4820045. ] 26486470.</ref> | |||
#* ] | |||
* ], believed by most Indo-Europeanists<ref>Such as {{harvnb|Schleicher|1874–1877|p=8}}, {{harvnb|Szemerényi|1957}}, {{harvnb|Collinge|1985}}, and {{harvnb|Beekes|1995|p=22}}.</ref> to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language-contact. | |||
#* ] | |||
** ] (from ]), attested from the 9th century AD (]), earliest texts in ]. Slavic languages include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (], ], ], ]), ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
# ], including ] and its descendants (the ]), attested from the 7th century BC. | |||
** ], attested from the 14th century AD; although attested relatively recently, they retain many archaic features attributed to ] (PIE). Living examples are ] and ]. | |||
# ], descended from ]. ] inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; ] manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD. | |||
* ] (from ]), attested since the 6th century BC; ] inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; ] from the 2nd century BC; Primitive Irish ]s from the 4th or 5th century AD, earliest inscriptions in ] from the 7th century AD. Modern Celtic languages include ], ], ], ], ] and ]. | |||
* ] (from ]), earliest attestations in ] inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in ], 4th century AD. ] manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD. Includes ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
# ], alphabet writings known from the beginning of the 5th century AD. | |||
* ] (from ], see also ]); fragmentary records in ] Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.science20.com/news_articles/tablet_discovery_pushes_earliest_european_writing_back_150_years-77650|title= Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest European Writing Back 150 Years|website= Science 2.0|date= 30 March 2011}}</ref> ]ic texts date to the 8th century BC. | |||
# ], extant in two dialects, attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the ] ] and likely extinct by the 10th century. | |||
* ], attested {{Circa|1400 BC}}, descended from ] (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC). | |||
# ], believed by most Indo-Europeanists<ref>such as Schleicher 1861, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995</ref> to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language contact. | |||
** ], attested from around 1400 BC in ] texts from ], showing ] words.<ref>{{cite book|title= Indian History|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=MazdaWXQFuQC&pg=SL1-PA114|publisher= Allied Publishers|isbn=978-81-8424-568-4|page= 114 |date=1988 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.worldhistory.org/Mitanni/ |title= Mitanni |first= Joshua J. |last= Mark |date= 28 April 2011 |website= ]}}</ref> Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of ] (]). The ] is assumed to preserve intact records ] dating from about the mid-] in the form of ]. Includes a wide range of modern languages from ], Eastern ] and ], including ] (], ]), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], as well as ] of ] and ] of the ] and ]. | |||
#* ] (from ]), attested from the 9th century AD (possibly earlier; see ]), earliest texts in ]. | |||
** ] or Iranic, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of ]. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of ] (]). Includes ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
#* ], attested from the 14th century AD, and, for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to ] (PIE). | |||
** ] (includes ], ], ], ], ], and ]). | |||
# ], attested from the 15th century AD; Proto-Albanian likely emerged from "]" predecessors.<ref>Of the Albanian Language - William Martin Leake, London, 1814.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/LLDescription.cfm?code=txh|title=The Thracian language|publisher=The Linguist List|accessdate=2008-01-27|quote=An ancient language of Southern Balkans, belonging to the Satem group of Indo-European. This language is the most likely ancestor of modern Albanian (which is also a Satem language), though the evidence is scanty. 1st Millennium BC - 500 AD.}}</ref> | |||
* ] (from ]), attested from the 7th century BC. Includes the ancient ], ], as well as ] and its descendants, the ], such as ] and ]. | |||
* ], with proposed links to the ] of Southern Siberia.<ref>{{cite journal |first=David W. |last=Anthony |title=Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism |journal=Journal of Language Relationship |volume=9 |date=2013 |pages=1–22|doi=10.31826/jlr-2013-090105 |s2cid=132712913 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean, or Tocharian A and B), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic ] and probably extinct by the 10th century. | |||
In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages have existed: | In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages and language-groups have existed or are proposed to have existed: | ||
* ]: hypothetical language associated with the proposed ] cultural area. Speculated to be connected to Italic or Venetic, and to have certain phonological features in common with Lusitanian.<ref>F. Ribezzo, ''Revue Internationale d'Onomastique'', II, 1948 {{p.|43}} sq. et III 1949, {{p.|45}} sq., M.Almagro dans ''RSLig'', XVI, 1950, {{p.|42}} sq, P.Laviosa Zambotti, l.c.</ref><ref name="Bernard">{{cite book |last1=Bernard |first1=Sergent |title=Les Indo-Européens: Histoire, langues, mythes |date=1995 |publisher=Bibliothèques scientifiques Payot |location=Paris |pages=84–85}}</ref> | |||
* ]: possibly Iranic, Thracian, or Celtic | |||
* ]: possibly very close to Thracian | |||
* ]: Poorly-attested language spoken by the ], one of the three indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Indo-European affiliation widely accepted, possibly related to Italic or Anatolian.<ref name="Olga">{{cite book |last1=Tribulato |first1=Olga |title=Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily |date=December 2012 |publisher=] |location=Cambridge |isbn=9781139248938 |pages=95–114}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Price |first1=Glanville |title=Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe |date=April 2000 |publisher=] |isbn=0631220399 |page=136}}</ref> | |||
* ]: possibly related to Albanian, Messapian, or both | |||
* ]: evidence too scant and uncertain to determine anything with certainty | |||
* ]: possibly close to or part of Celtic.<ref name=kruta1>{{cite book |last=Kruta |first=Venceslas |date=1991 |title=The Celts |publisher=Thames and Hudson |page=54}}</ref> | |||
* ]: possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic | |||
* ]: proposed relationship to Greek. | |||
* ]: not conclusively deciphered, often considered to be related to Albanian as the available fragmentary linguistic evidence shows common characteristic innovations and a number of significant lexical correspondences between the two languages<ref>{{cite book|last=Trumper|first=John|chapter=Some Celto-Albanian isoglosses and their implications|editor1-last=Grimaldi|editor1-first=Mirko|editor2-last=Lai|editor2-first=Rosangela|editor3-last=Franco|editor3-first=Ludovico|editor4-last=Baldi|editor4-first=Benedetta|title=Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond: In Honour of Leonardo M. Savoia|year=2018|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|isbn=9789027263179|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kAR-DwAAQBAJ}} pp. 283–286.</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Friedman|first=Victor A.|title=The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact|chapter=The Balkans|series=Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics|editor=], ]|publisher=Routledge|year=2020|isbn=9781351109147|pages=385–403 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x4rvDwAAQBAJ}} p. 388</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Friedman|first=Victor A.|title=The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=40|year=2011|pages=275–291|doi=10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145932 }}</ref> | |||
* ]: extinct language once spoken north of Macedon | |||
* ]: language of the ancient ]. Very likely, but not certainly, a sister group to Hellenic. | |||
* ]: an ancient language spoken by the Sicels (Greek Sikeloi, Latin Siculi), one of the three indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Proposed relationship to Latin or proto-Illyrian (Pre-Indo-European) at an earlier stage.<ref>{{cite book |last=Fine |first=John |date=1985 |title=The ancient Greeks: a critical history |publisher=] |page=72 |isbn=978-0-674-03314-6 |quote=Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal 'Mediterranean' population.}}</ref> | |||
* ]: proposed, pre-Celtic, Iberian language | |||
* ]: possibly including Dacian | |||
* ]: shares several similarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic and Celtic.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lejeune |first1=Michel |title=Manuel de la langue vénète |date=1974 |publisher=C. Winter |location=Heidelberg |page=341}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Pokorny |first1=Julius |title=Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch |language=de |trans-title=Indogermanic Etymological Dictionary |date=1959 |location=Bern |publisher=Francke |pages=708–709, 882–884}}</ref> | |||
] | |||
* ] — related to Messapian and Albanian. | |||
] | |||
* ] — close to Italic. | |||
Membership of languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by ] relationships, meaning that all members are presumed descendants of a common ancestor, ]. Membership in the various branches, groups, and subgroups of Indo-European is also genealogical, but here the defining factors are ''shared innovations'' among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their structure and phonology can be stated in rules that apply to all of them. Many of their common features are presumed innovations that took place in ], the source of all the Germanic languages. | |||
* ] — apparently grouped with Venetic. | |||
* ] — not conclusively deciphered. | |||
* ] — language of ancient ], possibly close to Greek, Thracian and Armenian. | |||
* ] — extinct language once spoken north of Macedon. | |||
* ] — possibly including Dacian. | |||
* ] — possibly close to Thracian. | |||
* ] — proposed relationships to Greek, Illyrian, Thracian, and Phrygian. | |||
* ] — possibly not Indo-European; possibly close to or part of Celtic. | |||
* ] — possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, or Ligurian, or Italic. | |||
===Grouping=== | |||
{{see|Language families}} | |||
{{Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies}} | |||
In the 21st century, several attempts have been made to model the phylogeny of Indo-European languages using Bayesian methodologies similar to those applied to problems in biological phylogeny.<ref name=remco>{{cite journal |last1=Bouckaert |first1=Remco |last2=Lemey |first2=Philippe |date=24 August 2012 |title=Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family |url= |journal=Science |volume=337 |issue=6097 |pages=957–960 |doi=10.1126/science.1219669 |pmid=22923579 |pmc=4112997 |bibcode=2012Sci...337..957B |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-000F-EADF-A}}</ref><ref name=drinka>{{cite journal |last1=Drinka |first1=Bridget|author-link=Bridget Drinka |date=1 January 2013 |title=Phylogenetic and areal models of Indo-European relatedness: The role of contact in reconstruction |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jlc/6/2/article-p379_9.xml |journal=Journal of Language Contact |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=379–410 |doi=10.1163/19552629-00602009 |access-date=30 September 2020|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=chang>{{cite journal |last1=Chang |first1=Will |last2=Chundra |first2=Cathcart |date=January 2015 |title=Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis |url=https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf |journal=] |volume=91 |issue=1 |pages=194–244 |doi=10.1353/lan.2015.0005 |s2cid=143978664 |access-date=30 September 2020}}</ref> Although there are differences in absolute timing between the various analyses, there is much commonality between them, including the result that the first known language groups to diverge were the Anatolian and Tocharian language families, in that order. | |||
Membership of these languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by ] relationships, meaning that all members are presumed to be descendants of a common ancestor, ]. Membership in the various branches, groups and subgroups or Indo-European is also genetic, but here the defining factors are '''shared innovations''' among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their structure and phonology can so be stated in rules that apply to all of them. Many of their common features are presumed to be innovations that took place in ], the source of all the Germanic languages. | |||
===Tree versus wave model=== | |||
Exempted from this concept are shared innovations acquired by ] (or other means of ]), that cannot be considered genetic. It has been asserted, for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be "]". More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems of long vowels in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any possible notion of a proto-language innovation (and cannot readily be regarded as "areal", either, since English and continental West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are far more likely to be areal features than traceable to a common proto-language, such as the uniform development of a '''high''' vowel (*''u'' in the case of Germanic, *''i/u'' in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *''ṛ,* ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ'', unique to these two groups among IE languages. The ] even features areal convergence that comprise very different branches. | |||
{{See also|Language change}} | |||
The "]" is considered an appropriate representation of the genealogical history of a language family if communities do not remain in contact after their languages have started to diverge. In this case, subgroups defined by shared innovations form a nested pattern. The tree model is not appropriate in cases where languages remain in contact as they diversify; in such cases subgroups may overlap, and the "]" is a more accurate representation.<ref>{{Citation | |||
| last = François | |||
| first = Alexandre | |||
| contribution = Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification | |||
| editor1-last = Bowern | |||
| editor1-first = Claire | |||
| editor2-last = Evans | |||
| editor2-first = Bethwyn | |||
| title = The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics | |||
| pages = 161–89 | |||
| publisher = ] | |||
| place = London | |||
| year = 2014 | |||
| isbn = 978-0-415-52789-7 | |||
| contribution-url = http://alex.francois.free.fr/data/AlexFrancois_2014_HHL_Trees-waves-linkages_Diversification.pdf | |||
| ref = francois | |||
}}</ref> Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed that the tree model is by-and-large valid for Indo-European;<ref>{{cite journal |title= From August Schleicher to Sergei Starostin: on the development of the tree-diagram models of the Indo-European languages |last=Blažek |first=Václav |journal=] |year=2007 |volume=35 |issue=1–2 |pages=82–109}}</ref> however, there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.<ref>{{cite book |title=Les dialectes indo-européens |language=fr |trans-title=The Indo-European dialects |publisher=Honoré Champion |last=Meillet |first=Antoine | year=1908 |location=Paris}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=I dialetti indoeuropei |publisher=Paideia |last=Bonfante |first=Giuliano |year=1931 |location=Brescia}}</ref>{{sfn|Porzig|1954}} | |||
In addition to genealogical changes, many of the early changes in Indo-European languages can be attributed to ]. It has been asserted, for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be ]. More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems of ]s in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any possible notion of a ] innovation (and cannot readily be regarded as "areal", either, because English and continental West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are far more likely areal features than traceable to a common proto-language, such as the uniform development of a ] (*''u'' in the case of Germanic, *''i/u'' in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *''ṛ, *ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ'', unique to these two groups among IE languages, which is in agreement with the wave model. The ] even features areal convergence among members of very different branches. | |||
To the evolutionary history of a language family, a genetic "]" is considered appropriate only if communities do not remain in effective contact as their languages diverge. Otherwise, a "]" applies, featuring borrowings and no clear underlying genetic tree. Using an extension to the ''Ringe-Warnow model of language evolution'' early IE was confirmed to have featured limited contact between distinct lineages, while only the Germanic subfamily exhibited a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution rather than from its direct ancestors. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.<ref> Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages - Luay Nakhleh,Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow, 2005, Language- Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Volume 81, Number 2, June 2005</ref> | |||
An extension to the '']-] model of language evolution'' suggests that early IE had featured limited contact between distinct lineages, with only the Germanic subfamily exhibiting a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nakhleh |first1=Luay |last2=Ringe |first2=Don |last3=Warnow |first3=Tandy |author3-link=Tandy Warnow |title=Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages |name-list-style= amp |date=2005 |journal=] |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages= 382–420 |doi=10.1353/lan.2005.0078 |citeseerx=10.1.1.65.1791 |s2cid=162958 |url=http://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/Papers/NRWlanguage.pdf }}</ref> | |||
The ] form the largest sub-branch of Indo-European in terms of the number of native speakers as well as in terms of the number of individual languages. | |||
===Proposed subgroupings=== | ===Proposed subgroupings=== | ||
{{Hypothetical Indo-European subfamilies}} | |||
Specialists have ] the existence of such subfamilies (subgroups) as ], ], ], and Germanic with Balto-Slavic. The vogue for such subgroups waxes and wanes; Italo-Celtic for example used to be a standard subgroup of Indo-European, but it is now little honored, in part because much of the evidence on which it was based has turned out to have been misinterpreted.{{Citation needed|date=July 2008}} | |||
Specialists have postulated the existence of higher-order subgroups such as ], ], ] or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and Balto-Slavo-Germanic. However, unlike the ten traditional branches, these are all controversial to a greater or lesser degree.<ref>{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture |publisher=Fitzroy Dearborn |last1=Mallory |first1=J. P. |last2=Adams |first2=D. Q. |year=1997 |location=London}}</ref> | |||
The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by ] to be even better established than Balto-Slavic.{{sfn|Porzig|1954|p=39}} The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix ''-ī''; the superlative suffix ''-m̥mo''; the change of /p/ to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same word (as in ''penkʷe'' > ''*kʷenkʷe'' > Latin {{lang|la|quīnque}}, Old Irish {{lang|sga|cóic}}); and the subjunctive morpheme ''-ā-''.{{sfn|Fortson|2004|p=247}} This evidence was prominently challenged by ],<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Italo-Celtic revisited |encyclopedia=Ancient Indo-European dialects |publisher=] |last=Watkins |first=Calvert |editor1-last=Birnbaum |editor1-first=Henrik |editor2-last=Puhvel |editor2-first=Jaan |year=1966 |location=Berkeley |pages=29–50}}</ref> while Michael Weiss has argued for the subgroup.<ref>{{cite conference |title= Italo-Celtica: linguistic and cultural points of contact between Italic and Celtic |conference=Proceedings of the 23rd annual UCLA Indo-European Conference |publisher= Hempen |last=Weiss |first=Michael |editor1-last=Jamison |editor1-first=Stephanie W. |editor2-last= Melchert |editor2-first= H. Craig |editor3-last= Vine |editor3-first=Brent |year=2012 |location= Bremen |pages=151–73 |url=https://www.academia.edu/3249855 |access-date=19 February 2018 |isbn=978-3-934106-99-4}}</ref> | |||
Subgroupings of the Indo European languages are commonly held to reflect ] and ]. The generic differentiation of Proto-Indo-European into dialects and languages happened hand in hand with language contact and the spread of innovations over different territories. | |||
Evidence for a relationship between Greek and Armenian includes the regular change of the ] to ''a'' at the beginnings of words, as well as terms for "woman" and "sheep".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Review of ''The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek'' by James Clackson |last=Greppin |first=James |journal=] |year=1996 |volume=72 |issue=4 |pages=804–07 |doi=10.2307/416105 |jstor=416105}}</ref> Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Indoiranisch-griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen |language=de |trans-title=Indo-Iranian-Greek similarities in nominal formation and their Indo-European foundations |publisher=Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck |last=Euler |first=Wolfram |author-link=Wolfram Euler |year=1979 |location=Innsbruck}}</ref> Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek,{{sfn|Lubotsky|1988}} and between Thracian and Armenian.{{sfn|Kortlandt|1988}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Renfrew |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Renfrew |date=1987 |title= Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins |location=London |publisher=Jonathan Cape |isbn= 978-0224024952}}</ref> Some fundamental shared features, like the ] (a verb form denoting action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to Anatolian languages{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|p=593}} and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=p. 667 George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, ''The Tocharian problem''}} | |||
Rather than being entirely genetic, the grouping of ] is commonly inferred as an innovative change that occurred just once, and subsequently spread over a large cohesive territory or PIE continuum that affected all but the peripheral areas.<ref>Britannica 15th edition, vol.22, 1981, p.588, 594</ref> For instance, Kortlandt proposes this satemization process involved interaction between a western and central Indo-European sphere of influence to the ancestors of Balts and Slavs.<ref></ref> | |||
The ] hypothesis proposes that the Indo-European language family consists of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia<ref>The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by Colin Renfrew ({{harvnb|Renfrew|2001|pp=36–73}}).</ref> and the preservation of laryngeals.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=Houwink ten Cate, H.J.; Melchert, H. Craig & van den Hout, Theo P.J. p. 586 ''The parent language, Laryngeal theory''; pp. 589, 593 ''Anatolian languages''}} However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view, the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-] languages in general—including Anatolian—might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language-area and to early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|loc=p. 594, ''Indo-Hittite hypothesis''}} Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.<ref>{{harvnb|Holm|2008|pp=629–36}}. The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.</ref> | |||
