SUPPORT THE WORK

GetWiki

Proto-Indo-European language

ARTICLE SUBJECTS
aesthetics  →
being  →
complexity  →
database  →
enterprise  →
ethics  →
fiction  →
history  →
internet  →
knowledge  →
language  →
licensing  →
linux  →
logic  →
method  →
news  →
perception  →
philosophy  →
policy  →
purpose  →
religion  →
science  →
sociology  →
software  →
truth  →
unix  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE TYPES
essay  →
feed  →
help  →
system  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE ORIGINS
critical  →
discussion  →
forked  →
imported  →
original  →
Proto-Indo-European language
[ temporary import ]
please note:
- the content below is remote from Wikipedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{Redirect|PIE|other uses|PIE (disambiguation)}}{{Indo-European topics}}{{PIE notice}}Proto-Indo-European (PIE)WEB,weblink Archaeology et al: an Indo-European study, 2018-04-11, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, The University of Edinburgh, 2018-12-01, WEB,weblink Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, López-Menchero, Fernando, 2012, Indo-European Language Association, 2018-12-01, is the linguistic reconstruction of the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, the most widely spoken language family in the world.Far more work has gone into reconstructing PIE than any other proto-language, and it is by far the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. The vast majority of linguistic work during the 19th century was devoted to the reconstruction of PIE or its daughter proto-languages (such as Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-Iranian), and most of the modern techniques of linguistic reconstruction (such as the comparative method) were developed as a result. These methods supply all current knowledge concerning PIE since there is no written record of the language.PIE is estimated to have been spoken as a single language from 4500 BC to 2500 BCWEB,weblink Telling Tales in Proto-Indo-European, Archaeology, Powell, Eric A., 2017-07-30, during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, though estimates vary by more than a thousand years. According to the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of Eastern Europe. The linguistic reconstruction of PIE has also provided insight into the culture and religion of its speakers.BOOK, Indo-European language and culture: an introduction, Fortson, Benjamin W., Blackwell, 2004, 1405103159, Malden, Mass, 16, 54529041, harv, As Proto-Indo-Europeans became isolated from each other through the Indo-European migrations, the Proto-Indo-European language became spoken by the various groups in regional dialects which then underwent the Indo-European sound laws divergence, and along with shifts in morphology, these dialects slowly but eventually transformed into the known ancient Indo-European languages. From there, further linguistic divergence led to the evolution of their current descendants, the modern Indo-European languages. Today, the descendant languages, or daughter languages, of PIE with the most native speakers are Spanish, English, Portuguese, Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu), Bengali, Russian, Punjabi, German, Persian, French, Italian and Marathi. Hundreds of other living descendants of PIE range from languages as diverse as Albanian (), Kurdish (), Nepali (), Tsakonian (), Ukrainian (), and Welsh ().PIE had an elaborate system of morphology that included inflectional suffixes (analogous to English life, lives, life's, lives'‍) as well as ablaut (vowel alterations, for example, as preserved in English sing, sang, sung) and accent. PIE nominals and pronouns had a complex system of declension, and verbs similarly had a complex system of conjugation. The PIE phonology, particles, numerals, and copula are also well-reconstructed.An asterisk is used to mark reconstructed words, such as *{{PIE|wódrÌ¥}} 'water', *{{PIE|ḱwṓ}} 'dog' (English hound), or *{{PIE|tréyes}} 'three (masculine)'.

