Proto-Indo-European language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Indo-European topics |
|---|
| Indo-European languages |
| Albanian · Armenian · Baltic Celtic · Germanic · Greek Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan, Iranian) Italic · Slavic extinct: Anatolian · Paleo-Balkans (Dacian, |
| Indo-European peoples |
| Albanians · Armenians Balts · Celts · Germanic peoples Greeks · Indo-Aryans Iranians · Latins · Slavs historical: Anatolians (Hittites, Luwians) |
| Proto-Indo-Europeans |
| Language · Society · Religion |
| Urheimat hypotheses |
| Kurgan hypothesis Anatolia · Armenia · India · PCT |
| Indo-European studies |
The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested, reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The existence of such a language has been accepted by linguists for over a century, and there have been many attempts at reconstruction. Nevertheless, many disagreements and uncertainties remain.
Contents |
[edit] Discovery and reconstruction
[edit] When and where was PIE spoken?
There are several competing hypotheses about when and where PIE was spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis is "the single most popular" model,[1][2] postulating that the Kurgan culture of the Pontic steppe were the hypothesized speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. However, alternative theories such as the Anatolian urheimat have also gained acceptance.
The satemization process that caused the separation between Centum and Satem languages probably started as early as the fourth millennium BC[3] and the only thing known for certain is that the proto language must have been differentiated into unconnected daughter dialects by the late 3rd millennium BC.
Mainstream linguistic estimates of the time between PIE and the earliest attested texts (ca. nineteenth century BC; see Kültepe texts) range around 1,500 to 2,500 years, with extreme proposals diverging up to another 100% on either side. Other than the aforementioned, predominant Kurgan hypothesis, proposed models include:
- the 4th millennium BC (excluding the Anatolian branch) in Armenia, according to the Armenian hypothesis (proposed in the context of Glottalic theory);
- the 5th millennium BC (4th excluding the Anatolian branch) in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, according to the popular Kurgan hypothesis;
- the 6th millennium BC or later in Northern Europe according to Lothar Kilian's and, especially, Marek Zvelebil's models of a broader homeland;
- the 6th millennium BC in India, according to Koenraad Elst's Out of India model;
- the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (the 5th, in the Balkans, excluding the Anatolian branch), according to Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis;
- the 7th millennium BC in Anatolia (6th excluding the Anatolian branch), according to a 2003 glottochronological study;[4]
- before the 10th millennium BC, in the Paleolithic Continuity Theory.
[edit] History
The classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from Franz Bopp's Comparative Grammar (1833) to August Schleicher's 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmann's Grundriss published from the 1880s. Brugmann's junggrammatische re-evaluation of the field and Ferdinand de Saussure's development of the laryngeal theory may be considered the beginning of "contemporary" Indo-European studies.
PIE as described in the early 1900s is still generally accepted today; subsequent work is largely refinement and systematization, as well as the incorporation of new information, notably the Anatolian and Tocharian branches unknown in the 19th century.
Notably, the laryngeal theory, in its early forms discussed since the 1880s, became mainstream after Jerzy Kuryłowicz's 1927 discovery of the survival of at least some of these hypothetical phonemes in Anatolian. Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1959) gave an overview of the lexical knowledge accumulated until the early 20th century, but neglected contemporary trends of morphology and phonology, and largely ignored Anatolian and Tocharian.
The generation of Indo-Europeanists active in the last third of the 20th century (such as Calvert Watkins, Jochem Schindler and Helmut Rix) developed a better understanding of morphology and, in the wake of Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie, understanding of the ablaut. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became certain enough to establish its relationship to PIE; see also Indo-Hittite.
[edit] Method
There is no direct evidence of PIE, because it was never written. All PIE sounds and words are reconstructed from later Indo-European languages using the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. An asterisk is used to mark reconstructed PIE words, such as *wódr̥ 'water', *ḱwṓn 'dog' (English hound), or *tréyes 'three (masculine)'. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular sound changes (e.g., Grimm's law).
As the Proto-Indo-European language broke up, its sound system diverged as well, according to various sound laws in the daughter languages. Notable among these are Grimm's law and Verner's law in Proto-Germanic, loss of prevocalic *p- in Proto-Celtic, reduction to h of prevocalic *s- in Proto-Greek, Brugmann's law and Bartholomae's law in Proto-Indo-Iranian, Grassmann's law independently in both Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Winter's law and Hirt's law in Balto-Slavic.
[edit] Relationships to other language families
[edit] Proposed genetic connections
Many higher-level relationships between Proto-Indo-European and other language families have been proposed, but these hypothesized connections are highly controversial. A proposal often considered to be the most plausible of these is that of an Indo-Uralic family, encompassing PIE and Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of this consists in a number of striking morphological and lexical resemblances. Opponents attribute the lexical resemblances to borrowing from Indo-European into Uralic. Frederik Kortlandt, while advocating a connection, concedes that "the gap between Uralic and Indo-European is huge", while Lyle Campbell, an authority on Uralic, denies any relationship exists.