Shared features of Phrygian and Greek <ref>Lubotsky - The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, Kadmos 27, 9-26, 1988</ref> and of Thracian and Armenian <ref>Kortlandt - The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, Linguistique Balkanique 31, 71-74, 1988</ref> group the southeastern branches of Indo-European together. Some fundamental shared features, like the verbal aorist category (this is a verb form denoting action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to Anatolian languages<ref>Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981, p.593</ref> and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.<ref>George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, | |||
Britannica 15th edition 22:667, "The Tocharian problem"</ref> | |||
The ] hypothesis proposes the Indo European language family to consist of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia<ref>The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by C. Renfrew. (Renfrew, C 2001a The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites. In R. Drews ed., Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language. family: 36-63. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man).</ref> and the preservation of laryngeals.<ref>Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 586 "Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory" - W.C.; p. 589, 593 "Anatolian languages" - Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate, H. Craig Melchert and Theo P.J. van den Hout</ref> However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-satem languages in general - including Anatolian - might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language area and early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship.<ref>Britannica 15th edition, 22 p. 594, "Indo-Hittite hypothesis"</ref> | |||
Holm (2008)<ref> Holm, Hans J.: The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages. In: Christine Preisach, Hans Burkhardt, Lars Schmidt-Thieme, Reinhold Decker (eds.): Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications. Proc. of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7-9, 2007. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin (2008)</ref> based on lexical calculations arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. | |||
===Satem and centum languages=== | ===Satem and centum languages=== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Centum and satem languages}} | ||
[[File:Indo-European isoglosses.png|thumb|upright=1.6|Some significant isoglosses in Indo-European daughter languages at around 500 BC. | |||
The Satem and Centum languages is a much-debated characterization of Indo-European languages devised by von Bradke in the late 19th century based on a single main isogloss. | |||
{{Legend|#9fc7f3|Blue: centum languages}} | |||
{{Legend|#ef7a6e|Red: satem languages}} | |||
{{Legend|#f6a20f|Orange: languages with ]}} | |||
{{Legend|#a1f091|Green: languages with PIE *-tt- > -ss-}} | |||
{{Legend|#f6d3ab|Tan: languages with PIE *-tt- > -st-}} | |||
{{Legend|#fdd1d1|Pink: languages with instrumental, dative and ablative plural endings (and some others) in *-m- rather than *-bh-}}]] | |||
The division of the Indo-European languages into satem and centum groups was put forward by Peter von Bradke in 1890, although ] did propose a similar type of division in 1886. In the satem languages, which include the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches, as well as (in most respects) Albanian and Armenian, the reconstructed ] remained distinct and were fricativized, while the labiovelars merged with the 'plain velars'. In the centum languages, the palatovelars merged with the plain velars, while the labiovelars remained distinct. The results of these alternative developments are exemplified by the words for "hundred" in Avestan ({{lang|ae|satem}}) and Latin ({{lang|la|centum}})—the initial palatovelar developed into a fricative {{IPA|}} in the former, but became an ordinary velar {{IPA|}} in the latter. | |||
Rather than being a genealogical separation, the centum–satem division is commonly seen as resulting from innovative changes that spread across PIE dialect-branches over a particular geographical area; the centum–satem ] intersects a number of other isoglosses that mark distinctions between features in the early IE branches. It may be that the centum branches in fact reflect the original state of affairs in PIE, and only the satem branches shared a set of innovations, which affected all but the peripheral areas of the PIE dialect continuum.{{sfn|Encyclopædia Britannica|1981|pp=588, 594}} Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later into the western Indo-European sphere.{{sfn|Kortlandt|1990}} | |||
=== Suggested superfamilies === | |||
==Proposed external relations== | |||
Some linguists propose that Indo-European languages form part of a hypothetical ] superfamily, and attempt to relate Indo-European to other language families, such as ], ], ], and ]. This theory, like the similar ] theory of ], and the ] postulation of ], remains highly controversial, however, and is not accepted by most linguists in the field. Objections to such groupings are not based on any theoretical claim about the likely historical existence or non-existence of such super-families; it is entirely reasonable to suppose that they might have existed. The serious difficulty lies in identifying the details of actual relationships between language families; it is very hard to find concrete evidence that transcends chance resemblance. Since the noise-to-signal ratio in historical linguistics increases steadily over time, at great enough time-depths it becomes open to reasonable doubt that it can even be possible to distinguish between signal and noise. For further discussion of these methodological questions, see ]. | |||
{{More citations needed section|date=June 2021}} | |||
From the very beginning of Indo-European studies, there have been attempts to link the Indo-European languages genealogically to other languages and language families. However, these theories remain highly controversial, and most specialists in Indo-European linguistics are skeptical or agnostic about such proposals.<ref name=Kallio2018>{{cite book |last1=Kallio |first1=Petri |last2=Koivulehto |first2=Jorma |date=2018 |chapter=More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European |editor1=Jared Klein |editor2=Brian Joseph |editor3=Matthias Fritz |title=Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics |pages=2280–2291}}</ref> | |||
Proposals linking the Indo-European languages with a single language family include:<ref name=Kallio2018/> | |||
==Historical evolution== | |||
* ], joining Indo-European with ] | |||
===Proto-Indo-European=== | |||
* ], postulated by ], which joins Indo-European with ] | |||
{{main|Proto-Indo-European language}} | |||
Other proposed families include:<ref name=Kallio2018/> | |||
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the ]. The classical phase of Indo-European ] leads from ]'s ''Comparative Grammar'' (1833) to ]'s 1861 ''Compendium'' and up to ]'s '']'' published from the 1880s. Brugmann's '']'' reevaluation of the field and ]'s development of the ] may be considered the beginning of "contemporary" Indo-European studies. The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the 20th century (such as ], ] and ]) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake of ]'s 1956 ''Apophonie'', understanding of the ]. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of ] an earlier stage, called ], has been proposed. | |||
* ], comprising all or some of the Eurasiatic languages and the ], ] (or wider, ]) and ] language families | |||
* ], a theory championed by ], comprising the ], ] and various ']' families (], ], ], ], ]) and possibly others | |||
Nostratic and Eurasiatic, in turn, have been included in even wider groupings, such as ], a language family separately proposed by ] and ] that encompasses almost all of the world's natural languages with the exception of those native to ], ], ], and the ]. | |||
==Evolution== | |||
===Proto-Indo-European=== | |||
{{Main|Proto-Indo-European language}} | |||
].<br>– Center: Steppe cultures<br>1 (black): Anatolian languages (archaic PIE)<br>2 (black): Afanasievo culture (early PIE)<br>3 (black) Yamnaya culture expansion (Pontic-Caspian steppe, Danube Valley) (late PIE)<br>4A (black): Western Corded Ware<br>4B-C (blue & dark blue): Bell Beaker; adopted by Indo-European speakers<br>5A-B (red): Eastern Corded ware<br>5C (red): Sintashta (proto-Indo-Iranian)<br>6 (magenta): Andronovo<br>7A (purple): Indo-Aryans (Mittani)<br>7B (purple): Indo-Aryans (India)<br> (dark yellow): proto-Balto-Slavic<br>8 (grey): Greek<br>9 (yellow):Iranians<br>– : Armenian, expanding from western steppe]] | |||
The proposed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the ] common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the ]. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of ], an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European, has been proposed. | |||
PIE |
PIE is an ], in which the grammatical relationships between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually endings). The ] of PIE are basic ]s carrying a ] meaning. By addition of ]es, they form ], and by addition of ], these form grammatically inflected words (] or ]). The reconstructed ] system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ]. | ||
===Diversification=== | ===Diversification=== | ||
{{See also|Indo-European migrations}} | |||
{{Unreferenced section|date=July 2008}} | |||
The diversification of the parent language into the attested branches of daughter languages is historically unattested. | The diversification of the parent language into the attested branches of daughter languages is historically unattested. The timeline of the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand, is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of ]. | ||
The timeline of the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand, is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of ]. | |||
Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, ] and ] propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:{{sfn|Anthony|2007|pp=56–58}} | |||
] distribution]] | |||
* Pre-] (before 3500 BC) | |||
] distribution]] | |||
* Pre-] | |||
] and ] distribution]] | |||
* Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC) | |||
* 2500 BC–2000 BC: The breakup into the proto-languages of the attested dialects is complete. ] is spoken in the ], ] north of the Caspian in the emerging ]. The Bronze Age reaches ] with the ], likely composed of various Centum dialects. The ] possibly correspond to proto-]. | |||
* Pre-Armenian and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC) | |||
* 2000 BC–1500 BC: ] north of the black sea. The ] is invented, leading to the split and rapid spread of ] and ] from the ] over much of ], Northern ], ] and Eastern ]. Proto-Anatolian is split into ] and ]. The pre-Proto-Celtic ] has an active metal industry (]). | |||
* Proto-] (2000 BC) | |||
* 1500 BC–1000 BC: The ] develops pre-], and the (pre)-] ] and ] cultures emerge in Central Europe, introducing the ]. Migration of the Proto-] speakers into the Italian peninsula (]). Redaction of the ] and rise of the ] in the ]. The ] gives way to the ]. | |||
* Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic;{{sfn|Anthony|2007|pp=56–58}} proto-Germanic {{Circa|500 BC}}{{sfn|Ringe|2006|p=67}} | |||
* 1000 BC–500 BC: The ] spread over Central and Western Europe. ] are spoken in a huge area from present-day Poland to the Ural Mountains.<ref>http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie-lg/Balto-Slavic.html</ref> ]. ] and the beginning of ]. The Vedic Civilization gives way to the ]. ] attains enlightenment and preaches ]. ] composes the ]s, rise of the ], replacing the ] and ]. Separation of Proto-Italic into ] and ]. Genesis of the ] and ] alphabets. A variety of ] are spoken in Southern Europe. The Anatolian languages are ]. | |||
* 500 BC–1 BC/AD: ]: spread of ] and ] throughout the Mediterranean, and during ] (]) to Central Asia and the Hindukush. ], ]. ]. | |||
David Anthony proposes the following sequence:{{sfn|Anthony|2007|p=100}} | |||
* 1 BC/AD 500: ], ]; attestation of ]. ]. The ] and then the ] marginalize the Celtic languages to the British Isles. | |||
* Pre-] (4200 BC) | |||
* 500–1000: ]. The ] forms an ] koine spanning Scandinavia, the British Isles and Iceland. The ] and the ] results in the ] and ] of significant areas where Indo-European languages were spoken. ] is extinct in the course of the Turkic expansion while ] (]) is reduced to small refugia. | |||
* Pre-] (3700 BC) | |||
* 1000–1500: ]: Attestation of ] and ]. | |||
* ] (3300 BC) | |||
* 1500–2000: ] to present: ] results in the spread of Indo-European languages to every continent, most notably ] (North, Central and South America, French Canada, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, West Asia), ] (] in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Australia; to a lesser extent Dutch and German), and ] to Central Asia and North Asia. | |||
* Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (3000 BC) | |||
* Pre-Armenian (2800 BC) | |||
* Pre-Balto-Slavic (2800 BC) | |||
* Pre-Greek (2500 BC) | |||
* Proto-] (2200 BC); split between Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BC | |||
From 1500 BC the following sequence may be given:{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}} | |||
* 1500–1000 BC: The ] of ] develops ], and the (pre-) Proto-Celtic ] and ] cultures emerge in Central Europe, introducing the ]. Migration of the Proto-] speakers into the Italian peninsula (]). ] followed by the redaction of the ]; rise of the ] and ] in the ]. The ] gives way to the ]. Hittite goes extinct. ] start migrating southwards to ]. ] splits into ancestors of modern ] and ]. | |||
* 1000–500 BC: The ] spread over Central and Western Europe, including ]. ] are spoken in a huge area from present-day Poland to ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vijay |first1=John |last2=Slocum |first2=Jonathan |date=10 November 2008 |title=Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family |publisher=Linguistics Research Center, University of Texas |access-date=7 August 2010 |url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie-lg/Balto-Slavic.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604200234/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie-lg/Balto-Slavic.html |archive-date=4 June 2011 }}</ref> ] gives rise to ] in southern Scandinavia. ] and the beginning of ]. The Vedic civilization gives way to the ] as the Indo-Aryan tongue reaches eastwards, giving rise to the ] cultural sphere, where ] preaches ] and ] preaches ]. ] composes the ], rise of the ], replacing the ] and ]. Separation of Proto-Italic into ], ], and possibly ] and ]. A variety of ] besides Greek are spoken in Southern Europe, including ], ] and ], and in ] (]). Development of ] across the northern Indian subcontinent, as well as migration of Indo-Aryan speakers to ] and the ]. | |||
* 500 BC – 1 BC/AD: ]: spread of ] and ] throughout the Mediterranean and, during the ] (]), to Central Asia and the ]. The Magadhan power and influence rises in ancient India, especially with the conquests of the ] and ]s. Germanic speakers start migrating southwards to occupy formerly Celtic territories. ] extend from Eastern Europe (]) to Northwest China (]). | |||
* 1 BC – AD 500: ], ]; attestation of ]. ]. The ] and then the ] marginalize the Celtic languages to the British Isles. ], an ], becomes the '']'' of the ] in Central Asia leading to China, due to the proliferation of ]n merchants there. Greek settlements and ] rule make the last Anatolian languages ]. ] start replacing ]. | |||
* 500–1000: ]. The ] forms an Old Norse ] spanning Scandinavia, the British Isles and Iceland. Phrygian becomes extinct. The ] and the ] result in the ] and ] of significant areas where Indo-European languages were spoken, but ] still develops under Islamic rule and extends into ] and ]. Due to further ], ] becomes fully extinct while Scythian languages are overwhelmingly replaced. Slavic languages spread over wide areas in central, eastern and southeastern Europe, largely replacing Romance in the Balkans (with the exception of Romanian) and whatever was left of the ] with the exception of Albanian. Pannonian Basin is taken by the ] from the western ]. | |||
* 1000–1500: ]: Attestation of ] and ]. Modern dialects of Indo-European languages start emerging. | |||
* 1500–2000: ] to present: ] results in the spread of Indo-European languages to every habitable continent, most notably ] (North, Central and South America, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, West Asia), ] (] in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Australia; to a lesser extent Dutch and German), and ] to Central Asia and North Asia. | |||
===Important languages for reconstruction=== | |||
In reconstructing the history of the Indo-European languages and the form of the ], some languages have been of particular importance. These generally include the ancient Indo-European languages that are both well-attested and documented at an early date, although some languages from later periods are important if they are particularly ] (most notably, ]). Early poetry is of special significance because of the rigid ] normally employed, which makes it possible to reconstruct a number of features (e.g. ]) that were either unwritten or corrupted in the process of transmission down to the earliest extant written ]s. | |||
Most noticeable of all:{{sfn|Beekes|2011|loc=, , , }} | |||
* ] ({{Circa|1500}}–500 BC). This language is unique in that its source documents were all composed orally, and were passed down through ] (] schools) for c. 2,000 years before ever being written down. The oldest documents are all in poetic form; oldest and most important of all is the ] ({{Circa|1500 BC}}). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|750}}–400 BC). ] ({{Circa|1450 BC}}) is the oldest recorded form, but its value is lessened by the limited material, restricted subject matter, and highly ambiguous writing system. More important is Ancient Greek, documented extensively beginning with the two ] (the '']'' and the '']'', {{Circa|750 BC}}). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|1700}}–1200 BC). This is the earliest-recorded of all Indo-European languages, and highly divergent from the others due to the early separation of the ] from the remainder. It possesses some highly archaic features found only fragmentarily, if at all, in other languages. At the same time, however, it appears to have undergone many early phonological and grammatical changes which, combined with the ambiguities of its writing system, hinder its usefulness somewhat. | |||
Other primary sources: | |||
* ], attested in a huge amount of poetic and prose material in the ] period ({{Circa|200 BC}} – AD 100) and limited ] from as early as {{Circa|600 BC}}. | |||
* ] (the most archaic well-documented ], AD {{Circa|350}}), along with the combined witness of the other old Germanic languages: most importantly, ] ({{Circa|800}}–1000), ] ({{Circa|750}}–1000) and ] ({{Circa|1100}}–1300 AD, with limited earlier sources dating to AD {{Circa|200}}). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|1700}}–1200 BC) and ] ({{Circa|900 BC}}). Documentation is sparse, but nonetheless quite important due to its highly archaic nature. | |||
* Modern ], with limited records in ] ({{Circa|1500}}–1700). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|900}}–1000). | |||
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to poor attestation: | |||
* ], ], ] and other ] ({{Circa|1400}}–400 BC). | |||
* ], ] and other ] languages ({{Circa|600}}–200 BC). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|500 BC}}). | |||
* ] ({{Circa|1350}}–1600); even more archaic than Lithuanian. | |||
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to extensive phonological changes and relatively limited attestation:{{sfn|Beekes|2011|loc=p. 30, , Arm: 20, Alb: 25 & , }} | |||
* ] (AD{{Circa|700}}–850). | |||
* ] (AD {{Circa|500}}–800 ), underwent large phonetic shifts and mergers in the proto-language, and has an almost entirely reworked declension system. | |||
* ] (AD {{Circa|400}}–1000).<!--<ref name="Strazny2013">{{cite book|author=Philipp Strazny|title=Encyclopedia of Linguistics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=27JOMobauYAC&pg=PA86|date=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-45522-4|page=86}}</ref>--> | |||
* ] ({{Circa|1450}}–current time). | |||
===Sound changes=== | ===Sound changes=== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Indo-European sound laws}} | ||
As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, changing according to various ]s evidenced in the ]s |
As the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, changing according to various ]s evidenced in the ]s. | ||
PIE is normally reconstructed with a complex system of 15 ]s, including an unusual three-way ] (]) distinction between ], ] and "]" (i.e. ]) stops, and a three-way distinction among ]s (''k''-type sounds) between "palatal" ''ḱ ǵ ǵh'', "plain velar" ''k g gh'' and ] ''kʷ gʷ gʷh''. (The correctness of the terms ''palatal'' and ''plain velar'' is disputed; see ].) All daughter languages have reduced the number of distinctions among these sounds, often in divergent ways. | |||
As an example, in ], one of the ]s, the following are some of the major changes that happened: | |||
{{ordered list | |||
|1= As in other ] languages, the "plain velar" and "palatal" stops merged, reducing the number of stops from 15 to 12. | |||
|2= As in the other Germanic languages, the ] changed the realization of all stop consonants, with each consonant shifting to a different one: | |||
: {{PIE|bʰ}} → {{PIE|b}} → {{PIE|p}} → {{PIE|f}} | |||
: {{PIE|dʰ}} → {{PIE|d}} → {{PIE|t}} → {{PIE|θ}} | |||
: {{PIE|gʰ}} → {{PIE|g}} → {{PIE|k}} → {{PIE|x}} (Later initial {{PIE|x}} →{{PIE|h}}) | |||
: {{PIE|gʷʰ}} → {{PIE|gʷ}} → {{PIE|kʷ}} → {{PIE|xʷ}} (Later initial {{PIE|xʷ}} →{{PIE|hʷ}}) | |||
Each original consonant shifted one position to the right. For example, original {{PIE|dʰ}} became {{PIE|d}}, while original {{PIE|d}} became {{PIE|t}} and original {{PIE|t}} became {{PIE|θ}} (written ''th'' in English). This is the original source of the English sounds written ''f'', ''th'', ''h'' and ''wh''. Examples, comparing English with Latin, where the sounds largely remain unshifted: | |||
:For PIE ''p'': ''piscis'' vs. ''fish''; ''pēs, pēdis'' vs. ''foot''; ''pluvium'' "rain" vs. ''flow''; ''pater'' vs. ''father'' | |||
:For PIE ''t'': ''trēs'' vs. ''three''; ''māter'' vs. ''mother'' | |||
:For PIE ''d'': ''decem'' vs. ''ten''; ''pēdis'' vs. ''foot''; ''quid'' vs. ''what'' | |||
:For PIE ''k'': ''centum'' vs. ''hund(red)''; ''capere'' "to take" vs. ''have'' | |||
:For PIE ''kʷ'': ''quid'' vs. ''what''; ''quandō'' vs. ''when'' | |||
|3= Various further changes affected consonants in the middle or end of a word: | |||
* The voiced stops resulting from the sound shift were softened to voiced ] (or perhaps the sound shift directly generated fricatives in these positions). | |||