Development of the hypothesis

No direct evidence of PIE remains – scholars have reconstructed PIE from its present-day descendants using the comparative method.WEB,weblink Linguistics – The comparative method {{!, science|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=Encyclopedia Brittanica|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=27 July 2016}}The comparative method follows the Neogrammarian rule: the Indo-European sound laws apply without exception. The method compares languages and uses the sound laws to find a common ancestor. For example, compare the pairs of words in Italian and English: piede and foot, padre and father, pesce and fish. Since there is a consistent correspondence of the initial consonants that emerges far too frequently to be coincidental, one can assume that these languages stem from a common parent-language.WEB, Comparative linguistics,weblink Encyclopædia Britannica, 27 August 2016, Many consider William Jones, an Anglo-Welsh philologist and puisne judge in Bengal, to have begun Indo-European studies in 1786, when he postulated the common ancestry of Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek.WEB,weblink Sir William Jones {{!, British orientalist and jurist|access-date= 3 September 2016}} However, he was not the first to make this observation. In the 1500s, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent became aware of similarities between Indo-Iranian languages and European languages,BOOK, Sylvain, Auroux, History of the Language Sciences, 1156, 3-11-016735-2, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 2000,weblink and as early as 1653 Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn had published a proposal for a proto-language ("Scythian") for the following language families: Germanic, Romance, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, and Iranian.Roger Blench, Archaeology and Language: methods and issues. In: A Companion To Archaeology. J. Bintliff ed. 52–74. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2004. In a memoir sent to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in 1767 Gaston-Laurent Coeurdoux, a French Jesuit who spent all his life in India, had specifically demonstrated the analogy between Sanskrit and European languages.WEB, Kip, Wheeler, The Sanskrit Connection: Keeping Up With the Joneses,weblink Dr.Wheeler's Website, 16 April 2013, In some ways, Jones' work was less accurate than his predecessors', as he erroneously included Egyptian, Japanese and Chinese in the Indo-European languages, while omitting Hindi.In 1818 Rasmus Christian Rask elaborated the set of correspondences to include other Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit and Greek, and the full range of consonants involved. In 1816 Franz Bopp published On the System of Conjugation in Sanskrit in which he investigated a common origin of Sanskrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, and German. In 1833 he began publishing the Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Slavic, Gothic, and German.WEB,weblink Franz Bopp {{!, German philologist|access-date= 26 August 2016}}In 1822 Jacob Grimm formulated what became known as Grimm's law as a general rule in his Deutsche Grammatik. Grimm showed correlations between the Germanic and other Indo-European languages and demonstrated that sound change systematically transforms all words of a language.WEB,weblink Grimm's law {{!, linguistics|access-date= 26 August 2016}} From the 1870s the Neogrammarians proposed that sound laws have no exceptions, as shown in Verner's law, published in 1876, which resolved apparent exceptions to Grimm's law by exploring the role that accent (stress) had played in language change.WEB,weblink Neogrammarian {{!, German scholar|access-date= 26 August 2016}}August Schleicher's A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin Languages (1874–77) represented an early attempt to reconstruct the proto-Indo-European language.WEB,weblink August Schleicher {{!, German linguist|access-date= 26 August 2016}}By the early 1900s Indo-Europeanists had developed well-defined descriptions of PIE which scholars still accept today. Later, the discovery of the Anatolian and Tocharian languages added to the corpus of descendant languages. A new principle won wide acceptance in the laryngeal theory, which explained irregularities in the linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonology as the effects of hypothetical sounds which had disappeared from all documented languages, but which were later observed in excavated cuneiform tablets in Anatolian.Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch ("Indo-European Etymological Dictionary", 1959) gave a detailed, though conservative, overview of the lexical knowledge then accumulated. Kuryłowicz's 1956 Apophonie gave a better understanding of Indo-European ablaut. From the 1960s, knowledge of Anatolian became robust enough to establish its relationship to PIE.File:IndoEuropeanTree.svg|thumb|center|upright=2.5|Classification of Indo-European languages. Red: Extinct languages. White: categories or unattested proto-languages. Left half: centum languages; right half: satemsatem

