Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbachmann (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 3 September 2005 (sorry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PIE redirects here. See Pie (disambiguation) for other uses of PIE.

The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages.

Part of a series on
Indo-European topics
Languages List of Indo-European languages Extant Albanoid Albanian Armenian Balto-Slavic Baltic Slavic Celtic Germanic Hellenic Greek Indo-Iranian Indo-Aryan Iranian Nuristani Italic Romance Extinct Anatolian Tocharian Paleo-Balkan Dacian Illyrian Liburnian Messapic Mysian Paeonian Phrygian Thracian Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language Phonology: Sound laws, Accent, Ablaut Hypothetical Balkanic Daco-Thracian Graeco-Albanian Graeco-Armenian Graeco-Aryan Graeco-Phrygian Indo-Hittite Italo-Celtic Thraco-Illyrian Grammar Vocabulary Root Verbs Nouns Pronouns Numerals Particles Other Proto-Albanian Proto-Anatolian Proto-Armenian Proto-Germanic (Proto-Norse) Proto-Italo-Celtic (Proto-Celtic · Proto-Italic) Proto-Greek Proto-Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic · Proto-Baltic) Proto-Indo-Iranian (Proto-Iranian)
Philology Hittite inscriptions Hieroglyphic Luwian Linear B Rigveda Avesta Homer Behistun Greek epigraphy Phrygian epigraphy Messapic epigraphy Latin epigraphy Gaulish epigraphy Runic epigraphy Ogham Gothic Bible Bible translations into Armenian Tocharian script Old Irish glosses Albanian Kanun
Origins Homeland Proto-Indo-Europeans Society Religion Mainstream Kurgan hypothesis Indo-European migrations Eurasian nomads Alternative and fringe Anatolian hypothesis Armenian hypothesis Beech argument Indigenous Aryanism Baltic homeland Paleolithic continuity theory
Archaeology Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Pontic Steppe Domestication of the horse Kurgan Kurgan stelae Kurgan culture Steppe cultures Bug–Dniester Sredny Stog Dnieper–Donets Samara Khvalynsk Yamnaya Mikhaylovka culture Novotitarovskaya culture Caucasus Maykop East Asia Afanasievo Eastern Europe Usatovo Cernavodă Cucuteni Northern Europe Corded ware Baden Middle Dnieper Bronze Age Pontic Steppe Chariot Yamnaya Catacomb Multi-cordoned ware Poltavka Srubnaya Northern/Eastern Steppe Abashevo culture Andronovo Sintashta Europe Globular Amphora Corded ware Bell Beaker Únětice Trzciniec Nordic Bronze Age Terramare Tumulus Urnfield Lusatian South Asia BMAC Yaz Gandhara grave Iron Age Steppe Chernoles Europe Thraco-Cimmerian Hallstatt Jastorf Caucasus Colchian India Painted Grey Ware Northern Black Polished Ware
Peoples and societies Bronze Age Anatolian peoples (Hittites) Armenians Mycenaean Greeks Indo-Iranians Iron Age Indo-Aryans Indo-Aryans Iranians Iranians East Asia Wusun Yuezhi Europe Celts Gauls Celtiberians Insular Celts Cimmerians Hellenic peoples Italic peoples Germanic peoples Paleo-Balkan/Anatolia Thracians Dacians Illyrians Paeonians Phrygians Scythians Middle Ages East Asia Tocharians Europe Albanians Balts Slavs Norsemen/Medieval Scandinavians Middle Ages Indo-Aryan Medieval India Iranian Greater Iran
Religion and mythology Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology Proto-Indo-Iranian paganism Historical Vedic religion Ancient Iranian religion Historical Hittite Indo-Aryan Vedic Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism Iranian Persian Zoroastrianism Kurdish Yazidism Yarsanism Scythian Ossetian Others Armenian European Paleo-Balkan (Albanian · Illyrian · Thracian · Dacian) Greek Roman Celtic Irish Scottish Breton Welsh Cornish Germanic Anglo-Saxon Continental Norse Baltic Latvian Lithuanian Slavic Practices Fire rituals Horse sacrifice Sati Winter solstice/Yule
Indo-European studies Scholars Marija Gimbutas J. P. Mallory Institutes Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European Publications Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture The Horse, the Wheel, and Language Journal of Indo-European Studies Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
v t e