* ] also turned some of the voiceless fricatives resulting from the sound shift into voiced fricatives or stops. This is why the ''t'' in Latin ''centum'' ends up as ''d'' in ''hund(red)'' rather than the expected ''th''. | |||
* Most remaining ''h'' sounds disappeared, while remaining ''f'' and ''th'' became voiced. For example, Latin ''decem'' ends up as ''ten'' with no ''h'' in the middle (but note ''taíhun'' "ten" in ], an archaic Germanic language). Similarly, the words ''seven'' and ''have'' have a voiced ''v'' (compare Latin ''septem'', ''capere''), while ''father'' and ''mother'' have a voiced ''th'', although not spelled differently (compare Latin ''pater'', ''māter''). | |||
}} | |||
None of the daughter-language families (except possibly ], particularly ]) reflect the plain velar stops differently from the other two series, and there is even a certain amount of dispute whether this series existed at all in PIE. The major distinction between ] languages corresponds to the outcome of the PIE plain velars: | |||
* The "central" ''satem'' languages (], ], ], and ]) reflect both "plain velar" and labiovelar stops as plain velars, often with secondary ] before a ] (''e i ē ī''). The "palatal" stops are palatalized and often appear as ]s (usually but not always distinct from the secondarily palatalized stops). | |||
* The "peripheral" ''centum'' languages (], ], ], ], ] and ]) reflect both "palatal" and "plain velar" stops as plain velars, while the labiovelars continue unchanged, often with later reduction into plain ] or ]s. | |||
The three-way PIE distinction between voiceless, voiced and voiced aspirated stops is considered extremely unusual from the perspective of ]—particularly in the existence of voiced aspirated stops without a corresponding series of voiceless aspirated stops. None of the various daughter-language families continue it unchanged, with numerous "solutions" to the apparently unstable PIE situation: | |||
* The ]s preserve the three series unchanged but have evolved a fourth series of voiceless aspirated consonants. | |||
* The ]s probably passed through the same stage, subsequently changing the aspirated stops into fricatives. | |||
* ] converted the voiced aspirates into voiceless aspirates. | |||
* ] probably passed through the same stage, but reflects the voiced aspirates as voiceless fricatives, especially ''f'' (or sometimes plain voiced stops in ]). | |||
* ], ], ], and ] merge the voiced aspirated into plain voiced stops. | |||
* ] and ] change all three series in a ] (e.g. with ''bh b p'' becoming ''b p f'' (known as '']'' in Germanic)). | |||
Among the other notable changes affecting consonants are: | |||
* The ] (''s'' becomes {{IPA|/ʃ/}} before ''r, u, k, i'') in the '']'' languages. | |||
* Loss of prevocalic ''p'' in ]. | |||
* Development of prevocalic ''s'' to ''h'' in ], with later loss of ''h'' between vowels. | |||
* ] in ]. | |||
* ] (dissimilation of aspirates) independently in Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian. | |||
The following table shows the basic outcomes of PIE consonants in some of the most important daughter languages for the purposes of reconstruction. For a fuller table, see ]. | |||
{| class=wikitable style="white-space: nowrap;" | |||
|+ Proto-Indo-European consonants and their ] in selected Indo-European daughter languages | |||
! rowspan=2|PIE !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|] !! rowspan=2|English !! colspan=6|Examples | |||
! | |||
|- align=center | |||
! PIE !! Eng. !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] etc. | |||
!]. | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*p}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|p}}'''; '''{{PIE|ph}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> | |||
| colspan="4"|'''{{PIE|p}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|Ø}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|ch}}'''<SUP>T</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|f}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|b}}'''- {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|f}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|v/f}}'''- | |||
|''*pṓds ~ *ped-'' || ''foot'' || ''pád-'' || ''poús (podós)'' || ''pēs (pedis)'' || ''pãdas'' | |||
|Pi''á''de | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*t}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|t}}'''; '''{{PIE|th}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> | |||
| colspan="4"|'''{{PIE|t}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|t}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|th}}'''- {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|þ}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />`-'''{{PIE|d}}'''- {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|t}}'''<SUP>T-</SUP> | |||
|'''{{PIE|th}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|d}}'''-;<br />'''{{PIE|t}}'''<SUP>T-</SUP> | |||
|''*tréyes'' || ''three'' || ''tráyas''|| ''treĩs'' || ''trēs'' || ''trỹs'' | |||
|thri (old Persian) | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*ḱ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|ś}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|s}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|š}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|k}}''' | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|c}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="4"|'''{{PIE|c}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-'''{{PIE|ch}}'''- {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|h}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|g}}'''- {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|h}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|Ø}}'''-;<br />`-'''{{PIE|y}}'''- | |||
|''*ḱm̥tóm'' || ''hund(red)'' || ''śatám'' || ''he-katón'' || ''centum'' || ''šimtas'' | |||
|sad | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*k}}''' | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|k}}'''; '''{{PIE|c}}'''<SUP>E</SUP> {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|kh}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|k}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|č}}'''<SUP>E</SUP> {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|c}}'''<sup>E'</sup> {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|k}}''' | |||
|''*kreuh₂''<br /> "raw meat" || OE ''hrēaw''<br /> ''raw'' || ''kravíṣ-'' || ''kréas'' || ''cruor'' || ''kraûjas'' | |||
|xore''š'' | |||
|- align=center | |||
!rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|*kʷ}}''' | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|p}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|t}}'''<SUP>E</SUP>;<br />'''{{PIE|k}}'''<SUP>(u)</SUP> | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|qu}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|c}}'''<SUP>(O)</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|ƕ}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />`-'''{{PIE|gw/w}}'''- | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|wh}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|w}}'''- | |||
| ''*kʷid, kʷod'' || ''what'' || ''kím'' || ''tí'' || ''quid, quod'' ||''kas'', ''kad'' | |||
|ce, ci | |||
|- align=center | |||
| ''*kʷekʷlom'' || ''wheel'' || ''cakrá-'' || ''kúklos'' || || ''kãklas'' | |||
|carx | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*b}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|b}}'''; '''{{PIE|bh}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> | |||
| colspan="4"|'''{{PIE|b}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|b}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-'''{{IPA|}}'''- | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|p}}''' | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*d}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|d}}'''; '''{{PIE|dh}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> | |||
| colspan="4"|'''{{PIE|d}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|d}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|t}}''' | |||
| ''*déḱm̥(t)'' || ''ten'',<br />] ''taíhun'' || ''dáśa'' || ''déka'' || ''decem'' || ''dẽšimt'' | |||
|dah | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*ǵ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|j}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|h}}'''<SUP>H</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|z}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|ž}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| colspan="2" rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''' | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|k}}''' | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|c / k}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|ch}}'''<SUP>E'</SUP> | |||
| ''*ǵénu, *ǵnéu-'' || OE ''cnēo''<br /> ''knee'' || ''jā́nu'' || ''gónu'' || ''genu'' || | |||
|z''ánu'' | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*g}}''' | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|j}}'''<sup>E</sup> {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|gh}}'''<SUP>H</SUP>;<br /> '''{{PIE|h}}'''<SUP>H,E</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|ž}}'''<sup>E</sup> {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|dz}}'''<sup>E'</sup> | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''' | |||
|''*yugóm'' || ''yoke'' || ''yugám'' || ''zugón'' || ''iugum'' || ''jùngas'' | |||
|yugh | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*gʷ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|b}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|d}}'''<sup>e</sup>;<br />'''{{PIE|g}}'''<SUP>(u)</SUP> | |||
|'''{{PIE|u}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|gu}}'''<sup>n−</sup> {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|b}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
|'''{{PIE|q}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|qu}}''' | |||
| ''*gʷīw-'' || ''quick''<br />"alive" || ''jīvá-'' || ''bíos'',<br />''bíotos'' || ''vīvus'' || ''gývas'' | |||
|ze- | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*bʰ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|bh}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|b}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|b}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|ph}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|p}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
|'''{{PIE|f}}'''-;<br />'''{{PIE|b}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|b}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}-;<br />-'''{{PIE|f}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|b}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|v/f}}'''-<SUP>(rl)</SUP> | |||
| ''*bʰéroh₂'' || ''bear'' "carry" || ''bhar-'' || ''phérō'' || ''ferō'' || ] ''berǫ'' | |||
|bar- | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*dʰ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|dh}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|d}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|d}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|th}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|t}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
|'''{{PIE|f}}'''-;<br />'''{{PIE|d}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|b}}'''<SUP>(r),l,u-</SUP> | |||
|'''{{PIE|d}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
|'''{{PIE|d}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}-;<br />-'''{{PIE|þ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|d}}''' | |||
|''*dʰwer-, dʰur-'' || ''door'' || ''dvā́raḥ'' || ''thurā́'' || ''forēs'' || ''dùrys'' | |||
|dar | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*ǵʰ}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|h}}''' {{IPA|}};<br /> '''{{PIE|j}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
|'''{{PIE|z}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|ž}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|kh}}''';<br /> '''{{PIE|k}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup> | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|h}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|h/g}}'''<SUP>R</SUP> | |||
| rowspan="4"|'''{{PIE|g}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|g}}'''- {{IPA|}};<br />-'''{{PIE|g}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|y/w}}'''-<SUP>(rl)</SUP> | |||
| ''*ǵʰans-'' || ''goose'',<br /> ] ''gans'' || ''haṁsáḥ'' || ''khḗn'' || ''(h)ānser'' || ''žąsìs'' | |||
|gh''áz'' | |||
|- align=center | |||
!'''{{PIE|*gʰ}}''' | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|gh}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|h}}'''<sup>E</sup> {{IPA|}};<br /> '''{{PIE|g}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup>;<br /> '''{{PIE|j}}'''<sup>E..Ch</sup> | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|ž}}'''<sup>E</sup> {{IPA|}};<br />'''{{PIE|dz}}'''<sup>E'</sup> | |||
| rowspan="3"|'''{{PIE|g}}''' | |||
|- align=center | |||
!rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|*gʷʰ}}''' | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|ph}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|th}}'''<sup>E</sup>;<br />'''{{PIE|kh}}'''<SUP>(u)</SUP>;<br /> '''{{PIE|p}}'''<sup>..Ch</sup>;<br />'''{{PIE|t}}'''<sup>E..Ch</sup>;<br />'''{{PIE|k}}'''<SUP>(u)..Ch</SUP> | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|f}}'''-;<br />'''{{PIE|g}}''' /<br />-'''{{PIE|u}}'''- {{IPA|}};<br /><sup>n</sup>'''{{PIE|gu}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|b}}'''-;<br />-'''{{PIE|w}}'''-;<br /><sup>n</sup>'''{{PIE|gw}}''' | |||
|rowspan=2|'''{{PIE|g}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|b}}'''-;<br />-'''{{PIE|w}}'''- | |||
| ''*sneigʷʰ-'' || ''snow'' || ''sneha-'' || ''nípha'' || ''nivis'' || ''sniẽgas'' | |||
|barf | |||
|- align=center | |||
| ''*gʷʰerm-'' || ??''warm'' || ''gharmáḥ'' || ''thermós'' || ''formus'' || ] ''gar̂me'' | |||
|garm | |||
|- align=center | |||
! rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|*s}}''' | |||
| colspan="3"|'''{{PIE|s}}''' | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|h}}'''-;<br />-'''{{PIE|s}}''';<br />'''{{PIE|s}}'''<SUP>(T)</SUP>;<br />-'''{{PIE|Ø}}'''-;<br />{{IPA|}}<SUP>(R)</SUP> | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|s}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|r}}'''- | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|s}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|s}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|z}}'''- | |||
| rowspan="2"|'''{{PIE|s}}''';<br />`-'''{{PIE|r}}'''- | |||
| ''*septḿ̥'' || ''seven'' || ''saptá'' || ''heptá'' || ''septem'' || ''septynì'' | |||
|haft | |||
|- align=center | |||
|'''{{PIE|ṣ}}'''<SUP>ruki-</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|x}}'''<SUP>ruki-</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|š}}'''<SUP>ruki-</SUP> {{IPA|}} | |||
| ''*h₂eusōs''<br />"dawn" || ''east'' || ''uṣā́ḥ'' || ''āṓs'' || ''aurōra'' || ''aušra'' | |||
|b''á''xtar | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*m}}''' | |||
| colspan="5"|'''{{PIE|m}}''' | |||
| '''{{PIE|m}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-{{IPA|}}- | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|m}}''' | |||
| ''*mūs'' || ''mouse'' || ''mū́ṣ-'' || ''mũs'' || ''mūs'' || ] ''myšĭ'' | |||
|mu''š'' | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*-m}}''' | |||
| -'''{{PIE|m}}''' | |||
| -'''{{PIE|˛}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| colspan="2"| -'''{{PIE|n}}''' | |||
| -'''{{PIE|m}}''' | |||
| -'''{{PIE|n}}''' | |||
| colspan="2"| -'''{{PIE|Ø}}''' | |||
| ''*ḱm̥tóm'' || ''hund(red)'' || ''śatám'' || ''(he)katón'' || ''centum'' || ] ''simtan'' | |||
|sad | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*n}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|n}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|n}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|˛}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| colspan="6"|'''{{PIE|n}}''' | |||
| ''*nokʷt-'' || ''night'' || ''nákt-'' || ''núkt-'' || ''noct-'' || ''naktis'' | |||
|n''áštá'' | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*l}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|r}}''' (dial. '''{{PIE|l}}''') | |||
| colspan="7"|'''{{PIE|l}}''' | |||
| ''*leuk-'' || ''light'' || ''ruc-'' || ''leukós'' || ''lūx'' || ''laũkas'' | |||
|ruz | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*r}}''' | |||
| colspan="8"|'''{{PIE|r}}''' | |||
| ''*h₁reudʰ-'' || ''red'' || ''rudhirá-'' || ''eruthrós'' || ''ruber'' || ''raũdas'' | |||
|sorx | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*i̯}}''' | |||
| '''{{PIE|y}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|j}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|z}}''' {{IPA|}} /<br />'''{{PIE|h}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|Ø}}'''- | |||
|'''{{PIE|i}}''' {{IPA|}};<br />-'''{{PIE|Ø}}'''- | |||
|'''{{PIE|Ø}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|j}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|y}}''' | |||
|''*yugóm'' || ''yoke'' || ''yugám'' || ''zugón'' || ''iugum'' || ''jùngas'' | |||
|yugh | |||
|- align=center | |||
! '''{{PIE|*u̯}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|v}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|v}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|v}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|w > h / Ø}}''' | |||
|'''{{PIE|u}}''' {{IPA|}} | |||
|'''{{PIE|f}}''';<br />-'''{{PIE|Ø}}'''- | |||
| colspan="2"|'''{{PIE|w}}''' | |||
|''*h₂weh₁n̥to-'' || ''wind'' || ''vā́taḥ'' || ''áenta'' || ''ventus'' || ''vėtra'' | |||
|b''ád'' | |||
|- | |||
! PIE !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! ] !! English | |||
|} | |||
:Notes: | |||
* '''C'''- At the beginning of a word. | |||
* -'''C'''- Between vowels. | |||
* -'''C''' At the end of a word. | |||
* `-'''C'''- Following an unstressed vowel (]). | |||
* -'''C'''-<sup>(rl)</sup> Between vowels, or between a vowel and '''{{PIE|r, l}}''' (on either side). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>T</sup> Before a (PIE) stop ('''{{PIE|p, t, k}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>T−</sup> After a (PIE) obstruent ('''{{PIE|p, t, k}}''', etc.; '''{{PIE|s}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(T)</sup> Before or after an obstruent ('''{{PIE|p, t, k}}''', etc.; '''{{PIE|s}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>H</sup> Before an original laryngeal. | |||
* '''C'''<sup>E</sup> Before a (PIE) front vowel ('''{{PIE|i, e}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>E'</sup> Before secondary (post-PIE) front-vowels. | |||
* '''C'''<sup>e</sup> Before '''{{PIE|e}}'''. | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(u)</sup> Before or after a (PIE) '''{{PIE|u}}''' (]). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(O)</sup> Before or after a (PIE) '''{{PIE|o, u}}''' (]). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>n−</sup> After '''{{PIE|n}}'''. | |||
* '''C'''<sup>R</sup> Before a ] ('''{{PIE|r, l, m, n}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(R)</sup> Before or after a ] ('''{{PIE|r, l, m, n}}'''). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(r),l,u−</sup> Before '''{{PIE|r, l}}''' or after '''{{PIE|r, u}}'''. | |||
* '''C'''<sup>ruki−</sup> After '''{{PIE|r, u, k, i}}''' (]). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>..Ch</sup> Before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (], also known as ]). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>E..Ch</sup> Before a (PIE) front vowel ('''{{PIE|i, e}}''') as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (], also known as ]). | |||
* '''C'''<sup>(u)..Ch</sup> Before or after a (PIE) '''{{PIE|u}}''' as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (], also known as ]). | |||
===Comparison of conjugations=== | ===Comparison of conjugations=== | ||
The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the ] ] of the verbal root *{{PIE|bʰer-}} |
The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the ] ] of the verbal root *{{PIE|bʰer-}} of the English verb '']'' and its reflexes in various early attested IE languages and their modern descendants or relatives, showing that all languages had in the early stage an inflectional verb system. | ||
{|class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" | ||
|+ |
|+ | ||
|- | |- | ||
! | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"| | |||
! |
! ]<br /> (*{{PIE|]}} 'to carry, to bear') | ||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! I (1st sg.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéroh₂}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! You (2nd sg.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéresi}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! He/She/It (3rd sg.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéreti}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! We two (1st ]) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|We (1st. Du.) | |||
| *{{PIE|bʰérowos}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! You two (2nd dual) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéreth₁es}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! They two (3rd dual) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéretes}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! We (1st pl.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéromos}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! You (2nd pl.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰérete}} | |||
|- | |- | ||
! |
! They (3rd pl.) | ||
| *{{PIE|bʰéronti}} | |||
|}<!-- Indo-Iranian --> | |||
|} | |||
<!-- Balto-Slavic -->{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" | |||
{|class="wikitable" | |||
|+ | |||
|- | |- | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" | Major subgroup | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" |] | ||
! |
! colspan="2" |] | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" |] | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" |] | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" |] | ||
!rowspan=" |
! rowspan="2" |] | ||
! |
! colspan="2" |] | ||
! rowspan="2" |] | |||
|- | |- | ||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"| | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Ancient representative | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|I (1st. Sg.) | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárāmi | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíra /bɛra/ | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|biru | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berǫ | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berem | |||
!] | |||
!] | |||
!] | |||
|- | |- | ||
! I (1st sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|You (2nd. Sg.) | |||
|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárasi | |||
| bʰárāmi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phéreis | |||
| barāmi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|fers | |||
|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíris | |||
| biru; berim | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|biri | |||
| berem | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bereši | |||
| baíra /bɛra/ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beres | |||
| *bera | |||
| berǫ | |||
| *berja | |||
|- | |- | ||
! You (2nd sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|He/She/It (3rd. Sg.) | |||
| phéreis | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárati | |||
| bʰárasi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phérei | |||
| barahi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|fert | |||