Historical and geographical setting

Multiple hypotheses have been suggested about when, where, and by whom PIE was spoken. The Kurgan hypothesis, first put forward by Marija Gimbutas, is the most popular of these.JOURNAL, Ringe, Done, 2015, The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives, Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 199–219, Anthony, David W., 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812, BOOK, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, 1991, Thames & Hudson, 978-0500276167, 185, Mallory, J. P., It proposes that the Yamna culture of the Kurgans from the Pontic–Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea were the original speakers of PIE.BOOK, (The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, The horse, the wheel, and language: how bronze-age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world), 2007, Princeton University Press, 0-691-05887-3, 8th reprint., Princeton, N.J., Anthony, David W., David W. Anthony, WEB,weblink Mysterious Indo-European homeland may have been in the steppes of Ukraine and Russia, Balter, Michael, 13 February 2015, Science, 10.1126/science.aaa7858, 17 February 2015, According to the theory, PIE became widespread because its speakers, the Kurgans, were able to migrate into a vast area of Europe and Asia, thanks to technologies such as the domestication of the horse, herding, and the use of wheeled vehicles.The people of these cultures were nomadic pastoralists, who, according to the model, by the early 3rd millennium BC had expanded throughout the Pontic–Caspian steppe and into Eastern Europe.JOURNAL, Gimbutas, Marija, 1985, Primary and Secondary Homeland of the Indo-Europeans: comments on Gamkrelidze-Ivanov articles, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 13, 1–2, 185–202, Other theories include the Anatolian hypothesis,{{Citation|title=Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family|date=24 August 2012|last1=Bouckaert|last2=Lemey|last3=Dunn|last4=Greenhill|last5=Alekseyenko|last6=Drummond|last7=Gray|last8=Suchard|first1=Remco|first2=P.|first3=M.|first4=S. J.|first5=A. V.|first6=A. J.|first7=R. D.|first8=M. A.|journal=Science|volume=337|issue=6097|pages=957–960|doi=10.1126/science.1219669|pmc=4112997|pmid=22923579|display-authors=etal|bibcode=2012Sci...337..957B|url=http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1539154/component/escidoc:1539165/Bouckaert_2012.pdf}} the Armenia hypothesis, the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, and the indigenous Aryans theory.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}}Due to early language contact, there are some lexical similarities between the Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European languages.Gamkrelidze, Th. & Ivanov, V. (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. 2 Vols. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.An overview mapWEB,weblink Various hypothesis on origin of Indo-European language., summarizes theories presented above.NEWS,weblink Paleolithic Continuity Theory: Assumptions and Problems, 2015-04-02, Languages Of The World, 2018-01-23, en-US,

Subfamilies (clades)

The following are listed by their theoretical glottochronological development:WEB,weblink On the internal classification of Indo-European languages: survey, Blažek, Václav, 30 July 2016, {{Citation|title=Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin|date=27 November 2003|url=http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/files/gray_and_atkinson2003/grayatkinson2003.pdf|last1=Gray|last2=Atkinson|first1=Russell D|first2=Quentin D|journal=Nature|volume=426|issue=6965|pages=435–39|place=NZ|publisher=Auckland|format=PDF|doi=10.1038/nature02029|pmid=14647380|bibcode=2003Natur.426..435G}}{| class="wikitable"!

Subfamily clades

!Description!Modern descendants
Proto-Anatolian language>Proto-Anatolian|All now extinct, the best attested being the Hittite language.|None
Proto-Tocharian language>Proto-Tocharian|An extinct branch known from manuscripts dating from the 6th to the 8th century AD, which were found in north-west China.|None
Proto-Italic language>Proto-Italic|This included many languages, but only descendants of Latin survive.Portuguese language>Portuguese and Galician language, Occitan languages>Occitan, Spanish language, Catalan language>Catalan, French language, Italian language>Italian, Romanian language, Aromanian language>Aromanian, Rhaeto-Romance languages, Sardinian language>Sardinian
Proto-Celtic language>Proto-Celtic|The ancestor of modern Celtic languages. Once spoken across Europe, but now mostly confined to its northwestern edge.Irish language>Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh language, Breton language>Breton, Cornish language, Manx language>Manx
Proto-Germanic language>Proto-GermanicGermanic languages. It developed into three branches: West Germanic languages>West Germanic, East Germanic languages (now extinct), and North Germanic languages>North Germanic.English language>English, German language, Afrikaans, Dutch language>Dutch, Norwegian language, Danish language>Danish, Swedish language, Frisian languages>Frisian, Icelandic language, Faroese language>Faroese
Proto-Balto-Slavic language>Proto-Balto-Slavic|Branched into the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages. Latvian language>Latvian and Lithuanian language; Slavic Russian language>Russian, Ukrainian language, Belarusian language>Belarusian, Polish language, Czech language>Czech, Slovak language, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian language>Bulgarian, Slovenian Language, Macedonian language>Macedonian
Proto-Indo-Iranian language>Proto-Indo-IranianIndo-Aryan languages>Indo-Aryan, Iranian languages and Nuristani languages>Nuristani languages.Hindustani language>Hindustani, Bengali language, Sinhala language>Sinhala, Punjabi language, Dardic languages>Dardic; Iranic Persian language, Pashto, Balochi language>Balochi, Kurdish languages, Zaza language>Zaza, Ossetian language, Luri language>Luri, Talysh language, Tati language (Iran)>Tati, Gilaki language, Mazanderani language>Mazandarani, Semnani language, Old Azeri language>Old Azeri (extinct); Nuristani
Proto-Armenian language>Proto-Armenian||Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian
Proto-Greek language>Proto-Greek|Modern Greek, Pontic Greek>Romeyka, Tsakonian
Proto-Albanian language>Proto-AlbanianFORMAT=PDF ACCESSDATE=22 SEPTEMBER 2010 ARCHIVEDATE= 5 NOVEMBER 2010, no, Albanian language>Albanian
Common subgroups of Indo-European languages which are proposed include Italo-Celtic, Graeco-Aryan, Graeco-Armenian, Graeco-Phrygian, Daco-Thracian, and Thraco-Illyrian.