PIE is not directly attested, as writing was not yet in use or accessible to the hypothesized speakers of the language, so all PIE sounds and words are reconstructed using the comparative method. The standard convention for marking unattested forms, the asterisk, is used for PIE: *wódr̥ "water", *ḱwṓn "dog", *tréyes "three (masculine)", etc. Many of the words in the modern Indo-European languages seem to have derived from such "protowords" via regular sound change (e.g., Grimm's law).

All Indo-European languages are inflected languages (although many modern Indo-European languages, including Modern English, have lost much of their inflection). By comparative reconstruction, it is highly assured that at least the latest stage of the common PIE mother languages (i.e. Late PIE) was an inflectional (and more suffixing than prefixing) language. However, by means of internal reconstruction and morphological (re-)analysis of the reconstructed, seemingly most archaic PIE word forms, it has recently been shown to be very probable that at a more distant stage (then: Early) PIE may have been a root-inflectional language like e.g. Proto-Semitic. As a consequence, it seems to be highly probable that PIE once was of the root-and-pattern morphological type (literature: Pooth (2004): "Ablaut und autosegmentale Morphologie: Theorie der uridg. Wurzelflexion", in: Arbeitstagung "Indogermanistik, Germanistik, Linguistik" in Jena, Sept. 2002).

Phonology

Proto-Indo-European is conjectured to have used the following phonemes:

Consonants

The table gives the most common notation in modern publications. Variant transcriptions are given below. Raised ʰ stands for aspiration. The existence of voiceless aspirate stops in the proto-language (pʰ, tʰ, ḱʰ, kʰ, kʷʰ) is disputed. According to the glottalic theory, the "voiced unaspirated stops" of the system as described above were phonetically ejectives, and the "voiced aspirated stops" were phonetically unaspirated.

Labials

p, b, bʰ

Coronals/Dentals

t, d, dʰ

Dorsals

Palatovelars

ḱ, ǵ, ǵʰ (also transcribed k', g', g'ʰ or k̑, g̑, g̑ʰ or k̂, ĝ, ĝʰ)

- or -like sounds which underwent a characteristic change in the Satem languages; they were possibly palatalized velars (, ) in Proto-Indo-European.

Labiovelars

kʷ, gʷ, gʷʰ (also transcribed k, g, g)

Raised ʷ stands for labialization, or lip-rounding accompanying the articulation of velar sounds ( is a sound similar to English qu in queen).

Velars

k, g, gʰ.

The existence of the plain velars as phonemes separate from the palatovelars and labiovelars is disputed. In most circumstances they appear to be allophones resulting from the neutralization of the other two series in particular phonetic circumstances. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the circumstances of the allophony are, although it is generally accepted that neutralization occurred after /s/ and /u/, and often before /r/. Most PIE linguists believe that all three series were distinct by late Proto-Indo-European, although a minority, including Frederik Kortlandt, believe that the plain velar series was a later development of certain satem languages; this view was originally articuled by Antoine Meillet in 1894. Those who support the view of the threefold distinction in PIE cite evidence fromAlbanian (Holger Pedersen, KZ 36 (1900), 277ff.; Norbert Jokl, Mél. Pedersen (1937) 127 ff.) and Armenian (Vittore Pisani, Ricerche Linguistiche 1 (1950) 165ff.) that they treated plain velars differently from the labiovelars in at least some circumstances, as well as the fact that Luwian apparently has distinct reflexes of all three series: *ḱ > z (probably ; *k > k; *kʷ > ku (probably ) (Craig Melchert, Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1987) 182–204). Kortlandt, however, disputes the significance of this evidence . Ultimately, this dispute may be unresolvable -- analogical developments tend to quickly obscure the original distribution of allophonic variants that have been phonemicized, and the time frame is too great and the evidence too meager to make definite conclusions as to when exactly this phonemicization happened.