| fers | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíriþ | |||
| biri; berir | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berid | |||
| beres | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beretъ | |||
| baíris | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berē | |||
| *bera | |||
| bereši | |||
| *berje | |||
|- | |- | ||
! He/She/It (3rd sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|We (1st. Du.) | |||
| phérei | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárāvas | |||
| bʰárati | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| baraiti | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| fert | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíros | |||
| berid | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| berē | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berevě | |||
| baíriþ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| *bera | |||
| beretъ | |||
| *berjet | |||
|- | |- | ||
! We two (1st dual) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|You (2nd. Du.) | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárathas | |||
| bʰárāvas | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phéreton | |||
| barāvahi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baírats | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bereta | |||
| baíros | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
|— | |||
| berevě | |||
|— | |||
|- | |- | ||
! You two (2nd dual) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|They (3rd. Du.) | |||
| phéreton | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bháratas | |||
| bʰárathas | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phéreton | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berete | |||
| baírats | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|--- | |||
|— | |||
| bereta | |||
|— | |||
|- | |- | ||
! They two (3rd dual) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|We (1st. Pl.) | |||
| phéreton | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bhárāmas | |||
| bʰáratas | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phéromen | |||
| baratō | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|ferimus | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíram | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bermai | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beremъ | |||
| — | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berenk` | |||
|— | |||
| berete | |||
|— | |||
|- | |- | ||
! We (1st pl.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|You (2nd. Pl.) | |||
| phéromen | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bháratha | |||
| bʰárāmas | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phérete | |||
| barāmahi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|fertis | |||
| ferimus | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baíriþ | |||
| bermai | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beirthe | |||
| beremkʿ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berete | |||
| baíram | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berēk` | |||
| *beramai | |||
| beremъ | |||
| *berjame | |||
|- | |- | ||
! You (2nd pl.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|They (3rd. Pl.) | |||
| phérete | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bháranti | |||
| bʰáratha | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|phérousi | |||
| baraθa | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|ferunt | |||
| fertis | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|baírand | |||
| beirthe | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berait | |||
| berēkʿ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berǫtъ | |||
| baíriþ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beren | |||
| *beratei | |||
| berete | |||
| *berjeju | |||
|- | |- | ||
! They (3rd pl.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|'''Language Family''' | |||
| phérousi | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| bʰáranti | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| barəṇti | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| ferunt | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| berait | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| beren | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| baírand | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
| *bera | |||
| berǫtъ | |||
| *berjanti | |||
|- | |- | ||
! Modern representative | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|I (1st. Sg.) | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(maiṃ) bharūṃ | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férno | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(je) {con}fère | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(ich) {ge}bäre | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|] | |||
!] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bordam | |||
!] | |||
!] | |||
!] | |||
|- | |- | ||
! I (1st sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|You (2nd. Sg.) | |||
| férno | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(tū) bhare | |||
| (ma͠i) bʰarūm̥ | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férnis | |||
| (man) {mi}baram | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(tu) {con}fères | |||
| {con}firo | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(du) {ge}bärst | |||
|] | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beireann (tú) | |||
| berum em; g'perem | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bereš | |||
| (ich) {ge}bäre | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bordi | |||
| beriu | |||
| bérem | |||
| (unë) bie | |||
|- | |- | ||
! You (2nd sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|He/She/It (3rd. Sg.) | |||
| férnis | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(vah) bhare | |||
| (tū) bʰarē | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férni | |||
| (tu) {mi}bari | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(il) {con}fère | |||
| {con}feres | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(er) {ge}bärt | |||
| beirir | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beireann (sé/sí) | |||
| berum es; g'peres | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bere | |||
| (du) {ge}bierst | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bord | |||
| beri | |||
| béreš | |||
| (ti) bie | |||
|- | |- | ||
! He/She/It (3rd sg.) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|We (1st. Pl.) | |||
| férni | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(ham) bhareṃ | |||
| (ye/vo) bʰarē | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férnoume | |||
| (ān) {mi}barad | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(nous) {con}ferons | |||
| {con}fere | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(wir) {ge}bären | |||
| beiridh | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beirimid | |||
| berum ē; g'perē | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berem(e) | |||
| (er/sie/es) {ge}biert | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bordim | |||
| beria | |||
| bére | |||
| (ai/ajo) bie | |||
|- | |- | ||
! We two (1st dual) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|You (2nd. Pl.) | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(tum) bharo | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férnete | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(vous) {con}ferez | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(ihr) {ge}bärt | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beireann (sibh) | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berete | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bordid | |||
| beriava | |||
| béreva | |||
|— | |||
|- | |- | ||
! You two (2nd dual) | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|They (3rd. Pl.) | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(ve) bhareṃ | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|férnoun | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(ils) {con}fèrent | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|(sie) {ge}bären | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|beireann (siad) | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|berou | |||
|— | |||
!rowspan="1" colspan="4"|bordand | |||
|beriata | |||
|béreta | |||
|— | |||
|- | |||
! They two (3rd dual) | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
|— | |||
| beria | |||
| béreta | |||
|— | |||
|- | |||
! We (1st pl.) | |||
| férnume | |||
| (ham) bʰarēm̥ | |||
| (mā) {mi}barim | |||
| {con}ferimos | |||
| beirimid; beiream | |||
| berum enkʿ; g'perenkʿ | |||
| (wir) {ge}bären | |||
| beriame | |||
| béremo | |||
| (ne) biem | |||
|- | |||
! You (2nd pl.) | |||
| férnete | |||
| (tum) bʰaro | |||
| (šomā) {mi}barid | |||
| {con}feris | |||
| beirthidh | |||
| berum ekʿ; g'perekʿ | |||
| (ihr) {ge}bärt | |||
| beriate | |||
| bérete | |||
| (ju) bini | |||
|- | |||
! They (3rd pl.) | |||
| férnun | |||
| (ye/vo) bʰarēm̥ | |||
| (ānān) {mi}barand | |||
| {con}ferem | |||
| beirid | |||
| berum en; g'peren | |||
| (sie) {ge}bären | |||
| beria | |||
| bérejo; berọ́ | |||
| (ata/ato) bien | |||
|} | |} | ||
While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time. Some IE languages have moved from ] verb systems to largely ] systems. |
While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time. Some IE languages have moved from ] verb systems to largely ] systems. In addition, the ]s of periphrastic forms are in parentheses when they appear. Some of these verbs have undergone a change in meaning as well. | ||
*In Modern Irish ''beir'' usually only carries the meaning ''to bear'' in the sense of bearing a child |
* In ] ''beir'' usually only carries the meaning ''to bear'' in the sense of bearing a child; its common meanings are ''to catch, grab''. Apart from the first person, the forms given in the table above are dialectical or obsolete. The second and third person forms are typically instead conjugated ] by adding a pronoun after the verb: ''beireann tú, beireann sé/sí, beireann sibh, beireann siad''. | ||
*The Hindi verb '' |
* The ] (] and ]) verb ''bʰarnā'', the continuation of the Sanskrit verb, can have a variety of meanings, but the most common is "to fill". The forms given in the table, although etymologically derived from the ], now have the meaning of ].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=van Olphen |first=Herman |date=1975 |title=Aspect, Tense, and Mood in the Hindi Verb |journal=Indo-Iranian Journal |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=284–301 |doi=10.1163/000000075791615397 |jstor=24651488 |s2cid=161530848 |issn=0019-7246 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/24651488 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The loss of the ] in Hindustani is roughly compensated by the periphrastic ] construction, using the ] (etymologically from the Sanskrit present participle ''bʰarant-'') and an auxiliary: ''ma͠i bʰartā hū̃, tū bʰartā hai, vah bʰartā hai, ham bʰarte ha͠i, tum bʰarte ho, ve bʰarte ha͠i'' (masculine forms). | ||
*German is not directly descended from Gothic, but the Gothic forms are a close approximation of what the early West Germanic forms of |
* German is not directly descended from Gothic, but the Gothic forms are a close approximation of what the early West Germanic forms of {{Circa|400 AD}} would have looked like. The descendant of Proto-Germanic ''*beraną'' (English ''bear'') survives in German only in the compound ''gebären'', meaning "bear (a child)". | ||
*The Latin verb ''ferre'' is irregular, and not a good representative of a normal thematic verb. |
* The Latin verb ''ferre'' is irregular, and not a good representative of a normal thematic verb. In most Romance languages such as Portuguese, other verbs now mean "to carry" (e.g. Pt. ''portar'' < Lat. ''portare'') and ''ferre'' was borrowed and nativized only in compounds such as {{lang|pt|sofrer}} "to suffer" (from Latin ''sub-'' and ''ferre'') and {{lang|pt|conferir}} "to confer" (from Latin "con-" and "ferre"). | ||
* In Modern Greek, ''phero'' φέρω (modern transliteration ''fero'') "to bear" is still used but only in specific contexts |
* In Modern ], ''phero'' φέρω (modern transliteration ''fero'') "to bear" is still used but only in specific contexts and is most common in such compounds as αναφέρω, διαφέρω, εισφέρω, εκφέρω, καταφέρω, προφέρω, προαναφέρω, προσφέρω etc. The form that is (very) common today is ''pherno'' φέρνω (modern transliteration ''ferno'') meaning "to bring". Additionally, the perfective form of ''pherno'' (used for the subjunctive voice and also for the future tense) is also ''phero''. | ||
* The dual forms are archaic in standard Lithuanian, and are only presently used in some dialects (e.g. ]). | |||
* In Modern Russian ''брать'' (brat) carries the meaning ''to take''. ''Бремя'' (bremia) means ''burden'', as something heavy to bear, and derivative ''беременность'' (beremennost) means ''pregnancy''. | |||
* Among modern Slavic languages, only Slovene continues to have a dual number in the standard variety. | |||
== Comparison of cognates == | |||
{{Main|Indo-European vocabulary}} | |||
{{See also|Proto-Indo-European numerals}} | |||
==Present distribution== | |||
[[File:Indo-European distribution.png|thumb|upright=1.55| | |||
{{legend|#0026ff|Countries where Indo-European language family is majority native}} | |||
{{legend|#0094ff|Countries where Indo-European language family is official but not majority native}} | |||
{{legend|#c0c0c0|Countries where Indo-European language family is not official}}]] | |||
] | |||
<br> | |||
]: | |||
{{Legend|#4CC200|]}} | |||
{{Legend|#FF8800|]}} | |||
{{Legend|#00269F|]}} | |||
]: | |||
{{Legend|#CD0000|]}} | |||
{{Legend|#FFD800|]}} | |||
]] | |||
Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by billions of ] across all inhabited continents,<ref>{{cite web |title=Ethnologue list of language families |publisher=] |edition=22nd |date=25 May 2019 |access-date=2 July 2019 |url=http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=family |url-access=subscription}}</ref> the largest number by far for any recognised language family. Of the ] according to ''Ethnologue'', 10 are Indo-European: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], each with 100 million speakers or more.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers |date=3 October 2018 |publisher=] |access-date=29 July 2021 |url=http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size |url-access=subscription}}</ref> Additionally, hundreds of millions of persons worldwide study Indo-European languages as secondary or tertiary languages, including in cultures which have completely different language families and historical backgrounds—there are around 600 million<ref>{{cite web |title=English |publisher=] |access-date=17 January 2017 |url=https://www.ethnologue.com/language/eng |url-access=subscription }}</ref><!-- and one billion<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/08/ten-things-you-might-not-have-known-about-the-english-language/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813233120/http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/08/ten-things-you-might-not-have-known-about-the-english-language/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=13 August 2015 |title=Ten Things You Might Not Have Known About the English Language| publisher=]|date=12 August 2015}}</ref> L2--> learners of English alone. | |||
The success of the language family, including the large number of speakers and the vast portions of the Earth that they inhabit, is due to several factors. The ancient ] and widespread dissemination of ] throughout ], including that of the ] themselves, and that of their daughter cultures including the ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], led to these peoples' branches of the language family already taking a dominant foothold in virtually all of ] except for swathes of the ], ] and ], replacing many (but not all) of the previously-spoken ] of this extensive area. However ] remain dominant in much of the ] and ], and ] in much of the ] region. Similarly in ] and the ] the ] (such as Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian etc.) remain, as does ], a pre-Indo-European isolate. | |||
Despite being unaware of their common linguistic origin, diverse groups of Indo-European speakers continued to culturally dominate and often replace the indigenous languages of the western two-thirds of Eurasia. By the beginning of the ], Indo-European peoples controlled almost the entirety of this area: the Celts western and central Europe, the Romans southern Europe, the Germanic peoples northern Europe, the Slavs eastern Europe, the Iranian peoples most of western and central Asia and parts of eastern Europe, and the Indo-Aryan peoples in the ], with the ] inhabiting the Indo-European frontier in western China. By the medieval period, only the ], ], ], and ], and the language isolate ] remained of the (relatively) ] and the western half of Asia. | |||
Despite medieval invasions by ], a group to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans had once belonged, Indo-European expansion reached another peak in the ] with the dramatic increase in the population of the ] and European expansionism throughout the globe during the ], as well as the continued replacement and assimilation of surrounding non-Indo-European languages and peoples due to increased state centralization and ]. These trends compounded throughout the modern period due to the general global ] and the results of ] of the ] and ], leading to an explosion in the number of Indo-European speakers as well as the territories inhabited by them. | |||
Due to colonization and the modern dominance of Indo-European languages in the fields of politics, global science, technology, education, finance, and sports, even many modern countries whose populations largely speak non-Indo-European languages have Indo-European languages as official languages, and the majority of the global population speaks at least one Indo-European language. The overwhelming majority of ] are Indo-European, with ] continuing to lead the group; English in general has in many respects ] of global communication. | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
== |
==See also== | ||
{{col div|colwidth=20em}} | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* '']'' (book) | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
{{colend}} | |||
== |
== Notes == | ||
{{ |
{{NoteFoot}} | ||
== References ==<!-- CurrAnthropol40:73. --> | |||
* Auroux, Sylvain, ''History of the Language Sciences'', Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2000 ISBN 3110167352. | |||
* Kortlandt, Frederik, 1990, The Spread of the Indo-Europeans, ''Journal of Indo-European Studies'', 18.1-2: 131-140 | |||
* Lubotsky, A., The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription, ''Kadmos'' 27, 9-26, 1988 | |||
* Kortlandt, Frederik , The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift, ''Linguistique Balkanique'' 31, 71-74, 1988 | |||
* Lane, George S., Adams, Douglas Q., The Tocharian problem, ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981 | |||
* Renfrew, C., The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites. In R. Drews ed., ''Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family'', Institute for the Study of Man, Washington, DC, 2001 | |||
* Houwink ten Cate, H.J., Melchert, H. Craig and van den Hout, Theo P.J. Indo-European languages, The parent language, Laryngeal theory, ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'', vol.22, Helen Hemingway Benton Publisher, Chicago, (15th ed.) 1981 | |||
* Holm, Hans J., The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages, in Christine Preisach, Hans Burkhardt, Lars Schmidt-Thieme, Reinhold Decker (eds.), ''Data Analysis, Machine Learning, and Applications'', Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, March 7-9, 2007, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin, 2008 | |||
* {{cite book |last = Szemerényi |first = Oswald |authorlink=Oswald Szemerényi| coauthors=David Jones, Irene Jones | title = Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1999 | isbn=9780198238706 |unused_data = |ISBN status = May be invalid - please double check }} | |||
== |
== References == | ||
=== Citations === | |||
*{{cite book | author=Beekes, Robert S. P. | authorlink=Robert S. P. Beekes | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
|title=Comparative Indo-European Linguistics | location=] | publisher=John Benjamins | year=1995}} | |||
* {{cite book|authorlink=Byomkes Chakrabarti|last=Chakrabarti|first=Byomkes|year=1994|title=A comparative study of Santali and Bengali|location=Calcutta|publisher=K.P. Bagchi & Co.|id= ISBN 8170741289}} | |||
=== Sources === | |||
* {{cite book | author=Collinge, N. E. | title=The Laws of Indo-European | location=] | publisher=John Benjamins | year=1985 }} | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
* {{cite book|authorlink=J.P. Mallory|last=Mallory|first=J.P.|year=1989|title=In Search of the Indo-Europeans|location=London|publisher=Thames and Hudson|id=ISBN 0-500-27616-1}} | |||
* {{cite encyclopedia |author=AA.VV. |date=1981 |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |title=Indo-European languages |volume=22 |edition=15th |publisher=Helen Hemingway Benton |location=Chicago |ref=CITEREFEncyclopædia Britannica1981 }} | |||
* {{cite book|authorlink=Colin Renfrew|last=Renfrew|first=Colin|year=1987|title=Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins|location=London|publisher=Jonathan Cape|id= ISBN 0-224-02495-7}} | |||
* {{cite book | last = Anthony | first = David W. | title = The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 2007 | isbn =978-0-691-05887-0 }} | |||
* ]. ''Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique'',1903. | |||
* {{cite book |last=Auroux |first=Sylvain |title=History of the Language Sciences |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |location=Berlin |date=2000 |isbn=978-3-11-016735-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yasNy365EywC&q=3110167352&pg=PA1156 }} | |||
* ], ''A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages'' (1861/62). | |||
* {{cite book |last=Beekes |first=Robert S. P. |author-link=Robert S. P. Beekes |date=1995 |translator-last1=Vertalers |translator-first1=Uva |translator-last2=Gabriner |translator-first2=Paul |title=Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction |edition=1st |location=Amsterdam / Philadelphia |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=9027221510 }} | |||
* {{cite book | last=Strazny | first=Philip (Ed). | year=2000 | title=Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics | publisher=Routledge | edition=1 | isbn=978-1579582180 | unused_data=|ISBN status=May be invalid - please double check}} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Beekes |first=Robert S. P. |author-link=Robert S. P. Beekes |others=Revised and corrected by ] |date=2011 |title=Comparative Indo-European linguistics : An Introduction |edition=2nd |location=Amsterdam / Philadelphia |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=978-9027285003 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W-HXnIG75PYC }} Paperback: {{ISBN|978-9027211866}}. | |||
*{{cite journal | author=] | title=The problem of Balto-Slav unity | journal=Kratylos | year=1957 | volume=2 | pages=97–123}} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Brugmann |first=Karl |author-link=Karl Brugmann |date=1886 |title=Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen |volume=Erster Band |location=Strassburg |publisher=Karl J. Trübner |language=de }} | |||
