Misplaced Pages

Proto-Indo-European language: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:34, 29 April 2007 editFrancoGG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,973 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 81.157.191.93 to last revision by Kurokishi. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 06:36, 29 April 2007 edit undo81.157.191.93 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'This is pie, damnit Spock. PIE!'Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
This is pie, damnit Spock.
{{redirect|PIE}}
{{Indo-European topics}}
The '''Proto-Indo-European language''' ('''PIE''') is the ] common ancestor of the ]. Although the existence of such a language has been accepted by ]s for a long time, there has been debate about many specific details.


PIE!
==Discovery and reconstruction==
===When was PIE spoken?===
There are several competing hypotheses about when and where PIE was spoken. The only thing known for certain is that the language must have been differentiated into unconnected daughter dialects by the ]. Mainstream estimates of the time between PIE and the earliest attested texts (ca. ]; see ]) range around 1,500 to 2,500 years, with extreme proposals diverging up to another 100% on either side:
*the ] (excluding the Anatolian branch) in ], according to the ] (proposed in the context of ]);
*the ] (] excluding the Anatolian branch) in the ], according to the mainstream ];
*the ] in ], according to ]'s ];
*the ] in ] (the ], in the ], excluding the Anatolian branch), according to ]'s ];
*the ] (] excluding the Anatolian branch), according to a 2003 ] study<ref>] ]) 435-439]</ref>;
*], in the ].

===History===
{{main|Indo-European studies}}
The classical phase of Indo-European ] leads from ]'s ''Comparative Grammar'' (1833) to ]'s ] ''Compendium'' and up to ]'s '']'' published from the ]. Brugmann's '']'' re-evaluation of the field and ]'s development of the ] may be considered the beginning of "contemporary" Indo-European studies.

PIE as described in the early 1900s is still generally accepted today; subsequent work is largely refinement and systematization, as well as the incorporation of new information, notably the ] and ] branches unknown in the 19th century.

Notably, the ], in its early forms discussed since the 1880s, became mainstream after ]'s 1927 discovery of the survival of at least some of these hypothetical phonemes in Anatolian. ]'s '']'' (1959) gave an overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated until the early 20th century, but neglected contemporary trends of morphology and phonology, and largely ignored Anatolian and Tocharian.

The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the 20th century (such as ], ] and ]) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake of Kuryłowicz's ] ''Apophonie'', understanding of the ]. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE; see also ].

===Method===
{{main|Historical linguistics|Indo-European sound laws}}
There is no direct evidence of PIE, because it was never ]. All PIE sounds and words are reconstructed from later Indo-European languages using the ] and the method of ]. The ] is used to mark reconstructed PIE words, such as *''{{unicode|wódr̥}}'' ']', *''{{unicode|ḱwṓn}}'' ']', or *''{{unicode|tréyes}}'' 'three (masculine)'. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular ]s (e.g., ]).

As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, according to various ]s in the daughter languages. Notable among these are ] and ] in ], loss of prevocalic ''*p-'' in ], reduction to ''h'' of prevocalic ''*s-'' in ], ] and ] in ], and ] independently in both Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian.

===Relationship to other language families===
Many higher-level relationships between PIE and other language families have been proposed. But these speculative connections are highly controversial. Perhaps the most widely accepted proposal is of an ] family, encompassing PIE and ]. The evidence usually cited in favor of this is the proximity of the proposed ]en of the two families, the ] similarity between the two languages, and a number of apparent shared morphemes. ], while advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap between Uralic and Indo-European is huge", while ], an authority of Uralic, denies any relationship exists.

Other proposals, further back in time (and correspondingly less accepted), model PIE as a branch of Indo-Uralic with a ] substratum; link PIE and Uralic with ] and certain other families in Asia, such as ], ], ] and ] (representative proposals are ] and ]'s ]); or link some or all of these to ], ], etc., and ultimately to a single ] family (nowadays mostly associated with ]). Various proposals, with varying levels of skepticism, also exist that join some subset of the putative Eurasiatic language families and/or some of the ] language families, such as ], ] (once widely accepted but now largely discredited), ], and so on.