Fricatives

s. The 'laryngeals' may have been fricatives, but there is no consensus as to their phonetic realization. There were also fricatives allophonic of t, s, usually transcribed þ, z.

Laryngeals

The symbols h₁, h₂ and h₃ stand for three hypothetical "laryngeal" phonemes. In non-laryngealistic theories, the corresponding phoneme is sometimes called schwa indogermanicum and transcribed ə.

Nasals and Liquids

r, l, m, n, with vocalic allophones r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥.

Semivowels

w, y (also transcribed u̯, i̯) with vocalic allophones u, i.

Vowels

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

Other long vowels may have appeared already in the proto-language by compensatory lengthening: ī, ū, r̥̄, l̥̄, m̥̄, n̥̄.

It is often suggested that all a sounds (short and long) were earlier derived from an e preceded or followed by h₂, but Mayrhofer (1986: 170 ff.) has argued that PIE did in fact have a and ā phonemes independent of h₂.

Historical development

The daughter branches have reduced the system of stops through various mergers (Beekes 1995):

• The centum group of languages merged the palatovelars /ḱ, ǵ, ǵ/ with the plain velars /k, g, g/.
• The satem group of languages merged the labiovelars /k, g, g/ with the plain velars /k, g, g/.
• Proto-Celtic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and Proto-Iranian merged the voiced aspirated series /b, d, ǵ, g, g/ with the plain voiced series /b, d, ǵ, g, g/.

Ablaut

Indo-European had a characteristic general ablaut sequence that contrasted the vowel phonemes o/e/Ø through the same root. See main article: Ablaut.

Noun

Nouns were declined for eight cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, ablative, locative, vocative) and three numbers (singular, plural, and dual). There were three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.

Pronoun

PIE pronouns are difficult to reconstruct due 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 (1995), there were also two varieties for the accusative, genitive and dative cases, a stressed and an enclitic form.

As for demonstratives, Beekes (1995) 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.

There was also an interrogative/indefinite pronoun with the stem ke-/ki- (adjectival ko-), and probably a relative pronoun with the stem io-. A third-person reflexive pronoun se (acc.), seue, sei (gen.), sébʰio, soi (dat.), parallel to the first and second person singular personal pronouns, also existed, as well as possessive pronominal adjectives.

PIE had a separate set of endings for pronouns; many of these were later borrowed as nominal endings.

Verb

The Indo-European verb system is complex and exhibits a system of ablaut, as is still visible in the Germanic languages (among others)—for example, the vowel in the English verb to sing varies according the the conjugation of the verb: sing, sang, and sung.

The system is clearly represented in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, two of the most completely attested of the early daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European.

Verbs have at least four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative, as well as possible 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.