* {{cite book | last = Watkins | first = Calvert | title = The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots | publisher = Houghton Mifflin | year = 2000 | isbn = 0-618-08250-6 | unused_data = |ISBN status = May be invalid - please double check }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Collinge |first=N.E. |date=1985 |title=The Laws of Indo-European |location=Amsterdam |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=9789027235305 |url=https://archive.org/details/lawsofindoeurope0000coll |url-access=registration }} | |||
* Remys, Edmund, ''General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian''. Berlin, New York: Indogermanische Forschungen, Vol. 112, 2007. | |||
* {{cite book | last |
* {{cite book | last=Fortson | first=Benjamin W. | title=Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction |location=Malden, Massachusetts | publisher=Blackwell | year=2004 | isbn=978-1-4051-0315-2 }} | ||
* {{cite book |last=Hamp |first=Eric |date=2007 |title=Studime krahasuese për shqipen |trans-title=Comparative studies on Albanian |editor=Rexhep Ismajli |publisher=Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës, Prishtinë |language=sq }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Holm |first=Hans J. |date=2008 |chapter=The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages |chapter-url=http://www.hjholm.de/ |editor1-last=Preisach |editor1-first=Christine |editor2-last=Burkhardt |editor2-first=Hans |editor3-last=Schmidt-Thieme |editor3-first=Lars |editor4-last=Decker |editor4-first=Reinhold |display-editors=3 |title=Data analysis, machine learning and applications |series=Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, 7–9 March 2007 |location=Heidelberg / Berlin |publisher=Springer-Verlag |isbn=978-3-540-78239-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/springer_10.1007-978-3-540-78246-9 }} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Kortlandt |first=Frederik |date=1988 |title=The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift |journal=Linguistique Balkanique |volume=31 |pages=71–4 }} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Kortlandt |first=Frederik |date=1990 |orig-date=1989 |title=The Spread of the Indo-Europeans |journal=Journal of Indo-European Studies |volume=18 |issue=1–2 |pages=131–40 |url=http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art111e.pdf }} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Lubotsky |first=A. |date=1988 |title=The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription |journal=Kadmos |volume=27 |pages=9–26 |doi=10.1515/kadmos-1988-0103 |hdl=1887/2660 |s2cid=162944161 |hdl-access=free |url=https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/2660/299_011.pdf }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Porzig |first=Walter |date=1954 |title=Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets |publisher=Carl Winter Universitätsverlag |location=Heidelberg }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Renfrew |first=C. |author-link=Colin Renfrew |date=2001 |chapter=The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites |editor-first=R. |editor-last=Drews |editor-link=Robert Drews |title=Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Institute for the Study of Man |isbn=978-0941694773 }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Ringe |first=Don |date=2006 |title=From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-928413-X |url=https://archive.org/details/anglosaxondictionary_202001/From%20Proto-Indo-European%20to%20Proto-Germanic/mode/2up}} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Schleicher |first=August |author-link=August Schleicher |date=1861 |title=Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen |location=Weimar |publisher=Böhlau (reprinted by Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag) |isbn=978-3-8102-1071-5 |language=de }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Schleicher |first=August |author-link=August Schleicher |date=1874–1877 |translator-first=Herbert |translator-last=Bendall |title=A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin languages |series=Part I and Part II |location=London |publisher=Trübner & Co. |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.13063/page/n2 |url-access=registration }} . | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Szemerényi |first=Oswald John Louis |author-link=Oswald Szemerényi |date=1957 |title=The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity: A Critical Survey |journal=Kratylos |volume=2 |pages=97–123 |publisher=O. Harrassowitz }} | |||
** Reprinted in {{cite book |last1=Szemerényi |first1=Oswald John Louis |date=1991 |title=Scripta Minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek, and Latin |volume=IV: Indo-European Languages other than Latin and Greek |publisher=Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck |series=Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft |editor1-first=P. |editor1-last=Considine |editor2-first=James T. |editor2-last=Hooker |isbn=9783851246117 |issn=1816-3920 |pages=2145–2171}} | |||
* {{cite book |last1=Szemerényi |first1=Oswald John Louis |author-link=Oswald Szemerényi |first2=David |last2=Jones |first3=Irene |last3=Jones |date=1999 |title=Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-823870-6 }} | |||
* {{cite book |title=Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen) Alterthumswissenshaft |first=Peter |last=von Bradke |language=de |date=1890 |location=Giessen |publisher=J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung }} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
==Further reading== | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Bjørn |first=Rasmus G. |title=Indo-European Loanwords and Exchange in Bronze Age Central and East Asia |journal=Evolutionary Human Sciences |date=2022 |volume=4 |pages=e23 |doi=10.1017/ehs.2022.16 |pmid=37599704 |pmc=10432883 |s2cid=248358873 |doi-access=free }} | |||
* {{cite book |author-link=Byomkes Chakrabarti |last=Chakrabarti |first=Byomkes |date=1994 |title=A Comparative Study of Santali and Bengali |location=Calcutta |publisher=K. P. Bagchi & Co. |isbn= 978-81-7074-128-2}} | |||
* {{cite book |author-link=Pierre Chantraine |last=Chantraine |first=Pierre |date=1968 |url=https://archive.org/details/Dictionnaire-Etymologique-Grec |title=Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque |url-access=registration |via=Internet Archive |location=Paris |publisher=Klincksieck }} | |||
* {{Cite book |title=The Kurgan Culture and The Indo-Europeanization of Europe |last=Gimbutas |first=Marija |date=1997 |isbn=0-941694-56-9 |url=https://www.jies.org/DOCS/monojpgs/Mon18.html |editor-last=Robbins Dexter |editor-first=Miriam |series=JIES Monograph |volume=18 |author-link=Marija Gimbutas |editor-last2=Jones-Bley |editor-first2=Karlene}} | |||
* {{Cite book |title=Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indo-European Origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013 |date=2018 |isbn=978-0-9983669-2-0 |url=https://www.jies.org/DOCS/monojpgs/Mon65.html |editor-last=Kroonen |editor-first=Guus |series=JIES Monograph |volume=65 |editor-last2=Mallory |editor-first2=James P. |editor-last3=Comrie |editor-first3=Bernard}} | |||
* {{cite book |author-link=J. P. Mallory |last=Mallory |first=J.P. |date=1989 |title=In Search of the Indo-Europeans |url=https://archive.org/details/insearchofindoeu00jpma |via=Internet Archive |url-access=registration |location=London |publisher=Thames and Hudson |isbn=978-0-500-27616-7}} | |||
* {{Cite book |title=Revisiting Dispersions Celtic and Germanic ca. 400 BC – ca. 400 AD Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference held at Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, Slovenia; October 12th – 14th, 2018 |date=2020 |isbn=978-0-9845353-7-8 |url=https://www.jies.org/DOCS/monojpgs/Mon67.html |editor-last=Markey |editor-first=T. L. |series=JIES Monograph |volume=67 |editor-last2=Repanšek |editor-first2=Luka}} | |||
* {{cite book |authorlink=Antoine Meillet |last=Meillet |first=Antoine |title=Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique |date=1936 |edition=2nd |url=https://archive.org/details/esquissedunegram0000meil |url-access=registration |via=Internet Archive |publisher=] |location=Vienna }} | |||
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Olander |editor1-first=Thomas |title=The Indo-European Language Family : A Phylogenetic Perspective |date=September 2022 |doi=10.1017/9781108758666 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108758666|s2cid=161016819 |s2cid-access=free }} | |||
* {{cite book |editor-last1 = Ramat |editor-first1 = Paolo |editor-last2 = Giacalone Ramat |editor-first2 = Anna |date=1998 |title=The Indo-European Languages |location=London |isbn= 041506449X |publisher=Routledge}} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Remys |first=Edmund |title=General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian |journal=Indogermanische Forschungen |issn=0019-7262 |volume=112 |date=17 December 2007 |issue=2007 |pages=244–276 |doi=10.1515/9783110192858.1.244 |isbn=9783110192858 |s2cid=169996117 }} | |||
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Strazny |editor1-first=Philip |editor2-last = Trask |editor2-first = R. L. |editor2-link = Larry Trask |date=2000 |title=Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics |publisher=Routledge |edition=1 |isbn=978-1-57958-218-0 }} | |||
* {{cite book |last = Watkins |first = Calvert |author-link=Calvert Watkins |title = The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots |publisher = Houghton Mifflin |date=2000 |isbn = 978-0-618-08250-6 }} | |||
*Asadpour, Hiwa, and Thomas Jügel, eds. Word Order Variation: Semitic, Turkic and Indo-European Languages in Contact. Vol. 31. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2022. | |||
==External links== | |||
{{commons category|Indo-European languages}} | |||
{{EB1911 poster|Indo-European Languages}} | |||
{{Library resources box |by=no |onlinebooks=yes |others=yes |about=yes |label=Indo-European languages | |||
|viaf= |lccn= |lcheading= |wikititle= }} | |||
* | |||
== External links == | |||
===Databases=== | ===Databases=== | ||
* {{cite web|title=Comparative Indo-European|url=http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/| |
* {{cite web|title=Comparative Indo-European|url=http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/cmp/|first1=Isidore|last1=Dyen|first2=Joseph|last2= Kruskal|first3=Paul|last3=Black|date=1997|access-date=13 December 2009|publisher=wordgumbo}} | ||
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European|url=http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls/group?id=4|publisher=LLOW Languages of the World| |
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European|url=http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls/group?id=4|publisher=LLOW Languages of the World|access-date=14 December 2009|archive-date=10 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010183735/http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/ls/group?id=4|url-status=dead}} | ||
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European Documentation Center|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie.html|publisher=Linguistics Research Center, ]|date=2009| |
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European Documentation Center |url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie.html |publisher=Linguistics Research Center, ] |date=2009 |access-date=14 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090903062241/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/iedocctr/ie.html |archive-date=3 September 2009 }} | ||
* {{ |
* {{Cite book|editor-last=Lewis|editor-first=M. Paul|date=2009|title=Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Online version|edition=Sixteenth|location=Dallas, Tex.|publisher=SIL International|contribution=Language Family Trees: Indo-European|url=http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=2-16}}. | ||
* {{cite web|title= |
* {{cite web|title=Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien: TITUS|url=http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/indexe.htm |date=2003 |publisher=TITUS, University of Frankfurt|language=de|access-date=13 December 2009}} | ||
* {{cite web|title= |
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European Lexical Cognacy Database (IELex) |date=2021|url=https://github.com/evotext/ielex-data-and-tree|publisher=Uppsala University, Uppsala}} | ||
* , an online collection of introductory videos to Ancient Indo-European languages produced by the University of Göttingen | |||
===Lexica=== | ===Lexica=== | ||
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (IEED)|url=http://www.indoeuropean.nl|publisher=Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Leiden University|location=Leiden, Netherlands| |
* {{cite web|title=Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (IEED) |url=http://www.indoeuropean.nl |publisher=Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Leiden University |location=Leiden, Netherlands |access-date=14 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060207135952/http://www.indoeuropean.nl/ |archive-date=7 February 2006 }} | ||
* {{cite book|title=The American Heritage |
* {{cite book|title=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |edition=Fourth |orig-year=2000 |chapter=Indo-European Roots Index |date=22 August 2008 |publisher=Internet Archive: Wayback Machine |chapter-url=http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html |access-date=9 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090217023123/http://bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html |archive-date=17 February 2009 }} | ||
* {{cite |
* {{cite book |last=Köbler |first=Gerhard|title=Indogermanisches Wörterbuch |url=http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html |edition=5th |date=2014 |publisher=Gerhard Köbler |language=de |access-date=29 March 2015}} | ||
* {{cite web|title=Lexicon of Early Indo-European Loanwords Preserved in Finnish|url=http://www.iki.fi/jschalin/?cat=10 |
* {{cite web |last=Schalin |first=Johan |title=Lexicon of Early Indo-European Loanwords Preserved in Finnish |url=http://www.iki.fi/jschalin/?cat=10 |publisher=Johan Schalin |date=2009 |access-date=9 December 2009}} | ||
<br> | |||
{{Indo-European languages}} | |||
{{Language families}} | {{Language families}} | ||
{{Eurasian languages}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Indo-European Languages}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 15:20, 28 December 2024
Language family native to Eurasia "Indo-European" redirects here. For Eurasian people living in or connected with Indonesia, see Indo people. For other uses, see Indo-European (disambiguation).
Indo-European | |
---|---|
Geographic distribution | Worldwide |
Linguistic classification | One of the world's primary language families |
Proto-language | Proto-Indo-Hittite? • Proto-Indo-European |
Subdivisions |
|
Language codes | |
ISO 639-2 / 5 | ine |
Glottolog | indo1319 |
Present-day distribution of Indo-European languages in Eurasia: Albanoid (Albanian) Armenian Baltic (East) Slavic Celtic (Brittonic and Goidelic) Germanic (North and West) Hellenic (Greek) Iranian Indo-Aryan Nuristani Italic (Romance) Non-Indo-European languages Dotted/striped areas indicate where multilingualism is common (more visible upon full enlargement of the map). | |
Notes |
|
Part of a series on |
Indo-European topics |
---|
Languages
|
Philology |
Origins
|
Archaeology
Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Pontic Steppe Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe
South Asia Steppe Europe Caucasus India |
Peoples and societies
Indo-Aryans Iranians East Asia Europe East Asia Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian |
Religion and mythology
Others
|
Indo-European studies
|
The Indo-European languages are a language family native to the northern Indian subcontinent, the overwhelming majority of Europe, and the Iranian plateau. Some European languages of this family—English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch, and Spanish—have expanded through colonialism in the modern period and are now spoken across several continents. The Indo-European family is divided into several branches or sub-families, of which there are eight groups with languages still alive today: Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Indo-Iranian, and Italic; another nine subdivisions are now extinct.
Today, the individual Indo-European languages with the most native speakers are English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Hindustani, Bengali, French, and German; many others are small and in danger of extinction.
In total, 46% of the world's population (3.2 billion people) speaks an Indo-European language as a first language—by far the highest of any language family. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to an estimate by Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.
All Indo-European languages are descended from a single prehistoric language, linguistically reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime during the Neolithic or early Bronze Age. The geographical location where it was spoken, the Proto-Indo-European homeland, has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits the homeland to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe in what is now Ukraine and southern Russia, associated with the Yamnaya culture and other related archaeological cultures during the 4th millennium BC to early 3rd millennium BC. By the time the first written records appeared, Indo-European had already evolved into numerous languages spoken across much of Europe, South Asia, and part of Western Asia. Written evidence of Indo-European appeared during the Bronze Age in the form of Mycenaean Greek and the Anatolian languages of Hittite and Luwian. The oldest records are isolated Hittite words and names—interspersed in texts that are otherwise in the unrelated Akkadian language, a Semitic language—found in texts of the Assyrian colony of Kültepe in eastern Anatolia dating to the 20th century BC. Although no older written records of the original Proto-Indo-European population remain, some aspects of their culture and their religion can be reconstructed from later evidence in the daughter cultures. The Indo-European family is significant to the field of historical linguistics as it possesses the second-longest recorded history of any known family, after the Afroasiatic Egyptian language and Semitic languages. The analysis of the family relationships between the Indo-European languages, and the reconstruction of their common source, was central to the development of the methodology of historical linguistics as an academic discipline in the 19th century.
The Indo-European language family is not considered by the current academic consensus in the field of linguistics to have any genetic relationships with other language families, although several disputed hypotheses propose such relations.
History of Indo-European linguistics
See also: Indo-European studies § HistoryDuring the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent began to notice similarities among Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and European languages. In 1583, English Jesuit missionary and Konkani scholar Thomas Stephens wrote a letter from Goa to his brother (not published until the 20th century) in which he noted similarities between Indian languages and Greek and Latin.
Another account was made by Filippo Sassetti, a merchant born in Florence in 1540, who travelled to the Indian subcontinent. Writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian (these included devaḥ/dio "God", sarpaḥ/serpe "serpent", sapta/sette "seven", aṣṭa/otto "eight", and nava/nove "nine"). However, neither Stephens' nor Sassetti's observations led to further scholarly inquiry.
In 1647, Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted the similarity among certain Asian and European languages and theorized that they were derived from a primitive common language that he called Scythian. He included in his hypothesis Dutch, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic, and Baltic languages. However, Van Boxhorn's suggestions did not become widely known and did not stimulate further research.
Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi visited Vienna in 1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission and noted a few similarities between words in German and in Persian. Gaston Coeurdoux and others made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a thorough comparison of Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek conjugations in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship among them. Meanwhile, Mikhail Lomonosov compared different language groups, including Slavic, Baltic ("Kurlandic"), Iranian ("Medic"), Finnish, Chinese, "Hottentot" (Khoekhoe), and others, noting that related languages (including Latin, Greek, German, and Russian) must have separated in antiquity from common ancestors.
The hypothesis reappeared in 1786 when Sir William Jones first lectured on the striking similarities among three of the oldest languages known in his time: Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, to which he tentatively added Gothic, Celtic, and Persian, though his classification contained some inaccuracies and omissions. In one of the most famous quotations in linguistics, Jones made the following prescient statement in a lecture to the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1786, conjecturing the existence of an earlier ancestor language, which he called "a common source" but did not name:
The Sanscrit [sic] 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.
— Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse delivered 2 February 1786, ELIOHS
Thomas Young first used the term Indo-European in 1813, deriving it from the geographical extremes of the language family: from Western Europe to North India. A synonym is Indo-Germanic (Idg. or IdG.), specifying the family's southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches. This first appeared in French (indo-germanique) in 1810 in the work of Conrad Malte-Brun; in most languages this term is now dated or less common than Indo-European, although in German indogermanisch remains the standard scientific term. A number of other synonymous terms have also been used.
Franz Bopp wrote in 1816 On the conjugational system of the Sanskrit language compared with that of Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic and between 1833 and 1852 he wrote Comparative Grammar. This marks the beginning of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline. The classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from this work to August Schleicher's 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's Grundriss, published in the 1880s. Brugmann's neogrammarian reevaluation of the field and Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal theory may be considered the beginning of "modern" Indo-European studies. 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 of ablaut in the wake of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophony in Indo-European, who in 1927 pointed out the existence of the Hittite consonant ḫ. Kuryłowicz's discovery supported Ferdinand de Saussure's 1879 proposal of the existence of coefficients sonantiques, elements de Saussure reconstructed to account for vowel length alternations in Indo-European languages. This led to the so-called laryngeal theory, a major step forward in Indo-European linguistics and a confirmation of de Saussure's theory.