==Phonology==
{{main|Proto-Indo-European phonology}}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Proto-Indo-European consonants (traditional transcription)'''
|-
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
!]
|-
!] ]
| align=center | {{unicode|p}}
| align=center | {{unicode|t}}
| align=center | {{unicode|ḱ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|k}}
| align=center | {{unicode|kʷ}}
| &nbsp;
|-
!] ]
| align=center | {{unicode|b}}
| align=center | {{unicode|d}}
| align=center | {{unicode|ǵ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|g}}
| align=center | {{unicode|gʷ}}
| &nbsp;
|-
!] ]
| align=center | {{unicode|bʰ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|dʰ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|ǵʰ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|gʰ}}
| align=center | {{unicode|gʷʰ}}
| &nbsp;
|-
!]
| align=center | {{unicode|m}}
| align=center | {{unicode|n}}
|
|
|
|
|-
!]
|
| align=center | {{unicode|s}}
|
|
|
| align=center | {{unicode|h₁, h₂, h₃}}
|-
!], ]
| align=center | {{unicode|w}}
| align=center | {{unicode|r, l}}
| align=center | {{unicode|j}}
|
|
|}

* '''Short ]s''' {{unicode|a, e, i, o, u}}
* '''Long vowels''' {{unicode|ā, ē, ō}}; sometimes a colon ''(:)'' is employed to indicate ] instead of the macron sign (''a:, e:, o:'').
* ''']s''' {{unicode|ai, au, āi, āu, ei, eu, ēi, ēu, oi, ou, ōi, ōu}}
*vocalic allophones of consonantal phonemes: {{unicode|u, i, r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥}}.

Other long vowels may have appeared already in the proto-language by ]: {{unicode|ī, ū, r̥̄, l̥̄, m̥̄, n̥̄}}.

==Morphology==
===Root===
{{main|Proto-Indo-European root}}

The ''']''' of the reconstructed ''']''' (PIE) are basic ]s carrying a ] meaning. By addition of ]es, they form ], and by addition of ]s, these form grammatically inflected ]s (]s or ]s).

===Ablaut===
{{main|Indo-European ablaut}}

One of the unique aspects of PIE was its ''ablaut'' sequence that contrasted the vowel phonemes o/e/Ø through the same root. The ablaut is a form of vowel variation which changed between these three forms depending on the adjacent sounds and placement of stress in the word. These changes are echoed in modern Indo-European languages.

===Noun===
{{main|Proto-Indo-European noun}}

'''] nouns''' were declined for eight cases (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]). There were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.

There are two major types of declension, ]. Thematic nominal stems are formed with a suffix ''-o-'' (in vocative ''-e'') and the stem does not undergo ]. The athematic stems are more archaic, and they are classified further by their ablaut behaviour (''acro-dynamic'', ''protero-dynamic'', ''hystero-dynamic'' and ''holo-dynamic'', after the positioning of the early PIE accent (''dynamis'') in the paradigm).

===Pronoun===
{{main|Proto-Indo-European pronouns and particles}}

PIE pronouns are difficult to reconstruct due to their variety in later languages. This is especially the case for ]s.

PIE had personal ]s in the ] and second person, but not the third person, where demonstratives were used instead. The personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular, where the two stems are still preserved in English ''I'' and ''me''. According to Beekes (1995), there were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an ] form.

{| rules=all style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid darkgray;" cellpadding=3
|
! colspan="4" | '''Personal pronouns (Beekes 1995)'''
|-
|
! colspan="2" | '''First person'''
! colspan="2" | '''Second person'''
|-
|
| '''Singular'''
| '''Plural'''
| '''Singular'''
| '''Plural'''
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁eǵ(oH/Hom)}}
| {{unicode|wei}}
| {{unicode|tuH}}
| {{unicode|yuH}}
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁mé, h₁me}}
| {{unicode|nsmé, nōs}}
| {{unicode|twé}}
| {{unicode|usmé, wōs}}
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁méne, h₁moi}}
| {{unicode|ns(er)o-, nos}}
| {{unicode|tewe, toi}}
| {{unicode|yus(er)o-, wos}}
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁méǵʰio, h₁moi}}
| {{unicode|nsmei, ns}}
| {{unicode|tébʰio, toi}}
| {{unicode|usmei}}
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁moí}}
| ?
| {{unicode|toí}}
| ?
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁med}}
| {{unicode|nsmed}}
| {{unicode|tued}}
| {{unicode|usmed}}
|-
| ''']'''
| {{unicode|h₁moí}}
| {{unicode|nsmi}}
| {{unicode|toí}}
| {{unicode|usmi}}
|}