A number of secondary forms could be created, such as the causative, intensive and desiderative; technically these were part of the derivational system rather than the inflectional system, as they existed only for certain verbs and did not necessarily have completely predictable meanings (compare the remnants of causative constructions in English – to fall vs. to fell, to sit vs. to set, to rise vs. to raise and to rear). The above-mentioned verbal nouns and adjectives were likewise part of the derivational system (compare the formation of verbal nouns in English, using -tion, -ence, -al, etc.), and it appears that the same originally applied to the different verb tenses. Some verbs in Ancient Greek still perfect tenses with unpredictable meanings – from histēmi "I set, I cause to stand": hestēka "I am standing"; from mimnēiskō "I remind": memnēmai "I remember"; from peithō "I persuade": pepoitha "I trust" as well as pepeika "I have persuaded"; from phūō "I produce": pephūka "I am (by nature)". The present tense in Ancient Greek and in Sanskrit is formed by the unpredictable addition of one of a number of suffixes (at least 10, in Sanksrit; at least 6, in Greek) to the verbal root; the aorist and perfect are likewise formed, in each case from their own set of suffixes (7 for the Sanskrit aorist, at least 3 for the Greek aorist), with little or no relation between the suffixes used in one tense and in another. (The perfect tense in Latin is likewise unpredictable, formed in one of at least six ways.) Sometimes more than one suffix can be applied to the same root, producing different present, aorist and/or perfect stems for the same verb, sometimes with the same meaning, sometimes with different meanings (see the above example with the Greek verb peithō). All of this suggests that the various tenses were originally independent lexical formations, similarly to the way that verbal nouns in English are formed unpredictably in English from different suffixes, sometimes with two or more formations that may differ in meaning: reference vs. referral, transference vs. transferral vs. transfer, recitation vs. recital, delivery vs. deliverance etc. (This is more understandable if you realize that the original meaning of these tenses was aspectual.) Only later, and gradually, were these various forms combined into a single set of inflectional paradigms. Vedic Sanskrit had still not completed the process, and even Ancient Greek has places where the old unorganized system still shows through. (As a result, verbs in Vedic Sanskrit have the appearance at first glance of a fantastically complex and disorganized system, with numerous redundancies combined with inexplicably missing holes. The system of PIE must have looked even more strongly like this.)

The primary distinction in verbs between the different ways of forming the present tenses was between thematic (/oː/) classes, with a "thematic" vowel /o/ or /e/ before the endings, and athematic (/mi/) classes, with endings added directly to the root. The endings themselves differed somewhat, at the very least in the first-person singular, with the endings as indicated (/oː/ vs. /mi/). Traditional accounts say that this is the only form where the endings differed, except for the presence or absence of the thematic vowel; but some newer researchers, e.g. Beekes (1995), have proposed a totally different set of thematic endings, based primarily on Greek and Lithuanian. These proposals are still controversial, however.

The original meanings of the past tenses (aorist, perfect and imperfect) are often assumed to match their meanings in Greek. That is, the aorist represents a single action in the past, viewed as a discrete event; the imperfect represents a repeated past action or a past action viewed as extending over time, with the focus on some point in the middle of the action; and the perfect represents a present state resulting from a past action. This corresponds, approximately, to the English distinction between "I ate", "I was eating" and "I have eaten", respectively. (Note that the English "I have eaten" often has the meaning, or at least the strong implication, of "I am in the state resulting from having eaten", in other words "I am now full". Similarly, "I have sent the letter" means approximately "The letter is now (in the state of having been) sent". However, the Greek, and presumably PIE, perfect, more strongly emphasizes the state resulting from an action, rather than the action itself, and can shade into a present tense.)

Note that in Greek the differences between the present, aorist and perfect tenses when used outside of the indicative (that is, in the subjunctive, optative, imperative, infinitive and participles) it almost entirely one of grammatical aspect, not tense. That is, the aorist refers to a simple action, the present to an ongoing action, and the perfect to a state resulting from a previous action. An aorist infinitive or imperative, for example, does not refer to a past action, and in fact for many verbs (e.g. "kill") would likely be more common than a present infinitive or imperative. (In some participial constructions, however, an aorist participle can have either a tensal or aspectual meaning.) It is assumed that this distinction of aspect was the original significance of the PIE "tenses", rather than any actual tense distinction, and that tense distinctions were originally indicated by means of adverbs, as in Chinese. However, it appears that by late PIE, the different tenses had already acquired a tensal meaning in particular contexts, as in Greek, and in later Indo-European languages this became dominant.