Classification
See also: Indo-European migrationsThe various subgroups of the Indo-European language family include ten major branches, listed below in alphabetical order:
- Albanian, attested from the 13th century AD; Proto-Albanian evolved from an ancient Paleo-Balkan language, traditionally thought to be Illyrian, or otherwise a totally unattested Balkan Indo-European language that was closely related to Illyrian and Messapic.
- Anatolian, extinct by Late Antiquity, spoken in Anatolia, attested in isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC.
- Armenian, attested from the early 5th century AD. It evolved from the Proto-Armenian language which, according to the Armenian hypothesis, developed in situ from the Proto-Indo-European language of the 3rd millennium BC.
- Balto-Slavic, believed by most Indo-Europeanists to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language-contact.
- Slavic (from Proto-Slavic), attested from the 9th century AD (possibly earlier), earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic. Slavic languages include Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Silesian, Kashubian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian), Sorbian, Slovenian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn.
- Baltic, attested from the 14th century AD; although attested relatively recently, they retain many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Living examples are Lithuanian and Latvian.
- Celtic (from Proto-Celtic), attested since the 6th century BC; Lepontic inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century BC; Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions from the 4th or 5th century AD, earliest inscriptions in Old Welsh from the 7th century AD. Modern Celtic languages include Welsh, Cornish, Breton, Scottish Gaelic, Irish and Manx.
- Germanic (from Proto-Germanic), earliest attestations in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic, 4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD. Includes English, Frisian, German, Dutch, Scots, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Low German, Icelandic, Elfdalian, and Faroese.
- Hellenic (from Proto-Greek, see also History of Greek); fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found. Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC.
- Indo-Iranian, attested c. 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).
- Indo-Aryan, attested from around 1400 BC in Hittite texts from Anatolia, showing traces of Indo-Aryan words. Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashoka). The Rigveda is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition dating from about the mid-second millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit. Includes a wide range of modern languages from Northern India, Eastern Pakistan and Bangladesh, including Hindustani (Hindi, Urdu), Bengali, Odia, Assamese, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Marathi, Sindhi and Nepali, as well as Sinhala of Sri Lanka and Dhivehi of the Maldives and Minicoy.
- Iranian or Iranic, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of Avestan. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of Old Persian (Behistun inscription). Includes Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, Balochi, Luri, and Ossetian.
- Nuristani (includes Kamkata-vari, Vasi-vari, Askunu, Waigali, Tregami, and Zemiaki).
- Italic (from Proto-Italic), attested from the 7th century BC. Includes the ancient Osco-Umbrian languages, Faliscan, as well as Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages, such as Italian and French.
- Tocharian, with proposed links to the Afanasevo culture of Southern Siberia. Extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean, or Tocharian A and B), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th century.
In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, several extinct and little-known languages and language-groups have existed or are proposed to have existed:
- Ancient Belgian: hypothetical language associated with the proposed Nordwestblock cultural area. Speculated to be connected to Italic or Venetic, and to have certain phonological features in common with Lusitanian.
- Cimmerian: possibly Iranic, Thracian, or Celtic
- Dacian: possibly very close to Thracian
- Elymian: Poorly-attested language spoken by the Elymians, one of the three indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Indo-European affiliation widely accepted, possibly related to Italic or Anatolian.
- Illyrian: possibly related to Albanian, Messapian, or both
- Liburnian: evidence too scant and uncertain to determine anything with certainty
- Ligurian: possibly close to or part of Celtic.
- Lusitanian: possibly related to (or part of) Celtic, Ligurian, or Italic
- Ancient Macedonian: proposed relationship to Greek.
- Messapic: not conclusively deciphered, often considered to be related to Albanian as the available fragmentary linguistic evidence shows common characteristic innovations and a number of significant lexical correspondences between the two languages
- Paionian: extinct language once spoken north of Macedon
- Phrygian: language of the ancient Phrygians. Very likely, but not certainly, a sister group to Hellenic.
- Sicel: an ancient language spoken by the Sicels (Greek Sikeloi, Latin Siculi), one of the three indigenous (i.e. pre-Greek and pre-Punic) tribes of Sicily. Proposed relationship to Latin or proto-Illyrian (Pre-Indo-European) at an earlier stage.
- Sorothaptic: proposed, pre-Celtic, Iberian language
- Thracian: possibly including Dacian
- Venetic: shares several similarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic and Celtic.
Membership of languages in the Indo-European language family is determined by genealogical relationships, meaning that all members are presumed descendants of a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European. Membership in the various branches, groups, and subgroups of Indo-European is also genealogical, but here the defining factors are shared innovations among various languages, suggesting a common ancestor that split off from other Indo-European groups. For example, what makes the Germanic languages a branch of Indo-European is that much of their structure and phonology can be stated in rules that apply to all of them. Many of their common features are presumed innovations that took place in Proto-Germanic, the source of all the Germanic languages.
In the 21st century, several attempts have been made to model the phylogeny of Indo-European languages using Bayesian methodologies similar to those applied to problems in biological phylogeny. Although there are differences in absolute timing between the various analyses, there is much commonality between them, including the result that the first known language groups to diverge were the Anatolian and Tocharian language families, in that order.
Tree versus wave model
See also: Language changeThe "tree model" is considered an appropriate representation of the genealogical history of a language family if communities do not remain in contact after their languages have started to diverge. In this case, subgroups defined by shared innovations form a nested pattern. The tree model is not appropriate in cases where languages remain in contact as they diversify; in such cases subgroups may overlap, and the "wave model" is a more accurate representation. Most approaches to Indo-European subgrouping to date have assumed that the tree model is by-and-large valid for Indo-European; however, there is also a long tradition of wave-model approaches.
In addition to genealogical changes, many of the early changes in Indo-European languages can be attributed to language contact. It has been asserted, for example, that many of the more striking features shared by Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc.) might well be areal features. More certainly, very similar-looking alterations in the systems of long vowels in the West Germanic languages greatly postdate any possible notion of a proto-language innovation (and cannot readily be regarded as "areal", either, because English and continental West Germanic were not a linguistic area). In a similar vein, there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic that are far more likely areal features than traceable to a common proto-language, such as the uniform development of a high vowel (*u in the case of Germanic, *i/u in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *ṛ, *ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ, unique to these two groups among IE languages, which is in agreement with the wave model. The Balkan sprachbund even features areal convergence among members of very different branches.
An extension to the Ringe-Warnow model of language evolution suggests that early IE had featured limited contact between distinct lineages, with only the Germanic subfamily exhibiting a less treelike behaviour as it acquired some characteristics from neighbours early in its evolution. The internal diversification of especially West Germanic is cited to have been radically non-treelike.
Proposed subgroupings
Hypothetical Indo-European phylogenetic clades |
---|
Balkan |
Other |
Specialists have postulated the existence of higher-order subgroups such as Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Aryan or Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and Balto-Slavo-Germanic. However, unlike the ten traditional branches, these are all controversial to a greater or lesser degree.
The Italo-Celtic subgroup was at one point uncontroversial, considered by Antoine Meillet to be even better established than Balto-Slavic. The main lines of evidence included the genitive suffix -ī; the superlative suffix -m̥mo; the change of /p/ to /kʷ/ before another /kʷ/ in the same word (as in penkʷe > *kʷenkʷe > Latin quīnque, Old Irish cóic); and the subjunctive morpheme -ā-. This evidence was prominently challenged by Calvert Watkins, while Michael Weiss has argued for the subgroup.
Evidence for a relationship between Greek and Armenian includes the regular change of the second laryngeal to a at the beginnings of words, as well as terms for "woman" and "sheep". Greek and Indo-Iranian share innovations mainly in verbal morphology and patterns of nominal derivation. Relations have also been proposed between Phrygian and Greek, and between Thracian and Armenian. Some fundamental shared features, like the aorist (a verb form denoting action without reference to duration or completion) having the perfect active particle -s fixed to the stem, link this group closer to Anatolian languages and Tocharian. Shared features with Balto-Slavic languages, on the other hand (especially present and preterit formations), might be due to later contacts.
The Indo-Hittite hypothesis proposes that the Indo-European language family consists of two main branches: one represented by the Anatolian languages and another branch encompassing all other Indo-European languages. Features that separate Anatolian from all other branches of Indo-European (such as the gender or the verb system) have been interpreted alternately as archaic debris or as innovations due to prolonged isolation. Points proffered in favour of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis are the (non-universal) Indo-European agricultural terminology in Anatolia and the preservation of laryngeals. However, in general this hypothesis is considered to attribute too much weight to the Anatolian evidence. According to another view, the Anatolian subgroup left the Indo-European parent language comparatively late, approximately at the same time as Indo-Iranian and later than the Greek or Armenian divisions. A third view, especially prevalent in the so-called French school of Indo-European studies, holds that extant similarities in non-satem languages in general—including Anatolian—might be due to their peripheral location in the Indo-European language-area and to early separation, rather than indicating a special ancestral relationship. Hans J. Holm, based on lexical calculations, arrives at a picture roughly replicating the general scholarly opinion and refuting the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.
Satem and centum languages
Main article: Centum and satem languagesThe division of the Indo-European languages into satem and centum groups was put forward by Peter von Bradke in 1890, although Karl Brugmann did propose a similar type of division in 1886. In the satem languages, which include the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches, as well as (in most respects) Albanian and Armenian, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European palatovelars remained distinct and were fricativized, while the labiovelars merged with the 'plain velars'. In the centum languages, the palatovelars merged with the plain velars, while the labiovelars remained distinct. The results of these alternative developments are exemplified by the words for "hundred" in Avestan (satem) and Latin (centum)—the initial palatovelar developed into a fricative in the former, but became an ordinary velar in the latter.
Rather than being a genealogical separation, the centum–satem division is commonly seen as resulting from innovative changes that spread across PIE dialect-branches over a particular geographical area; the centum–satem isogloss intersects a number of other isoglosses that mark distinctions between features in the early IE branches. It may be that the centum branches in fact reflect the original state of affairs in PIE, and only the satem branches shared a set of innovations, which affected all but the peripheral areas of the PIE dialect continuum. Kortlandt proposes that the ancestors of Balts and Slavs took part in satemization before being drawn later into the western Indo-European sphere.
Proposed external relations
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
From the very beginning of Indo-European studies, there have been attempts to link the Indo-European languages genealogically to other languages and language families. However, these theories remain highly controversial, and most specialists in Indo-European linguistics are skeptical or agnostic about such proposals.
Proposals linking the Indo-European languages with a single language family include:
- Indo-Uralic, joining Indo-European with Uralic
- Pontic, postulated by John Colarusso, which joins Indo-European with Northwest Caucasian
Other proposed families include:
- Nostratic, comprising all or some of the Eurasiatic languages and the Kartvelian, Dravidian (or wider, Elamo-Dravidian) and Afroasiatic language families
- Eurasiatic, a theory championed by Joseph Greenberg, comprising the Uralic, Altaic and various 'Paleosiberian' families (Ainu, Yukaghir, Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo–Aleut) and possibly others
Nostratic and Eurasiatic, in turn, have been included in even wider groupings, such as Borean, a language family separately proposed by Harold C. Fleming and Sergei Starostin that encompasses almost all of the world's natural languages with the exception of those native to sub-Saharan Africa, New Guinea, Australia, and the Andaman Islands.
Evolution
Proto-Indo-European
Main article: Proto-Indo-European languageThe proposed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE. Using the method of internal reconstruction, an earlier stage, called Pre-Proto-Indo-European, has been proposed.
PIE is 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 endings, these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs). The reconstructed Indo-European verb system is complex and, like the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut.
Diversification
See also: Indo-European migrationsThe diversification of the parent language into the attested branches of daughter languages is historically unattested. The timeline of the evolution of the various daughter languages, on the other hand, is mostly undisputed, quite regardless of the question of Indo-European origins.
Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Donald Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:
- Pre-Anatolian (before 3500 BC)
- Pre-Tocharian
- Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC)
- Pre-Armenian and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC)
- Proto-Indo-Iranian (2000 BC)
- Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic; proto-Germanic c. 500 BC
David Anthony proposes the following sequence:
- Pre-Anatolian (4200 BC)
- Pre-Tocharian (3700 BC)
- Pre-Germanic (3300 BC)
- Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (3000 BC)
- Pre-Armenian (2800 BC)
- Pre-Balto-Slavic (2800 BC)
- Pre-Greek (2500 BC)
- Proto-Indo-Iranian (2200 BC); split between Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BC
From 1500 BC the following sequence may be given:
- 1500–1000 BC: The Nordic Bronze Age of Scandinavia develops pre-Proto-Germanic, and the (pre-) Proto-Celtic Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures emerge in Central Europe, introducing the Iron Age. Migration of the Proto-Italic speakers into the Italian peninsula (Bagnolo stele). Migration of Aryans to India followed by the redaction of the Rigveda; rise of the Vedic civilization and beginning of Iron Age in the Punjab. The Mycenaean civilization gives way to the Greek Dark Ages. Hittite goes extinct. Iranian speakers start migrating southwards to Greater Iran. Balto-Slavic splits into ancestors of modern Baltic and Slavic.
- 1000–500 BC: The Celtic languages spread over Central and Western Europe, including Britain. Baltic languages are spoken in a huge area from present-day Poland to Moscow. Pre-Proto-Germanic gives rise to Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia. Homer and the beginning of Classical Antiquity. The Vedic civilization gives way to the Mahajanapadas as the Indo-Aryan tongue reaches eastwards, giving rise to the Greater Magadha cultural sphere, where Mahavira preaches Jainism and Siddhartha Gautama preaches Buddhism. Zoroaster composes the Gathas, rise of the Achaemenid Empire, replacing the Elamites and Babylonia. Separation of Proto-Italic into Osco-Umbrian, Latin-Faliscan, and possibly Venetic and Siculian. A variety of Paleo-Balkan languages besides Greek are spoken in Southern Europe, including Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian, and in Anatolia (Phrygian). Development of Prakrits across the northern Indian subcontinent, as well as migration of Indo-Aryan speakers to Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
- 500 BC – 1 BC/AD: Classical Antiquity: spread of Greek and Latin throughout the Mediterranean and, during the Hellenistic period (Indo-Greeks), to Central Asia and the Hindukush. The Magadhan power and influence rises in ancient India, especially with the conquests of the Nandan and Mauryan empires. Germanic speakers start migrating southwards to occupy formerly Celtic territories. Scythian cultures extend from Eastern Europe (Pontic Scythians) to Northwest China (Ordos culture).
- 1 BC – AD 500: Late Antiquity, Gupta period; attestation of Armenian. Proto-Slavic. The Roman Empire and then the Germanic migrations marginalize the Celtic languages to the British Isles. Sogdian, an eastern Iranian language, becomes the lingua franca of the Silk Road in Central Asia leading to China, due to the proliferation of Sogdian merchants there. Greek settlements and Byzantine rule make the last Anatolian languages extinct. Turkic languages start replacing Scythian languages.
- 500–1000: Early Middle Ages. The Viking Age forms an Old Norse koine spanning Scandinavia, the British Isles and Iceland. Phrygian becomes extinct. The Islamic conquests and the Turkic expansion result in the Arabization and Turkification of significant areas where Indo-European languages were spoken, but Persian still develops under Islamic rule and extends into Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Due to further Turkic migrations, Tocharian becomes fully extinct while Scythian languages are overwhelmingly replaced. Slavic languages spread over wide areas in central, eastern and southeastern Europe, largely replacing Romance in the Balkans (with the exception of Romanian) and whatever was left of the Paleo-Balkan languages with the exception of Albanian. Pannonian Basin is taken by the Magyars from the western Slavs.
- 1000–1500: Late Middle Ages: Attestation of Albanian and Baltic. Modern dialects of Indo-European languages start emerging.
- 1500–2000: Early Modern period to present: Colonialism results in the spread of Indo-European languages to every habitable continent, most notably Romance (North, Central and South America, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, West Asia), West Germanic (English in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Australia; to a lesser extent Dutch and German), and Russian to Central Asia and North Asia.
Important languages for reconstruction
In reconstructing the history of the Indo-European languages and the form of the Proto-Indo-European language, some languages have been of particular importance. These generally include the ancient Indo-European languages that are both well-attested and documented at an early date, although some languages from later periods are important if they are particularly linguistically conservative (most notably, Lithuanian). Early poetry is of special significance because of the rigid poetic meter normally employed, which makes it possible to reconstruct a number of features (e.g. vowel length) that were either unwritten or corrupted in the process of transmission down to the earliest extant written manuscripts.
Most noticeable of all:
- Vedic Sanskrit (c. 1500–500 BC). This language is unique in that its source documents were all composed orally, and were passed down through oral tradition (shakha schools) for c. 2,000 years before ever being written down. The oldest documents are all in poetic form; oldest and most important of all is the Rigveda (c. 1500 BC).
- Ancient Greek (c. 750–400 BC). Mycenaean Greek (c. 1450 BC) is the oldest recorded form, but its value is lessened by the limited material, restricted subject matter, and highly ambiguous writing system. More important is Ancient Greek, documented extensively beginning with the two Homeric poems (the Iliad and the Odyssey, c. 750 BC).
- Hittite (c. 1700–1200 BC). This is the earliest-recorded of all Indo-European languages, and highly divergent from the others due to the early separation of the Anatolian languages from the remainder. It possesses some highly archaic features found only fragmentarily, if at all, in other languages. At the same time, however, it appears to have undergone many early phonological and grammatical changes which, combined with the ambiguities of its writing system, hinder its usefulness somewhat.
Other primary sources:
- Latin, attested in a huge amount of poetic and prose material in the Classical period (c. 200 BC – AD 100) and limited older material from as early as c. 600 BC.
- Gothic (the most archaic well-documented Germanic language, AD c. 350), along with the combined witness of the other old Germanic languages: most importantly, Old English (c. 800–1000), Old High German (c. 750–1000) and Old Norse (c. 1100–1300 AD, with limited earlier sources dating to AD c. 200).
- Old Avestan (c. 1700–1200 BC) and Younger Avestan (c. 900 BC). Documentation is sparse, but nonetheless quite important due to its highly archaic nature.
- Modern Lithuanian, with limited records in Old Lithuanian (c. 1500–1700).
- Old Church Slavonic (c. 900–1000).
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to poor attestation:
- Luwian, Lycian, Lydian and other Anatolian languages (c. 1400–400 BC).
- Oscan, Umbrian and other Old Italic languages (c. 600–200 BC).
- Old Persian (c. 500 BC).
- Old Prussian (c. 1350–1600); even more archaic than Lithuanian.
Other secondary sources, of lesser value due to extensive phonological changes and relatively limited attestation:
- Old Irish (ADc. 700–850).
- Tocharian (AD c. 500–800 ), underwent large phonetic shifts and mergers in the proto-language, and has an almost entirely reworked declension system.
- Classical Armenian (AD c. 400–1000).
- Albanian (c. 1450–current time).
Sound changes
Main article: Indo-European sound lawsAs the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, changing according to various sound laws evidenced in the daughter languages.