As for demonstratives, Beekes (1995) tentatively reconstructs a system with only two pronouns: {{unicode|so/seh₂/tod}} "this, that" and {{unicode|h₁e/ (h₁)ih₂/(h₁)id}} "the (just named)" (]). He also postulates three adverbial particles {{unicode|ḱi}} "here", {{unicode|h₂en}} "there" and {{unicode|h₂eu}} "away, again", from which demonstratives were constructed in various later languages.

===Verb===
{{main|Proto-Indo-European verb}}

The Indo-European verb system is complex and, as the noun, exhibits a system of ].


]s have at least four ] (], ], ] and ], as well as possibly the ], reconstructible from Vedic Sanskrit), two ] (] and ]), as well as three ] (first, second and third) and three ] (], ] and ]). Verbs are conjugated in at least three "tenses" (], ], and ]), which actually have primarily ]ual value. Indicative forms of the ] and (less likely) the ] may have existed. Verbs were also marked by a highly developed system of ]s, one for each combination of tense and mood, and an assorted array of ]s and adjectival formations.


{| rules=all style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid darkgray;" cellpadding=3
|
|
! colspan="2" | '''Buck 1933'''
! colspan="2" | '''Beekes 1995'''
|-
|
|
| '''Athematic'''
| '''Thematic'''
| '''Athematic'''
| '''Thematic'''
|-
| rowspan=3 | '''Singular'''
| '''1st'''
| {{unicode|-mi}}
| {{unicode|-ō}}
| {{unicode|-mi}}
| {{unicode|-oH}}
|-
| '''2nd'''
| {{unicode|-si}}
| {{unicode|-esi}}
| {{unicode|-si}}
| {{unicode|-eh₁i}}
|-
| '''3rd'''
| {{unicode|-ti}}
| {{unicode|-eti}}
| {{unicode|-ti}}
| {{unicode|-e}}
|-
| rowspan=3 | '''Plural'''
| '''1st'''
| {{unicode|-mos/mes}}
| {{unicode|-omos/omes}}
| {{unicode|-mes}}
| {{unicode|-omom}}
|-
| '''2nd'''
| {{unicode|-te}}
| {{unicode|-ete}}
| {{unicode|-th₁e}}
| {{unicode|-eth₁e}}
|-
| '''3rd'''
| {{unicode|-nti}}
| {{unicode|-onti}}
| {{unicode|-nti}}
| {{unicode|-o}}
|}

===Numbers===
{{main|Proto-Indo-European numerals}}

The ] numerals are generally reconstructed as follows:

{|
|
|Sihler 1995, 402–24
|Beekes 1995, 212–16
|-
|one
|*{{unicode|Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem-}}
|*{{unicode|Hoi(H)nos}}
|-
|two
|*{{unicode|d(u)wo-}}
|*{{unicode|duoh₁}}
|-
|three
|*{{unicode|trei-}} (full grade)/*{{unicode|tri-}} (zero grade)
|*{{unicode|treies}}
|-
|four
|*{{unicode|kʷetwor-}} (o-grade)/*{{unicode|kʷetur-}} (zero grade), <br>see also the ]
|*{{unicode|kʷetuōr}}
|-
|five
|*{{unicode|penkʷe}}
|*{{unicode|penkʷe}}
|-
|six
|*{{unicode|s(w)eḱs}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|weḱs}}
|*{{unicode|(s)uéks}}
|-
|seven
|*{{unicode|septm̥}}
|*{{unicode|séptm}}
|-
|eight
|*{{unicode|oḱtō}}, *{{unicode|oḱtou}} or *{{unicode|h₃eḱtō}}, *{{unicode|h₃eḱtou}}
|*{{unicode|h₃eḱteh₃}}
|-
|nine
|*{{unicode|(h₁)newn̥}}
|*{{unicode|(h₁)néun}}
|-
|ten
|*{{unicode|deḱm̥(t)}}
|*{{unicode|déḱmt}}
|-
|twenty
|*{{unicode|wīḱm̥t-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|widḱomt-}}
| *{{unicode|duidḱmti}}
|-
|thirty
|*{{unicode|trīḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|tridḱomt-}}
| *{{unicode|trih₂dḱomth₂}}
|-
|forty
|*{{unicode|kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|kʷetwr̥dḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|kʷeturdḱomth₂}}
|-
|fifty
|*{{unicode|penkʷēḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|penkʷedḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|penkʷedḱomth₂}}
|-
|sixty
|*{{unicode|s(w)eḱsḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|weḱsdḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|ueksdḱomth₂}}
|-
|seventy
|*{{unicode|septm̥̄ḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|septm̥dḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|septmdḱomth₂}}
|-
|eighty
|*{{unicode|oḱtō(u)ḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|h₃eḱto(u)dḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂}}
|-
|ninety
|*{{unicode|(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt-}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|h₁newn̥dḱomt-}}
|*{{unicode|h₁neundḱomth₂}}
|-
|hundred
|*{{unicode|ḱm̥tom}}; originally perhaps *{{unicode|dḱm̥tom}}
|*{{unicode|dḱmtóm}}
|-
|thousand
|*{{unicode|ǵheslo-}}, *{{unicode|tusdḱomti}}
|*{{unicode|ǵʰes-l-}}
|}
Lehmann (1993, 252-255) believes that the numbers greater than ten were constructed separately in the dialects groups and that *{{unicode|ḱm̥tóm}} originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one hundred."