Marginally attested languages

The Lusitanian language is a marginally attested language found in the area of modern Portugal.The Paleo-Balkan languages, which occur in or near the Balkan peninsula, do not appear to be members of any of the subfamilies of PIE but are so poorly attested that proper classification of them is not possible. Albanian and Greek are the only surviving Indo-European languages in the group.

Phonology

Proto-Indo-European phonology has been reconstructed in some detail. Notable features of the most widely accepted (but not uncontroversial) reconstruction include:
  • three series of stop consonants reconstructed as voiceless, voiced, and breathy voiced;
  • sonorant consonants that could be used syllabically;
  • three so-called laryngeal consonants, whose exact pronunciation is not well-established but which are believed to have existed in part based on their visible effects on adjacent sounds;
  • the fricative /s/; and
  • a five-vowel system of which /e/ and /o/ were the most frequently occurring vowels.
The Proto-Indo-European accent is reconstructed today as having had variable lexical stress, which could appear on any syllable and whose position often varied among different members of a paradigm (e.g. between singular and plural of a verbal paradigm). Stressed syllables received a higher pitch; therefore it is often said that PIE had pitch accent. The location of the stress is associated with ablaut variations, especially between normal-grade vowels (/e/ and /o/) and zero-grade (i.e. lack of a vowel), but not entirely predictable from it.The accent is best preserved in Vedic Sanskrit and (in the case of nouns) Ancient Greek, and indirectly attested in a number of phenomena in other IE languages. To account for mismatches between the accent of Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, as well as a few other phenomena, a few historical linguists prefer to reconstruct PIE as a tone language where each morpheme had an inherent tone; the sequence of tones in a word then evolved, according to that hypothesis, into the placement of lexical stress in different ways in different IE branches.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}}

Morphology

Root

Proto-Indo-European roots were affix-lacking morphemes which carried the core lexical meaning of a word and were used to derive related words (e.g., "-friend-" in the English words "befriend", "friends", and "friend" by itself). Proto-Indo-European was a fusional language, in which inflectional morphemes signalled the grammatical relationships between words. This dependence on inflectional morphemes means that roots in PIE, unlike those found in English, were rarely found by themselves. A root plus a suffix formed a word stem, and a word stem plus a desinence (usually an ending) formed a word.{{sfnp|Fortson|2004|p=16}}

Ablaut

Many morphemes in Proto-Indo-European had short e as their inherent vowel; the Indo-European ablaut is the change of this short e to short o, long e (ē), long o (ō), or no vowel. This variation in vowels occurred both within inflectional morphology (e.g., different grammatical forms of a noun or verb may have different vowels) and derivational morphology (e.g., a verb and an associated abstract verbal noun may have different vowels).{{sfnp|Fortson|2004|pp=73–74}}Categories that PIE distinguished through ablaut were often also identifiable by contrasting endings, but the loss of these endings in some later Indo-European languages has led them to use ablaut alone to identify grammatical categories, as in the Modern English words sing, sang, sung.