PIE is normally reconstructed with a complex system of 15 stop consonants, including an unusual three-way phonation (voicing) distinction between voiceless, voiced and "voiced aspirated" (i.e. breathy voiced) stops, and a three-way distinction among velar consonants (k-type sounds) between "palatal" ḱ ǵ ǵh, "plain velar" k g gh and labiovelar kʷ gʷ gʷh. (The correctness of the terms palatal and plain velar is disputed; see Proto-Indo-European phonology.) All daughter languages have reduced the number of distinctions among these sounds, often in divergent ways.
As an example, in English, one of the Germanic languages, the following are some of the major changes that happened:
- As in other centum languages, the "plain velar" and "palatal" stops merged, reducing the number of stops from 15 to 12.
- As in the other Germanic languages, the Germanic sound shift changed the realization of all stop consonants, with each consonant shifting to a different one:
- bʰ → b → p → f
- dʰ → d → t → θ
- gʰ → g → k → x (Later initial x →h)
- gʷʰ → gʷ → kʷ → xʷ (Later initial xʷ →hʷ)
Each original consonant shifted one position to the right. For example, original dʰ became d, while original d became t and original t became θ (written th in English). This is the original source of the English sounds written f, th, h and wh. Examples, comparing English with Latin, where the sounds largely remain unshifted:
- For PIE p: piscis vs. fish; pēs, pēdis vs. foot; pluvium "rain" vs. flow; pater vs. father
- For PIE t: trēs vs. three; māter vs. mother
- For PIE d: decem vs. ten; pēdis vs. foot; quid vs. what
- For PIE k: centum vs. hund(red); capere "to take" vs. have
- For PIE kʷ: quid vs. what; quandō vs. when
- Various further changes affected consonants in the middle or end of a word:
- The voiced stops resulting from the sound shift were softened to voiced fricatives (or perhaps the sound shift directly generated fricatives in these positions).
- Verner's law also turned some of the voiceless fricatives resulting from the sound shift into voiced fricatives or stops. This is why the t in Latin centum ends up as d in hund(red) rather than the expected th.
- Most remaining h sounds disappeared, while remaining f and th became voiced. For example, Latin decem ends up as ten with no h in the middle (but note taíhun "ten" in Gothic, an archaic Germanic language). Similarly, the words seven and have have a voiced v (compare Latin septem, capere), while father and mother have a voiced th, although not spelled differently (compare Latin pater, māter).
None of the daughter-language families (except possibly Anatolian, particularly Luvian) reflect the plain velar stops differently from the other two series, and there is even a certain amount of dispute whether this series existed at all in PIE. The major distinction between centum and satem languages corresponds to the outcome of the PIE plain velars:
- The "central" satem languages (Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and Armenian) reflect both "plain velar" and labiovelar stops as plain velars, often with secondary palatalization before a front vowel (e i ē ī). The "palatal" stops are palatalized and often appear as sibilants (usually but not always distinct from the secondarily palatalized stops).
- The "peripheral" centum languages (Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Greek, Anatolian and Tocharian) reflect both "palatal" and "plain velar" stops as plain velars, while the labiovelars continue unchanged, often with later reduction into plain labial or velar consonants.
The three-way PIE distinction between voiceless, voiced and voiced aspirated stops is considered extremely unusual from the perspective of linguistic typology—particularly in the existence of voiced aspirated stops without a corresponding series of voiceless aspirated stops. None of the various daughter-language families continue it unchanged, with numerous "solutions" to the apparently unstable PIE situation:
- The Indo-Aryan languages preserve the three series unchanged but have evolved a fourth series of voiceless aspirated consonants.
- The Iranian languages probably passed through the same stage, subsequently changing the aspirated stops into fricatives.
- Greek converted the voiced aspirates into voiceless aspirates.
- Italic probably passed through the same stage, but reflects the voiced aspirates as voiceless fricatives, especially f (or sometimes plain voiced stops in Latin).
- Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Anatolian, and Albanian merge the voiced aspirated into plain voiced stops.
- Germanic and Armenian change all three series in a chain shift (e.g. with bh b p becoming b p f (known as Grimm's law in Germanic)).
Among the other notable changes affecting consonants are:
- The Ruki sound law (s becomes /ʃ/ before r, u, k, i) in the satem languages.
- Loss of prevocalic p in Proto-Celtic.
- Development of prevocalic s to h in Proto-Greek, with later loss of h between vowels.
- Verner's law in Proto-Germanic.
- Grassmann's law (dissimilation of aspirates) independently in Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian.
The following table shows the basic outcomes of PIE consonants in some of the most important daughter languages for the purposes of reconstruction. For a fuller table, see Indo-European sound laws.
PIE | Skr. | O.C.S. | Lith. | Greek | Latin | Old Irish | Gothic | English | Examples | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PIE | Eng. | Skr. | Gk. | Lat. | Lith. etc. | Prs. | |||||||||
*p | p; ph | p | Ø; ch |
f; `-b- |
f; -v/f- |
*pṓds ~ *ped- | foot | pád- | poús (podós) | pēs (pedis) | pãdas | Piáde | |||
*t | t; th | t | t; -th- |
þ ; `-d- ; t |
th; `-d-; t |
*tréyes | three | tráyas | treĩs | trēs | trỹs | thri (old Persian) | |||
*ḱ | ś | s | š | k | c | c ; -ch- |
h; `-g- |
h; -Ø-; `-y- |
*ḱm̥tóm | hund(red) | śatám | he-katón | centum | šimtas | sad |
*k | k; c ; kh |
k; č ; c |
k | *kreuh₂ "raw meat" |
OE hrēaw raw |
kravíṣ- | kréas | cruor | kraûjas | xoreš | |||||
*kʷ | p; t; k |
qu ; c |
ƕ ; `-gw/w- |
wh; `-w- |
*kʷid, kʷod | what | kím | tí | quid, quod | kas, kad | ce, ci | ||||
*kʷekʷlom | wheel | cakrá- | kúklos | kãklas | carx | ||||||||||
*b | b; bh | b | b ; -- |
p | |||||||||||
*d | d; dh | d | d ; -- |
t | *déḱm̥(t) | ten, Goth. taíhun |
dáśa | déka | decem | dẽšimt | dah | ||||
*ǵ | j ; h |
z | ž | g | g ; -- |
k | c / k; ch |
*ǵénu, *ǵnéu- | OE cnēo knee |
jā́nu | gónu | genu | zánu | ||
*g | g; j ; gh; h |
g; ž ; dz |
g | *yugóm | yoke | yugám | zugón | iugum | jùngas | yugh | |||||
*gʷ | b; d; g |
u ; gu |
b ; -- |
q | qu | *gʷīw- | quick "alive" |
jīvá- | bíos, bíotos |
vīvus | gývas | ze- | |||
*bʰ | bh; b |
b | ph; p |
f-; b |
b ; --; -f |
b; -v/f- |
*bʰéroh₂ | bear "carry" | bhar- | phérō | ferō | OCS berǫ | bar- | ||
*dʰ | dh; d |
d | th; t |
f-; d; b |
d ; -- |
d ; --; -þ |
d | *dʰwer-, dʰur- | door | dvā́raḥ | thurā́ | forēs | dùrys | dar | |
*ǵʰ | h ; j |
z | ž | kh; k |
h; h/g |
g ; -- |
g; -g- ; -g |
g; -y/w- |
*ǵʰans- | goose, OHG gans |
haṁsáḥ | khḗn | (h)ānser | žąsìs | gház |
*gʰ | gh; h ; g; j |
g; ž ; dz |
g | ||||||||||||
*gʷʰ | ph; th; kh; p; t; k |
f-; g / -u- ; gu |
g; b-; -w-; gw |
g; b-; -w- |
*sneigʷʰ- | snow | sneha- | nípha | nivis | sniẽgas | barf | ||||
*gʷʰerm- | ??warm | gharmáḥ | thermós | formus | Latv. gar̂me | garm | |||||||||
*s | s | h-; -s; s; -Ø-; |
s; -r- |
s ; -- |
s; `-z- |
s; `-r- |
*septḿ̥ | seven | saptá | heptá | septem | septynì | haft | ||
ṣ | x | š | *h₂eusōs "dawn" |
east | uṣā́ḥ | āṓs | aurōra | aušra | báxtar | ||||||
*m | m | m ; -- |
m | *mūs | mouse | mū́ṣ- | mũs | mūs | OCS myšĭ | muš | |||||
*-m | -m | -˛ | -n | -m | -n | -Ø | *ḱm̥tóm | hund(red) | śatám | (he)katón | centum | OPrus simtan | sad | ||
*n | n | n; -˛ |
n | *nokʷt- | night | nákt- | núkt- | noct- | naktis | náštá | |||||
*l | r (dial. l) | l | *leuk- | light | ruc- | leukós | lūx | laũkas | ruz | ||||||
*r | r | *h₁reudʰ- | red | rudhirá- | eruthrós | ruber | raũdas | sorx | |||||||
*i̯ | y | j | z / h; -Ø- |
i ; -Ø- |
Ø | j | y | *yugóm | yoke | yugám | zugón | iugum | jùngas | yugh | |
*u̯ | v | v | v | w > h / Ø | u | f; -Ø- |
w | *h₂weh₁n̥to- | wind | vā́taḥ | áenta | ventus | vėtra | bád | |
PIE | Skr. | O.C.S. | Lith. | Greek | Latin | Old Irish | Gothic | English |
- Notes:
- C- At the beginning of a word.
- -C- Between vowels.
- -C At the end of a word.
- `-C- Following an unstressed vowel (Verner's law).
- -C- Between vowels, or between a vowel and r, l (on either side).
- C Before a (PIE) stop (p, t, k).
- C After a (PIE) obstruent (p, t, k, etc.; s).
- C Before or after an obstruent (p, t, k, etc.; s).
- C Before an original laryngeal.
- C Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e).
- C Before secondary (post-PIE) front-vowels.
- C Before e.
- C Before or after a (PIE) u (boukólos rule).
- C Before or after a (PIE) o, u (boukólos rule).
- C After n.
- C Before a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
- C Before or after a sonorant (r, l, m, n).
- C Before r, l or after r, u.
- C After r, u, k, i (Ruki sound law).
- C Before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).
- C Before a (PIE) front vowel (i, e) as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).
- C Before or after a (PIE) u as well as before an aspirated consonant in the next syllable (Grassmann's law, also known as dissimilation of aspirates).
Comparison of conjugations
The following table presents a comparison of conjugations of the thematic present indicative of the verbal root *bʰer- of the English verb to bear and its reflexes in various early attested IE languages and their modern descendants or relatives, showing that all languages had in the early stage an inflectional verb system.
Proto-Indo-European (*bʰer- 'to carry, to bear') | |
---|---|
I (1st sg.) | *bʰéroh₂ |
You (2nd sg.) | *bʰéresi |
He/She/It (3rd sg.) | *bʰéreti |
We two (1st dual) | *bʰérowos |
You two (2nd dual) | *bʰéreth₁es |
They two (3rd dual) | *bʰéretes |
We (1st pl.) | *bʰéromos |
You (2nd pl.) | *bʰérete |
They (3rd pl.) | *bʰéronti |
Major subgroup | Hellenic | Indo-Iranian | Italic | Celtic | Armenian | Germanic | Balto-Slavic | Albanian | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indo-Aryan | Iranian | Baltic | Slavic | |||||||
Ancient representative | Ancient Greek | Vedic Sanskrit | Avestan | Latin | Old Irish | Classical Armenian | Gothic | Old Prussian | Old Church Sl. | Old Albanian |
I (1st sg.) | phérō | bʰárāmi | barāmi | ferō | biru; berim | berem | baíra /bɛra/ | *bera | berǫ | *berja |
You (2nd sg.) | phéreis | bʰárasi | barahi | fers | biri; berir | beres | baíris | *bera | bereši | *berje |
He/She/It (3rd sg.) | phérei | bʰárati | baraiti | fert | berid | berē | baíriþ | *bera | beretъ | *berjet |
We two (1st dual) | — | bʰárāvas | barāvahi | — | — | — | baíros | — | berevě | — |
You two (2nd dual) | phéreton | bʰárathas | — | — | — | — | baírats | — | bereta | — |
They two (3rd dual) | phéreton | bʰáratas | baratō | — | — | — | — | — | berete | — |
We (1st pl.) | phéromen | bʰárāmas | barāmahi | ferimus | bermai | beremkʿ | baíram | *beramai | beremъ | *berjame |
You (2nd pl.) | phérete | bʰáratha | baraθa | fertis | beirthe | berēkʿ | baíriþ | *beratei | berete | *berjeju |
They (3rd pl.) | phérousi | bʰáranti | barəṇti | ferunt | berait | beren | baírand | *bera | berǫtъ | *berjanti |
Modern representative | Modern Greek | Hindustani | Persian | Portuguese | Irish | Armenian (Eastern; Western) | German | Lithuanian | Slovene | Albanian |
I (1st sg.) | férno | (ma͠i) bʰarūm̥ | (man) {mi}baram | {con}firo | beirim | berum em; g'perem | (ich) {ge}bäre | beriu | bérem | (unë) bie |
You (2nd sg.) | férnis | (tū) bʰarē | (tu) {mi}bari | {con}feres | beirir | berum es; g'peres | (du) {ge}bierst | beri | béreš | (ti) bie |
He/She/It (3rd sg.) | férni | (ye/vo) bʰarē | (ān) {mi}barad | {con}fere | beiridh | berum ē; g'perē | (er/sie/es) {ge}biert | beria | bére | (ai/ajo) bie |
We two (1st dual) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | beriava | béreva | — |
You two (2nd dual) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | beriata | béreta | — |
They two (3rd dual) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | beria | béreta | — |
We (1st pl.) | férnume | (ham) bʰarēm̥ | (mā) {mi}barim | {con}ferimos | beirimid; beiream | berum enkʿ; g'perenkʿ | (wir) {ge}bären | beriame | béremo | (ne) biem |
You (2nd pl.) | férnete | (tum) bʰaro | (šomā) {mi}barid | {con}feris | beirthidh | berum ekʿ; g'perekʿ | (ihr) {ge}bärt | beriate | bérete | (ju) bini |
They (3rd pl.) | férnun | (ye/vo) bʰarēm̥ | (ānān) {mi}barand | {con}ferem | beirid | berum en; g'peren | (sie) {ge}bären | beria | bérejo; berọ́ | (ata/ato) bien |
While similarities are still visible between the modern descendants and relatives of these ancient languages, the differences have increased over time. Some IE languages have moved from synthetic verb systems to largely periphrastic systems. In addition, the pronouns of periphrastic forms are in parentheses when they appear. Some of these verbs have undergone a change in meaning as well.
- In Modern Irish beir usually only carries the meaning to bear in the sense of bearing a child; its common meanings are to catch, grab. Apart from the first person, the forms given in the table above are dialectical or obsolete. The second and third person forms are typically instead conjugated periphrastically by adding a pronoun after the verb: beireann tú, beireann sé/sí, beireann sibh, beireann siad.
- The Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) verb bʰarnā, the continuation of the Sanskrit verb, can have a variety of meanings, but the most common is "to fill". The forms given in the table, although etymologically derived from the present indicative, now have the meaning of future subjunctive. The loss of the present indicative in Hindustani is roughly compensated by the periphrastic habitual indicative construction, using the habitual participle (etymologically from the Sanskrit present participle bʰarant-) and an auxiliary: ma͠i bʰartā hū̃, tū bʰartā hai, vah bʰartā hai, ham bʰarte ha͠i, tum bʰarte ho, ve bʰarte ha͠i (masculine forms).
- German is not directly descended from Gothic, but the Gothic forms are a close approximation of what the early West Germanic forms of c. 400 AD would have looked like. The descendant of Proto-Germanic *beraną (English bear) survives in German only in the compound gebären, meaning "bear (a child)".
- The Latin verb ferre is irregular, and not a good representative of a normal thematic verb. In most Romance languages such as Portuguese, other verbs now mean "to carry" (e.g. Pt. portar < Lat. portare) and ferre was borrowed and nativized only in compounds such as sofrer "to suffer" (from Latin sub- and ferre) and conferir "to confer" (from Latin "con-" and "ferre").
- In Modern Greek, phero φέρω (modern transliteration fero) "to bear" is still used but only in specific contexts and is most common in such compounds as αναφέρω, διαφέρω, εισφέρω, εκφέρω, καταφέρω, προφέρω, προαναφέρω, προσφέρω etc. The form that is (very) common today is pherno φέρνω (modern transliteration ferno) meaning "to bring". Additionally, the perfective form of pherno (used for the subjunctive voice and also for the future tense) is also phero.
- The dual forms are archaic in standard Lithuanian, and are only presently used in some dialects (e.g. Samogitian).
- Among modern Slavic languages, only Slovene continues to have a dual number in the standard variety.
Comparison of cognates
Main article: Indo-European vocabulary See also: Proto-Indo-European numeralsPresent distribution
Today, Indo-European languages are spoken by billions of native speakers across all inhabited continents, the largest number by far for any recognised language family. Of the 20 languages with the largest numbers of speakers according to Ethnologue, 10 are Indo-European: English, Hindustani, Spanish, Bengali, French, Russian, Portuguese, German, Persian and Punjabi, each with 100 million speakers or more. Additionally, hundreds of millions of persons worldwide study Indo-European languages as secondary or tertiary languages, including in cultures which have completely different language families and historical backgrounds—there are around 600 million learners of English alone.
The success of the language family, including the large number of speakers and the vast portions of the Earth that they inhabit, is due to several factors. The ancient Indo-European migrations and widespread dissemination of Indo-European culture throughout Eurasia, including that of the Proto-Indo-Europeans themselves, and that of their daughter cultures including the Indo-Aryans, Iranian peoples, Celts, Greeks, Romans, Germanic peoples, and Slavs, led to these peoples' branches of the language family already taking a dominant foothold in virtually all of Eurasia except for swathes of the Near East, North and East Asia, replacing many (but not all) of the previously-spoken pre-Indo-European languages of this extensive area. However Semitic languages remain dominant in much of the Middle East and North Africa, and Caucasian languages in much of the Caucasus region. Similarly in Europe and the Urals the Uralic languages (such as Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian etc.) remain, as does Basque, a pre-Indo-European isolate.
Despite being unaware of their common linguistic origin, diverse groups of Indo-European speakers continued to culturally dominate and often replace the indigenous languages of the western two-thirds of Eurasia. By the beginning of the Common Era, Indo-European peoples controlled almost the entirety of this area: the Celts western and central Europe, the Romans southern Europe, the Germanic peoples northern Europe, the Slavs eastern Europe, the Iranian peoples most of western and central Asia and parts of eastern Europe, and the Indo-Aryan peoples in the Indian subcontinent, with the Tocharians inhabiting the Indo-European frontier in western China. By the medieval period, only the Semitic, Dravidian, Caucasian, and Uralic languages, and the language isolate Basque remained of the (relatively) indigenous languages of Europe and the western half of Asia.