==Sample texts==

As PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts are available, but since the 19th century modern scholars have made various attempts to compose example texts for purposes of illustration. These texts are educated guesses at best; ] in 1969 observes that in spite of its 150 years' history, comparative linguistics is not in the position to reconstruct a single well-formed sentence in PIE. Nevertheless, such texts do have the merit of giving an impression of what a coherent utterance in PIE might have sounded like.

Published PIE sample texts:
*] (''{{unicode|Avis akvasas ka}}'') by ] (1868), modernized by ] (1939) and ] and ] (1979)
*] (''{{unicode|rēḱs deiwos-kʷe}}'') by S. K. Sen, E. P. Hamp et al. (1994)

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

== References ==
* Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-­European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110­116, March, 1990
* A. Kammenhuber, "Aryans in the Near East," Haidelberg, 1968
*{{cite book | first=Robert S. P. | last=Beekes | authorlink=Robert S. P. Beekes | title=Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction | location=] | publisher=John Benjamins | year=1995 | id=ISBN 90-272-2150-2 (Europe), ISBN 1-55619-504-4 (U.S.)}}
*{{cite book | first=Carl Darling | last=Buck | authorlink=Carl Darling Buck | title=Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin | location=Chicago | publisher=University of Chicago Press | year=1933 | id=ISBN 0-226-07931-7}}
*Lehmann, W., and L. Zgusta. 1979. Schleicher's tale after a century. In ''Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday'', ed. B. Brogyanyi, 455–66. Amsterdam.
*{{cite book | first=Manfred | last=Mayrhofer | authorlink=Manfred Mayrhofer | title=Indogermanische Grammatik, i/2: Lautlehre | location=] | publisher=Winter | year=1986|id=}}
*{{cite book | first= Andrew L. | last=Sihler | title=New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin | location=Oxford | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=1995 | id=ISBN 0-19-508345-8}}
*{{cite book | first=Oswald | last=Szemerényi | authorlink=Oswald Szemerényi | title=Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics | publisher=Oxford | year=1996|id=}}
*{{cite book | first=William Dwight | last=Whitney | authorlink=William Dwight Whitney | title=Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin | location=Delhi | publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited (reprint) | year=1924 | id=ISBN 81-208-0621-2 (India), ISBN 0-486-43136-3 (Dover, US)}}

==See also==
{{wiktionary|Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

== External links ==

* (by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov)
*American Heritage Dictionary:
**, essay on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
**, index
*
* (Leiden University)
* (University of Texas)
* at the ]
* by ]
* (by Geoffrey Sampson)
* (by Piotr Gąsiorowski)
*
*, compiled from Walde-Pokorny by L. Nikolayev and from Friedrich, Tischler (Hittite) and Adams (Tocharian) by ].
* by ]. ISSN 1801-5336 (], ])

]
]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Revision as of 06:36, 29 April 2007

This is pie, damnit Spock.

PIE!