Noun

Proto-Indo-European nouns are declined for eight or nine cases:{{sfnp|Fortson|2004|p=102}}
  • nominative: marks the subject of a verb, such as They in They ate. Words that follow a linking verb and rename the subject of that verb also use the nominative case. Thus, both They and linguists are in the nominative case in They are linguists. The nominative is the dictionary form of the noun.
  • accusative: used for the direct object of a transitive verb.
  • genitive: marks a noun as modifying another noun.
  • dative: used to indicate the indirect object of a transitive verb, such as Jacob in Maria gave Jacob a drink.
  • instrumental: marks the instrument or means by, or with which, the subject achieves or accomplishes an action. It may be either a physical object or an abstract concept.
  • ablative: used to express motion away from something.
  • locative: corresponds vaguely to the English prepositions in, on, at, and by.
  • vocative: used for a word that identifies an addressee. A vocative expression is one of direct address where the identity of the party spoken to is set forth expressly within a sentence. For example, in the sentence, "I don't know, John", John is a vocative expression that indicates the party being addressed.
  • allative: used as a type of locative case that expresses movement towards something. Only the Anatolian languages maintain this case, and it may not have existed in Proto-Indo-European at all.{{sfnp|Fortson|2004|pp=102, 105}}
There were three grammatical genders:
  • masculine
  • feminine
  • neuter

Pronoun

Proto-Indo-European pronouns are difficult to reconstruct, owing to their variety in later languages. PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second grammatical person, but not the third person, where demonstrative pronouns 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. There were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.BOOK, Beekes, Robert, Gabriner, Paul, Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction, 1995, J. Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 978-1556195044, 147, 212–217, 233, 243, {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"|+ Personal pronouns ! rowspan="2" |! colspan="2" | First person! colspan="2" | 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}}*nsmoí}}*toí}}*usmoí}}
! Ablative
*h₁med}}*nsmed}}*tued}}*usmed}}
! Locative
*h₁moí}}*nsmi}}*toí}}*usmi}}

Verb

Proto-Indo-European verbs, like the nouns, exhibited a system of ablaut. The most basic categorization for the Indo-European verb was grammatical aspect. Verbs were classed as:
  • stative: verbs that depict a state of being
  • imperfective: verbs depicting ongoing, habitual or repeated action
  • perfective: verbs depicting a completed action or actions viewed as an entire process.
Verbs have at least four grammatical moods:
  • indicative: indicates that something is a statement of fact; in other words, to express what the speaker considers to be a known state of affairs, as in declarative sentences.
  • imperative: forms commands or requests, including the giving of prohibition or permission, or any other kind of advice or exhortation.
  • subjunctive: used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, obligation, or action that has not yet occurred
  • optative: indicates a wish or hope. It is similar to the cohortative mood and is closely related to the subjunctive mood.
Verbs had two grammatical voices: Verbs had three grammatical persons: (first, second and third)Verbs had three grammatical numbers:
  • singular
  • dual: referring to precisely two of the entities (objects or persons) identified by the noun or pronoun.
  • plural: a number other than singular or dual.
Verbs were also marked by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination of tense and voice, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and adjectival formations.The following table shows a possible reconstruction of the PIE verb endings from Sihler, which largely represents the current consensus among Indo-Europeanists.{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |! colspan="2"|Sihler (1995)BOOK, Andrew Sihler, Sihler, Andrew L., New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin, 1995, Oxford Univ. Press, New York u. a., 0-19-508345-8, ! Athematic! Thematic
! rowspan=3 | Singular! 1st
*-mi}}*-ohâ‚‚}}
! 2nd
*-si}}*-esi}}
! 3rd
*-ti}}*-eti}}
! rowspan=3 | Dual! 1st
*-wos}}*-owos}}
! 2nd
*-th₁es}}*-eth₁es}}
! 3rd
*-tes}}*-etes}}
! rowspan=3 | Plural! 1st
*-mos}}*-omos}}
! 2nd
*-te}}*-ete}}
! 3rd
*-nti}}*-onti}}

Numbers

Proto-Indo-European numerals are generally reconstructed as follows:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"!!Sihler|one
*(H)óynos/*(H)óywos/*(H)óyk(ʷ)os; *sḗm}}
|two
*d(u)wóh₁}}
|three
*tréyes}} (full grade), {{PIE|*tri-}} (zero grade)
|four
*kʷetwóres}} (o-grade), {{PIE|*kʷ(e)twr̥-}} (zero grade)(see also the kʷetwóres rule)
|five
*pénkʷe}}
|six
*s(w)éḱs}}; originally perhaps {{PIE|*wéḱs}}
|seven
*septḿ̥}}
|eight
*oḱtṓ(w)}} or {{PIE|*h₃eḱtṓ(w)}}
|nine
*h₁néwn̥}}
|ten
*déḱm̥(t)}}
Rather than specifically 100, {{PIE|*ḱm̥tóm}} may originally have meant "a large number".{{Citation|last=Lehmann|first=Winfried P|title=Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics|year=1993|postscript=|pages=252–55|location=London|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0-415-08201-3}}

Particle

Proto-Indo-European particles could be used both as adverbs and postpositions, like {{PIE|*upo}} "under, below". The postpositions became prepositions in most daughter languages. Other reconstructible particles include negators ({{PIE|*ne, *mē}}), conjunctions ({{PIE|*kʷe}} "and", {{PIE|*wē}} "or" and others) and an interjection ({{PIE|*wai!}}, an expression of woe or agony).