Other proposals, further back in time (and proportionately less accepted), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo-Aleut, but excluding Yeniseian (the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian (the traditional form of the Nostratic hypothesis), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family.
A more rarely mentioned proposal associates Indo-European with the Northwest Caucasian languages in a family called Proto-Pontic.
Etruscan shows some similarities to Indo-European. There is no consensus on whether these are due to a genetic relationship, borrowing, chance and sound symbolism, or some combination of these.
[edit] Proposed areal connections
The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[5] or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[6] This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs and of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.[7]
[edit] Phonology
[edit] Consonants
| Labial | Coronal | Dorsal | Laryngeal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| palatal | plain | labial | |||||
| Nasal | *m | *n | |||||
| Plosive | *p | *t | *ḱ | *k | *kʷ | ||
| voiced | *b | *d | *ǵ | *g | *gʷ | ||
| aspirated | *bʰ | *dʰ | *ǵʰ | *gʰ | *gʷʰ | ||
| Fricative | *s | *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ | |||||
| Liquid | *r, *l | ||||||
| Semivowel | *y | *w | |||||
Alternative notations: The aspirated plosives are sometimes written as *bh, *dh, *ǵh, *gh, *gʷh; for the palatals, *k̑, *g̑ are often used; and *i̯, *u̯ can replace *y, *w.
The pronunciation of the laryngeals is disputed, at least *h₁ might not have been a fricative.
[edit] Vowels
- Short vowels: *e, *o (and possibly *a).
- Long vowels: *ē, *ō (and possibly *ā). Sometimes a colon (:) is employed instead of the macron sign to indicate vowel length (*a:, *e:, *o:).
- Diphthongs: *ei, *eu, *ēi, *ēu, *oi, *ou, *ōi, *ōu, (*ai, *au, *āi, *āu). Diphthongs are sometimes understood as combinations of a vowel plus a semivowel, e. g. *ey or *ei̯ instead of *ei.[8]
- Vocalic allophones of laryngeals, nasals, liquids and semivowels: *h̥₁, *h̥₂, *h̥₃, *m̥, *n̥, *l̥, *r̥, *i, *u.
- Long variants of these vocalic allophones may have appeared already in the proto-language by compensatory lengthening (for example of a vowel plus a laryngeal): *m̥̄, *n̥̄, *l̥̄, *r̥̄, *ī, *ū.
It is often suggested that all *a and *ā were earlier derived from an *e preceded or followed by *h₂, but Mayrhofer[9] has argued that PIE did in fact have *a and *ā phonemes independent of h₂.
[edit] Morphology
[edit] Root
PIE was an inflected language, in which the grammatical relationships between words were signaled through inflectional morphemes (usually endings). The roots of PIE are basic morphemes carrying a lexical meaning. By addition of suffixes, they form stems, and by addition of desinences (usually endings), these form grammatically inflected words (nouns or verbs). PIE roots are understood to be predominantly monosyllabic with a basic shape CvC(C). This basic root shape is often altered by ablaut. Roots which appear to be vowel initial are believed by many scholars to have originally begun with a set of consonants, later lost in all but the Anatolian branch, called laryngeals (usually indicated *H, and often specified with a subscript number *h₁, *h₂, *h₃). Thus a verb form such as the one reflected in Latin agunt, Greek ἄγουσι (ágousi), Sanskrit ajanti would be reconstructed as *h₂eǵ-onti, with the element *h₂eǵ- constituting the root per se.
[edit] Ablaut
One of the distinctive aspects of PIE was its ablaut sequence that contrasted the vowel phonemes *o / *e / Ø [no vowel] within the same root. Ablaut is a form of vowel variation which changed between these three forms perhaps depending on the adjacent sounds and placement of stress in the word. These changes are echoed in modern Indo-European languages where they have come to reflect grammatical categories. These ablaut grades are usually referred to as: e-grade and o-grade, sometimes collectively termed full grade; zero-grade (no vowel, Ø); and lengthened grade (*ē or *ō). Modern English sing, sang, sung is an example of such an ablaut set and reflects a pre-Proto-Germanic sequence *sengw-, *songw-, *sngw-. Some scholars believe that the inflectional affixes of Indo European reflect ablaut variants, usually zero-grade, of older PIE roots. Often the zero-grade appears where the word's accent has shifted from the root to one of the affixes. Thus the alternation found in Latin est, sunt reflects PIE *h₁és-ti, *h₁s-ónti.
[edit] Noun
Proto-Indo-European nouns were declined for eight or nine cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, ablative, locative, vocative, and possibly a directive or allative).[10] There were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.