Despite medieval invasions by Eurasian nomads, a group to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans had once belonged, Indo-European expansion reached another peak in the early modern period with the dramatic increase in the population of the Indian subcontinent and European expansionism throughout the globe during the Age of Discovery, as well as the continued replacement and assimilation of surrounding non-Indo-European languages and peoples due to increased state centralization and nationalism. These trends compounded throughout the modern period due to the general global population growth and the results of European colonization of the Western Hemisphere and Oceania, leading to an explosion in the number of Indo-European speakers as well as the territories inhabited by them.
Due to colonization and the modern dominance of Indo-European languages in the fields of politics, global science, technology, education, finance, and sports, even many modern countries whose populations largely speak non-Indo-European languages have Indo-European languages as official languages, and the majority of the global population speaks at least one Indo-European language. The overwhelming majority of languages used on the Internet are Indo-European, with English continuing to lead the group; English in general has in many respects become the lingua franca of global communication.
See also
- Grammatical conjugation
- The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (book)
- Indo-European copula
- Indo-European sound laws
- Indo-European studies
- Indo-Semitic languages
- Indo-Uralic languages
- Eurasiatic languages
- Language family
- Languages of Asia
- Languages of Europe
- Languages of India
- Linguistics
- List of Indo-European languages
- Proto-Indo-European root
- Proto-Indo-European religion
Notes
- The sentence goes on to say, equally correctly as it turned out: "...here 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."
References
Citations
- "Ethnologue report for Indo-European". Ethnologue.
- Bryce, Trevor (2005). Kingdom of the Hittites (new ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-19-928132-9.
- Mallory, J. P. (2006). The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford University Press. p. 442. ISBN 978-0-19-928791-8.
- ^ Auroux 2000, p. 1156.
- Beekes 2011, p. 12.
- M.V. Lomonosov (drafts for Russian Grammar, published 1755). In: Complete Edition, Moscow, 1952, vol. 7, pp. 652–59 Archived 1 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine: Представимъ долготу времени, которою сіи языки раздѣлились. ... Польской и россійской языкъ коль давно раздѣлились! Подумай же, когда курляндской! Подумай же, когда латинской, греч., нѣм., росс. О глубокая древность! Kurlandic! Think when Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!]
- Poser, William J.; Campbell, Lyle (1992). "Indo-European Practice and Historical Methodology". Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Place of Morphology in a Grammar. Vol. 18. Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 227–8. doi:10.3765/bls.v18i1.1574. Retrieved 7 December 2022.
- Roger Blench (2004). "Archaeology and Language: methods and issues" (PDF). In John Bintliff (ed.). A Companion To Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 52–74. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 May 2006. Retrieved 29 May 2010. Blench erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese, and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi.
- Jones, William (2 February 1786). "The Third Anniversary Discourse". Electronic Library of Historiography. Universita degli Studi Firenze, taken from: Shore (Lord Teignmouth), John (1807). The Works of Sir William Jones. With a Life of the Author. Vol. III. John Stockdale and John Walker. pp. 24–46. OCLC 899731310.
- Robinson, Andrew (2007). The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, the Anonymous Genius who Proved Newton Wrong and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, among Other Surprising Feats. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-13-134304-7.
- In London Quarterly Review X/2 1813.; cf. Szemerényi, Jones & Jones 1999, p. 12 footnote 6.
- Franz Bopp (2010) . Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache : in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Documenta Semiotica : Serie 1, Linguistik (2 ed.). Hildesheim: Olms.
- Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1927). "ə indo-européen et ḫ hittite". In Taszycki, W.; Doroszewski, W. (eds.). Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski. Vol. 1. pp. 95–104.
- Elsie, Robert (2005). "Theodor of Shkodra (1210) and Other Early Texts". Albanian Literature: A Short History. New York/Westport/London: I.B. Tauris. p. 5.
- In his latest book, Eric Hamp supports the thesis that the Illyrian language belongs to the Northwestern group, that the Albanian language is descended from Illyrian, and that Albanian is related to Messapic which is an earlier Illyrian dialect (Hamp 2007).
- De Vaan, Michiel (11 June 2018). "The phonology of Albanian". In Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1732–1749. ISBN 978-3-11-054243-1.
- Curtis, Matthew Cowan (30 November 2011). Slavic–Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence. ProQuest LLC. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-267-58033-7. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
So while linguists may debate about the ties between Albanian and older languages of the Balkans, and while most Albanians may take the genealogical connection to Illyrian as incontrovertible, the fact remains that there is simply insufficient evidence to connect Illyrian, Thracian, or Dacian with any language, including Albanian
- "The peaks and troughs of Hittite". www.leidenuniv.nl. 2 May 2006. Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
- Güterbock, Hans G. "The Hittite Computer Analysis Project" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2013. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
- Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V.; Ivanov, Vyacheslav (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text. Part II: Bibliography, Indexes. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-081503-0.
- Haber, Marc; Mezzavilla, Massimo; Xue, Yali; Comas, David; Gasparini, Paolo; Zalloua, Pierre; Tyler-Smith, Chris (2015). "Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations". European Journal of Human Genetics. 24 (6): 931–6. bioRxiv 10.1101/015396. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.206. PMC 4820045. PMID 26486470.
- Such as Schleicher 1874–1877, p. 8, Szemerényi 1957, Collinge 1985, and Beekes 1995, p. 22.
- "Tablet Discovery Pushes Earliest European Writing Back 150 Years". Science 2.0. 30 March 2011.
- Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. p. 114. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.
- Mark, Joshua J. (28 April 2011). "Mitanni". World History Encyclopedia.
- Anthony, David W. (2013). "Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism". Journal of Language Relationship. 9: 1–22. doi:10.31826/jlr-2013-090105. S2CID 132712913.
- F. Ribezzo, Revue Internationale d'Onomastique, II, 1948 p. 43 sq. et III 1949, p. 45 sq., M.Almagro dans RSLig, XVI, 1950, p. 42 sq, P.Laviosa Zambotti, l.c.
- Bernard, Sergent (1995). Les Indo-Européens: Histoire, langues, mythes. Paris: Bibliothèques scientifiques Payot. pp. 84–85.
- Tribulato, Olga (December 2012). Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–114. ISBN 9781139248938.
- Price, Glanville (April 2000). Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe. John Wiley & Sons. p. 136. ISBN 0631220399.
- Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts. Thames and Hudson. p. 54.
- Trumper, John (2018). "Some Celto-Albanian isoglosses and their implications". In Grimaldi, Mirko; Lai, Rosangela; Franco, Ludovico; Baldi, Benedetta (eds.). Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond: In Honour of Leonardo M. Savoia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 9789027263179. pp. 283–286.
- Friedman, Victor A. (2020). "The Balkans". In Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact. Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics. Routledge. pp. 385–403. ISBN 9781351109147. p. 388
- Friedman, Victor A. (2011). "The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics". Annual Review of Anthropology. 40: 275–291. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145932.
- Fine, John (1985). The ancient Greeks: a critical history. Harvard University Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-674-03314-6.
Most scholars now believe that the Sicans and Sicels, as well as the inhabitants of southern Italy, were basically of Illyrian stock superimposed on an aboriginal 'Mediterranean' population.
- Lejeune, Michel (1974). Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: C. Winter. p. 341.
- Pokorny, Julius (1959). Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indogermanic Etymological Dictionary] (in German). Bern: Francke. pp. 708–709, 882–884.
- ^ Chang, Will; Chundra, Cathcart (January 2015). "Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis" (PDF). Language. 91 (1): 194–244. doi:10.1353/lan.2015.0005. S2CID 143978664. Retrieved 30 September 2020.
- Bouckaert, Remco; Lemey, Philippe (24 August 2012). "Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family". Science. 337 (6097): 957–960. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..957B. doi:10.1126/science.1219669. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-000F-EADF-A. PMC 4112997. PMID 22923579.
- Drinka, Bridget (1 January 2013). "Phylogenetic and areal models of Indo-European relatedness: The role of contact in reconstruction". Journal of Language Contact. 6 (2): 379–410. doi:10.1163/19552629-00602009. Retrieved 30 September 2020.
- François, Alexandre (2014), "Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification" (PDF), in Bowern, Claire; Evans, Bethwyn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, London: Routledge, pp. 161–89, ISBN 978-0-415-52789-7
- Blažek, Václav (2007). "From August Schleicher to Sergei Starostin: on the development of the tree-diagram models of the Indo-European languages". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 35 (1–2): 82–109.
- Meillet, Antoine (1908). Les dialectes indo-européens [The Indo-European dialects] (in French). Paris: Honoré Champion.
- Bonfante, Giuliano (1931). I dialetti indoeuropei. Brescia: Paideia.
- Porzig 1954.
- Nakhleh, Luay; Ringe, Don & Warnow, Tandy (2005). "Perfect Phylogenetic Networks: A New Methodology for Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Natural Languages" (PDF). Language. 81 (2): 382–420. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.65.1791. doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0078. S2CID 162958.
- Mallory, J. P.; Adams, D. Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
- Porzig 1954, p. 39.
- Fortson 2004, p. 247.
- Watkins, Calvert (1966). "Italo-Celtic revisited". In Birnbaum, Henrik; Puhvel, Jaan (eds.). Ancient Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 29–50.
- Weiss, Michael (2012). Jamison, Stephanie W.; Melchert, H. Craig; Vine, Brent (eds.). Italo-Celtica: linguistic and cultural points of contact between Italic and Celtic. Proceedings of the 23rd annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen. pp. 151–73. ISBN 978-3-934106-99-4. Retrieved 19 February 2018.
- Greppin, James (1996). "Review of The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek by James Clackson". Language. 72 (4): 804–07. doi:10.2307/416105. JSTOR 416105.
- Euler, Wolfram (1979). Indoiranisch-griechische Gemeinsamkeiten der Nominalbildung und deren indogermanische Grundlagen [Indo-Iranian-Greek similarities in nominal formation and their Indo-European foundations] (in German). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
- Lubotsky 1988.
- Kortlandt 1988.
- Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0224024952.
- Encyclopædia Britannica 1981, p. 593.
- Encyclopædia Britannica 1981, p. 667 George S. Lane, Douglas Q. Adams, The Tocharian problem.
- The supposed autochthony of Hittites, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis and migration of agricultural "Indo-European" societies became intrinsically linked together by Colin Renfrew (Renfrew 2001, pp. 36–73).
- Encyclopædia Britannica 1981, Houwink ten Cate, H.J.; Melchert, H. Craig & van den Hout, Theo P.J. p. 586 The parent language, Laryngeal theory; pp. 589, 593 Anatolian languages.
- Encyclopædia Britannica 1981, p. 594, Indo-Hittite hypothesis.
- Holm 2008, pp. 629–36. The result is a partly new chain of separation for the main Indo-European branches, which fits well to the grammatical facts, as well as to the geographical distribution of these branches. In particular it clearly demonstrates that the Anatolian languages did not part as first ones and thereby refutes the Indo-Hittite hypothesis.
- Encyclopædia Britannica 1981, pp. 588, 594.
- Kortlandt 1990.
- ^ Kallio, Petri; Koivulehto, Jorma (2018). "More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European". In Jared Klein; Brian Joseph; Matthias Fritz (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. pp. 2280–2291.
- ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 56–58.
- Ringe 2006, p. 67.
- Anthony 2007, p. 100.
- Vijay, John; Slocum, Jonathan (10 November 2008). "Indo-European Languages: Balto-Slavic Family". Linguistics Research Center, University of Texas. Archived from the original on 4 June 2011. Retrieved 7 August 2010.
- Beekes 2011, p. 30, Skt: 13, Hitt: 20, Gk: 24.
- Beekes 2011, p. 30, Toch: 19, Arm: 20, Alb: 25 & 124, OIr:27.
- van Olphen, Herman (1975). "Aspect, Tense, and Mood in the Hindi Verb". Indo-Iranian Journal. 16 (4): 284–301. doi:10.1163/000000075791615397. ISSN 0019-7246. JSTOR 24651488. S2CID 161530848.
- "Ethnologue list of language families" (22nd ed.). Ethnologue. 25 May 2019. Retrieved 2 July 2019.
- "Ethnologue list of languages by number of speakers". Ethnologue. 3 October 2018. Retrieved 29 July 2021.
- "English". Ethnologue. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
Sources
- AA.VV. (1981). "Indo-European languages". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (15th ed.). Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton.
- Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-05887-0.
- Auroux, Sylvain (2000). History of the Language Sciences. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-016735-1.
- Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Translated by Vertalers, Uva; Gabriner, Paul (1st ed.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ISBN 9027221510.
- Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011). Comparative Indo-European linguistics : An Introduction. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan (2nd ed.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9027285003. Paperback: ISBN 978-9027211866.
- Brugmann, Karl (1886). Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (in German). Vol. Erster Band. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
- Collinge, N.E. (1985). The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 9789027235305.
- Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0315-2.
- Hamp, Eric (2007). Rexhep Ismajli (ed.). Studime krahasuese për shqipen [Comparative studies on Albanian] (in Albanian). Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës, Prishtinë.
- Holm, Hans J. (2008). "The Distribution of Data in Word Lists and its Impact on the Subgrouping of Languages". In Preisach, Christine; Burkhardt, Hans; Schmidt-Thieme, Lars; et al. (eds.). Data analysis, machine learning and applications. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the German Classification Society (GfKl), University of Freiburg, 7–9 March 2007. Heidelberg / Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-78239-1.
- Kortlandt, Frederik (1988). "The Thraco-Armenian consonant shift". Linguistique Balkanique. 31: 71–4.
- Kortlandt, Frederik (1990) . "The Spread of the Indo-Europeans" (PDF). Journal of Indo-European Studies. 18 (1–2): 131–40.
- Lubotsky, A. (1988). "The Old Phrygian Areyastis-inscription" (PDF). Kadmos. 27: 9–26. doi:10.1515/kadmos-1988-0103. hdl:1887/2660. S2CID 162944161.
- Porzig, Walter (1954). Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
- Renfrew, C. (2001). "The Anatolian origins of Proto-Indo-European and the autochthony of the Hittites". In Drews, R. (ed.). Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. ISBN 978-0941694773.
- Ringe, Don (2006). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-928413-X.
- Schleicher, August (1861). Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (in German). Weimar: Böhlau (reprinted by Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag). ISBN 978-3-8102-1071-5.
- Schleicher, August (1874–1877). A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin languages. Part I and Part II. Translated by Bendall, Herbert. London: Trübner & Co. Part II via Internet Archive.
- Szemerényi, Oswald John Louis (1957). "The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity: A Critical Survey". Kratylos. 2. O. Harrassowitz: 97–123.
- Reprinted in Szemerényi, Oswald John Louis (1991). Considine, P.; Hooker, James T. (eds.). Scripta Minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek, and Latin. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. IV: Indo-European Languages other than Latin and Greek. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. pp. 2145–2171. ISBN 9783851246117. ISSN 1816-3920.
- Szemerényi, Oswald John Louis; Jones, David; Jones, Irene (1999). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-823870-6.
- von Bradke, Peter (1890). Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen) Alterthumswissenshaft (in German). Giessen: J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung.
Further reading
- Bjørn, Rasmus G. (2022). "Indo-European Loanwords and Exchange in Bronze Age Central and East Asia". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 4: e23. doi:10.1017/ehs.2022.16. PMC 10432883. PMID 37599704. S2CID 248358873.
- Chakrabarti, Byomkes (1994). A Comparative Study of Santali and Bengali. Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi & Co. ISBN 978-81-7074-128-2.
- Chantraine, Pierre (1968). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck – via Internet Archive.
- Gimbutas, Marija (1997). Robbins Dexter, Miriam; Jones-Bley, Karlene (eds.). The Kurgan Culture and The Indo-Europeanization of Europe. JIES Monograph. Vol. 18. ISBN 0-941694-56-9.
- Kroonen, Guus; Mallory, James P.; Comrie, Bernard, eds. (2018). Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indo-European Origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013. JIES Monograph. Vol. 65. ISBN 978-0-9983669-2-0.
- Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-27616-7 – via Internet Archive.
- Markey, T. L.; Repanšek, Luka, eds. (2020). Revisiting Dispersions Celtic and Germanic ca. 400 BC – ca. 400 AD Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference held at Dolenjski muzej, Novo mesto, Slovenia; October 12th – 14th, 2018. JIES Monograph. Vol. 67. ISBN 978-0-9845353-7-8.
- Meillet, Antoine (1936). Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique (2nd ed.). Vienna: Mekhitarist Monastery – via Internet Archive.
- Olander, Thomas, ed. (September 2022). The Indo-European Language Family : A Phylogenetic Perspective. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108758666. ISBN 9781108758666. S2CID 161016819.
- Ramat, Paolo; Giacalone Ramat, Anna, eds. (1998). The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge. ISBN 041506449X.
- Remys, Edmund (17 December 2007). "General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian". Indogermanische Forschungen. 112 (2007): 244–276. doi:10.1515/9783110192858.1.244. ISBN 9783110192858. ISSN 0019-7262. S2CID 169996117.
- Strazny, Philip; Trask, R. L., eds. (2000). Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (1 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-57958-218-0.
- Watkins, Calvert (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-08250-6.
- Asadpour, Hiwa, and Thomas Jügel, eds. Word Order Variation: Semitic, Turkic and Indo-European Languages in Contact. Vol. 31. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2022.
External links
Library resources aboutIndo-European languages
Databases
- Dyen, Isidore; Kruskal, Joseph; Black, Paul (1997). "Comparative Indo-European". wordgumbo. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
- "Indo-European". LLOW Languages of the World. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 14 December 2009.
- "Indo-European Documentation Center". Linguistics Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. 2009. Archived from the original on 3 September 2009. Retrieved 14 December 2009.
- Lewis, M. Paul, ed. (2009). "Language Family Trees: Indo-European". Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Online version (Sixteenth ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International..
- "Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien: TITUS" (in German). TITUS, University of Frankfurt. 2003. Retrieved 13 December 2009.
- "Indo-European Lexical Cognacy Database (IELex)". Uppsala University, Uppsala. 2021.
- glottothèque – Ancient Indo-European Grammars online, an online collection of introductory videos to Ancient Indo-European languages produced by the University of Göttingen
Lexica
- "Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (IEED)". Leiden, Netherlands: Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Leiden University. Archived from the original on 7 February 2006. Retrieved 14 December 2009.
- "Indo-European Roots Index". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.). Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. 22 August 2008 . Archived from the original on 17 February 2009. Retrieved 9 December 2009.
- Köbler, Gerhard (2014). Indogermanisches Wörterbuch (in German) (5th ed.). Gerhard Köbler. Retrieved 29 March 2015.
- Schalin, Johan (2009). "Lexicon of Early Indo-European Loanwords Preserved in Finnish". Johan Schalin. Retrieved 9 December 2009.
Indo-European languages (list) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anatolian |
| ||||
Balto-Slavic |
| ||||
Celtic | |||||
Germanic | |||||
Indo-Iranian |
| ||||
Italic | |||||
Tocharian |
| ||||
Others | |||||
Proto-languages | |||||
Italics indicate extinct languages |
Language families of Eurasia | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Europe | |||||||
West Asia | |||||||
Caucasus | |||||||
South Asia | |||||||
East Asia | |||||||
Indian Ocean rim | |||||||
North Asia |
| ||||||
Proposed groupings |
| ||||||
Substrata | |||||||
|