Syntax

The syntax of the older Indo-European languages has been studied in earnest since at least the late nineteenth century, by such scholars as Hermann Hirt and Berthold Delbrück. In the second half of the twentieth century, interest in the topic increased and led to reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European syntax.ENCYCLOPEDIA, Preface, Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development, Leonid, Kulikov, Nikolaos, Lavidas, John Benjamins, 2015, Since all the early attested IE languages were inflectional, PIE is thought to have relied primarily on morphological markers, rather than word order, to signal syntactic relationships within sentences.{{r|eiec}} Still, a default (unmarked) word order is thought to have existed in PIE. This was reconstructed by Jacob Wackernagel as being subject–verb–object (SVO), based on evidence in Vedic Sanskrit, and the SVO hypothesis still has some adherents, but {{as of|2015|lc=y}} the "broad consensus" among PIE scholars is that PIE would have been a subject–object–verb (SOV) language.ENCYCLOPEDIA, Proto-Indo-European verb-finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation, Hans Henrich, Hock, Hans Henrich Hock, Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development, Leonid, Kulikov, Nikolaos, Lavidas, John Benjamins, 2015, The SOV default word order with other orders used to express emphasis (e.g., verb–subject–object to emphasise the verb) is attested in Old Indic, Old Iranian, Old Latin and Hittite, while traces of it can be found in the enclitic personal pronouns of the Tocharian languages.ENCYCLOPEDIA, J. P., Mallory, Douglas Q., Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Proto-Indo-European, Taylor & Francis, 1997, 463, A shift from OV to VO order is posited to have occurred in late PIE since many of the descendant languages have this order: modern Greek, Romance and Albanian prefer SVO, Insular Celtic has VSO as the default order, and even the Anatolian languages show some signs of this word order shift.{{r|lehmann}} The inconsistent order preference in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic can be attributed to contact with outside OV languages.BOOK,weblink Proto-Indo-European Syntax, Lehmann, Winfred P., University of Texas Press, 1974, 250, Winfred P. Lehmann,

In popular culture

The Ridley Scott film Prometheus features an android named "David" (played by Michael Fassbender) who learns Proto-Indo-European to communicate with the "Engineer", an extraterrestrial whose race may have created humans. David practices PIE by reciting Schleicher's fableWEB, Roush, George, 20 June 2012, 'Prometheus' Secret Revealed: What Did David Say to the Engineer,weblink Screen Crush, 29 July 2017, and goes on to attempt communication with the Engineer through PIE. Linguist Dr Anil Biltoo created the film's reconstructed dialogue and had an onscreen role teaching David Schleicher's fable.WEB, O'Brien, Lucy, 14 October 2012, Designing Prometheus,weblink IGN, 29 July 2017,

See also

References

{{Reflist}}

Further reading

  • {{Citation |title=The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World | authorlink=J. P. Mallory|last = Mallory |first=JP |last2= Adams|first2=DQ |authorlink2= Douglas Q. Adams |year= 2006 |publisher= Oxford University Press | location =Oxford|isbn= 9780199296682}}
  • {{citation |first= Michael|last= Meier-Brügger| authorlink= Meier-Brügger| title= Indo-European Linguistics| location= New York | publisher = de Gruyter |year=2003|isbn=3-11-017433-2}}
  • {{citation |first=Oswald|last=Szemerényi|authorlink=Oswald Szemerényi|title=Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics |publisher = Oxford |year=1996}}

External links

{{Wiktionary|Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots}} {{Proto-Indo-European language}}{{Authority control}}{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2017}}

- content above as imported from Wikipedia
- "Proto-Indo-European language" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
- time: 7:00am EST - Sat, Feb 16 2019
[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016
GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015
M.R.M. Parrott
Biographies
GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 18 AUG 2014
Wikinfo
Culture
CONNECT