There are two major types of declension, thematic and athematic. Thematic nominal stems are formed with a suffix *-o- (in vocative *-e) and the stem does not undergo ablaut. The athematic stems are more archaic, and they are classified further by their ablaut behaviour (acro-dynamic, protero-dynamic, hystero-dynamic and holo-dynamic, after the positioning of the early PIE accent (dynamis) in the paradigm).
[edit] Pronoun
PIE pronouns are difficult to reconstruct owing to their variety in later languages. This is especially the case for demonstrative pronouns. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second person, but not the third person, where demonstratives were used instead. The personal pronouns had their own unique forms and endings, and some had two distinct stems; this is most obvious in the first person singular, where the two stems are still preserved in English I and me. According to Beekes,[11] there were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.
| Personal pronouns (Beekes) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First person | Second person | |||
| Singular | Plural | Singular | Plural | |
| Nominative | *h₁eǵ(oH/Hom) | *wei | *tuH | *yuH |
| Accusative | *h₁mé, *h₁me | *nsmé, *nōs | *twé | *usmé, *wōs |
| Genitive | *h₁méne, *h₁moi | *ns(er)o-, *nos | *tewe, *toi | *yus(er)o-, *wos |
| Dative | *h₁méǵʰio, *h₁moi | *nsmei, *ns | *tébʰio, *toi | *usmei |
| Instrumental | *h₁moí | ? | *toí | ? |
| Ablative | *h₁med | *nsmed | *tued | *usmed |
| Locative | *h₁moí | *nsmi | *toí | *usmi |
As for demonstratives, Beekes tentatively reconstructs a system with only two pronouns: *so / *seh₂ / *tod "this, that" and *h₁e / *(h₁)ih₂ / *(h₁)id "the (just named)" (anaphoric). He also postulates three adverbial particles *ḱi "here", *h₂en "there" and *h₂eu "away, again", from which demonstratives were constructed in various later languages.
[edit] Verb
The Indo-European verb system is complex and, as the noun, exhibits a system of ablaut. Verbs have at least four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative, as well as possibly the injunctive, reconstructible from Vedic Sanskrit), two voices (active and mediopassive), as well as three persons (first, second and third) and three numbers (singular, dual and plural). Verbs are conjugated in at least three "tenses" (present, aorist, and perfect), which actually have primarily aspectual value. Indicative forms of the imperfect and (less likely) the pluperfect may have existed. Verbs were also marked by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination of tense and mood, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and adjectival formations.
| Buck[12] | Beekes[11] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | ||
| Singular | 1st | *-mi | *-ō | *-mi | *-oH |
| 2nd | *-si | *-esi | *-si | *-eh₁i | |
| 3rd | *-ti | *-eti | *-ti | *-e | |
| Plural | 1st | *-mos/mes | *-omos/omes | *-mes | *-omom |
| 2nd | *-te | *-ete | *-th₁e | *-eth₁e | |
| 3rd | *-nti | *-onti | *-nti | *-o | |
[edit] Numbers
The Proto-Indo-European numerals are generally reconstructed as follows:
| Sihler[13] | Beekes[11] | |
|---|---|---|
| one | *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem- | *Hoi(H)nos |
| two | *d(u)wo- | *duoh₁ |
| three | *trei- (full grade) / *tri- (zero grade) | *treies |
| four | *kʷetwor- (o-grade) / *kʷetur- (zero grade) (see also the kʷetwóres rule) |
*kʷetuōr |
| five | *penkʷe | *penkʷe |
| six | *s(w)eḱs; originally perhaps *weḱs | *(s)uéks |
| seven | *septm̥ | *séptm |
| eight | *oḱtō, *oḱtou or *h₃eḱtō, *h₃eḱtou | *h₃eḱteh₃ |
| nine | *(h₁)newn̥ | *(h₁)néun |
| ten | *deḱm̥(t) | *déḱmt |
| twenty | *wīḱm̥t-; originally perhaps *widḱomt- | *duidḱmti |
| thirty | *trīḱomt-; originally perhaps *tridḱomt- | *trih₂dḱomth₂ |
| forty | *kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *kʷetwr̥dḱomt- | *kʷeturdḱomth₂ |
| fifty | *penkʷēḱomt-; originally perhaps *penkʷedḱomt- | *penkʷedḱomth₂ |
| sixty | *s(w)eḱsḱomt-; originally perhaps *weḱsdḱomt- | *ueksdḱomth₂ |
| seventy | *septm̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *septm̥dḱomt- | *septmdḱomth₂ |
| eighty | *oḱtō(u)ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₃eḱto(u)dḱomt- | *h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂ |
| ninety | *(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt-; originally perhaps *h₁newn̥dḱomt- | *h₁neundḱomth₂ |
| hundred | *ḱm̥tom; originally perhaps *dḱm̥tom | *dḱmtóm |
| thousand | *ǵheslo-; *tusdḱomti | *ǵʰes-l- |
Lehmann[14] believes that the numbers greater than ten were constructed separately in the dialects groups and that *ḱm̥tóm originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one hundred."
[edit] Particle
Many particles could be used both as adverbs and postpositions, like *upo "under, below". The postpositions became prepositions in most daughter languages. Other reconstructible particles include negators (*ne, *mē), conjunctions (*kʷe "and", *wē "or" and others) and an interjection (*wai!, an expression of woe or agony).
[edit] Sample texts
As PIE was spoken by a prehistoric society, no genuine sample texts are available, but since the 19th century modern scholars have made various attempts to compose example texts for purposes of illustration. These texts are educated guesses at best; Calvert Watkins in 1969 observes that in spite of its 150 years' history, comparative linguistics is not in the position to reconstruct a single well-formed sentence in PIE. Nevertheless, such texts do have the merit of giving an impression of what a coherent utterance in PIE might have sounded like.
Published PIE sample texts:
- Schleicher's fable (Avis akvasas ka) by August Schleicher (1868), modernized by Hermann Hirt (1939) and Winfred Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta (1979)
- The king and the god (rēḱs deiwos-kʷe) by S. K. Sen, E. P. Hamp et al. (1994)
[edit] Notes
- ^ Mallory (1989:185). "The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total. It is the solution one encounters in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse."
- ^ Strazny (2000:163). "The single most popular proposal is the Pontic steppes (see the Kurgan hypothesis)..."
- ^ ".. the satemization process can be dated to the last centuries of the fourth millennium." [1] THE SPREAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS -Frederik Kortlandt.
- ^ Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426 (27 November 2003) 435-439
- ^ [2] Frederik Kortlandt-GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION, 1993
- ^ [3] The spread of the Indo-Europeans - Frederik Kortlandt, 1989
- ^ [4] Peter Schrijver - Keltisch en de buren: 9000 jaar taalcontact, University of Utrecht, March 2007.
- ^ Rix, H. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2 ed.).
- ^ Mayrhofer 1986: 170 ff.
- ^ Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 102. ISBN 1-4051-0316-7.
- ^ a b c Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. ISBN 1-55619-505-1.
- ^ Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07931-7.
- ^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press. pp. 402–24. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
- ^ Lehmann, Winfried P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 252–255. ISBN 0-415-08201-3.
[edit] References
- Beekes, Robert S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-2150-2 (Europe), ISBN 1-55619-504-4 (U.S.).
- Buck, Carl Darling (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 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.
- Mallory, J.P., (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27616-1
- Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986). Indogermanische Grammatik, i/2: Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
- Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Indo-European Linguistics. New York: de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-017433-2.
- Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology & Language. The Puzzle of the Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-02495-7
- Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-508345-8.
- Szemerényi, Oswald (1996). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford.
- Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110116, March, 1990
- Whitney, William Dwight (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Harvard University Press. ISBN 81-208-0621-2 (India), ISBN 0-486-43136-3 (Dover, US).
- Remys, Edmund, General distinguishing features of various Indo-European languages and their relationship to Lithuanian, Indogermanische Forschungen, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Band 112, 2007.
[edit] See also
 |
Look up Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
- Laryngeal theory
- Proto-Indo-Europeans
- Indo-European studies
- Proto-Indo-European religion
- Proto-Human language
- Indo-European s-mobile
[edit] Daughter proto-languages
- Proto-Armenian language
- Proto-Balto-Slavic language
- Proto-Celtic language
- Proto-Germanic language
- Proto-Greek language
- Proto-Indo-Iranian language
[edit] External links
- Indo-European Dictionary by Gerhard Köbler (contains Indo-European Grammar in Vorwort section) (German)
- Indo-European Etymological Dictionary by Julius Pokorny (University of Texas)
- Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo-European (by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov)
- Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches
- Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands
- The Early History of Indo-European Languages
- American Heritage Dictionary:
- Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, essay on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
- Indo-European Roots, index
- PIE theoretical grammar
- Indo-European Etymological Dictionary database (Leiden University)
- Indo-European Documentation Center at the University of Texas
- "The Indo-Uralic Verb" by Frederik Kortlandt
- Say something in Proto-Indo-European (by Geoffrey Sampson)
- An Overview of the Proto-Indo-European Verb System (by Piotr Gąsiorowski)
- Many PIE example texts
- PIE root etymology database (by S.L.Nikolaev and S.A.Starostin)
- On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey by Václav Blažek. Linguistica ONLINE. ISSN 1801-5336 (Brno, Czech Republic)
- List of Proto-Indo-European roots (from Wiktionary)
|
||||||||||||||