The meanings of the three tenses in the oldest Vedic Sanskrit, however, differs somewhat from their meanings in Greek, and thus it is not clear whether the PIE meanings corresponded exactly to the Greek meanings. In particular, the Vedic imperfect had a meaning that was close to the Greek aorist, and the Vedic aorist had a meaning that was close to the Greek perfect. Meanwhile, the Vedic perfect was often indistinguishable from a present tense (Whitney 1924). In the moods other than the indicative, the present, aorist and perfect were almost indistinguishable from each other. (The lack of semantic distinction between different grammatical forms in a literary language often indicates that some of these forms no longer existed in the spoken language of the time. In fact, in Classical Sanskrit, the subjunctive dropped out, as did all tenses of the optative and imperative other than the present; meanwhile, in the indicative the imperfect, aorist and perfect became largely interchangeable, and in later Classical Sanskrit, all three could be freely replaced by a participial construction. All of these developments appear to reflect changes in spoken Middle Indo-Aryan; among the past tenses, for example, only the aorist survived into early Middle Indo-Aryan, which was later displaced by a participial past tense.)

Numbers

The numbers 1 to 10 are generally reconstructed as follows:

• 'one': *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k()o-; *sem-
• 'two': *d(u)wo-
• 'three': *trey- (full grade)/*tri- (zero grade)
• 'four': *ketuor- (o-grade)/*ketur- (zero grade)
• 'five': *penke
• 'six':
• s(w)eḱs
• 'seven':
• septm̥
• 'eight':
• h₃eḱteh₃
• 'nine':
• h₁newn̥
• 'ten':
• deḱm̥

Relationship to other language families

Many higher-level relationships between PIE and other language families have been proposed. Due to the great time depths, there is necessarily a great deal of speculation involved, and as a result the proposals are very controversial. Perhaps the most widely accepted proposal is of an Indo-Uralic family, encompassing PIE and Uralic. The evidence usually cited in favor of this is the proximity of the proposed homelands of the two families, the typological similarity between the two languages, and a number of apparent shared morphemes. Other proposals, further back in time (and correspondingly less accepted), link PIE and Uralic with Altaic and certain other families in Asia, such as Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut (representative proposals are Nostratic and Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic); still more distant proposals link some or all of these to Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, etc., and ultimately to a single Proto-World family (nowadays mostly associated with Merritt Ruhlen). Various proposals, with varying levels of skepticism, also exist that join some subset of the putative Eurasiatic language families and/or some of the Caucasian language families, such as Uralo-Siberian, Ural-Altaic (once widely accepted but now largely discredited), Proto-Pontic, etc.

Example texts

• August Schleicher was the first scholar to compose a reconstructed text in PIE, known as Schleicher's fable, entitled Avis akvasas ka "The Sheep and the Horses" in 1868. Schleicher's reconstruction assumed that the o/e vocalism was secondary, and his PIE is much more closely based on Sanskrit than modern reconstructions.
  • Avis akvasas ka

    Avis, jasmin varna na a ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vagham garum vaghantam, tam, bharam magham, tam manum aku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams a vavakat; kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvasas a vavakant krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant- svas: manus patis varnam avisams karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varna na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram a bhugat.

  • A modernized version of the same tale was published by W. Lehmann and L. Zgusta in 1979:

    owis, kwesyo wlhna ne est, ekwons espeket, oinom ghe gwrum woghom weghontm, oinomkwe megam bhorom, oinomkwe ghmenm oku bherontm. Owis nu ekwobh(y)os ewewkwet: Ker aghnutoi moi ekwons agontm nerm widntei. Ekwos tu ewewkwont: Kludhi, owei, ker aghnutoi nsmei widntbh(y)os: ner, potis, owiom r wlhnam sebhi gwhermom westrom kwrneuti. Neghi owiom wlhna esti. Tod kekluwos owis agrom ebhuget.

  • literal translation:

    , a sheep, on whom wool isn't, horses saw, one a heavy wagon moving, and one a great burden, and one a man swiftly bearing. The sheep now to the horses said: The heart aches me, leading horses a man seeing. And the horses said: Listen, sheep, the heart aches us seeing: Man, master, to make himself from sheep's wool warm garment, and for the sheep, there is no wool. Having heard that, the sheep ran away from the field.

• The king and Varuna, a short dialogue composed in Proto-Indo-Aryan by S.K. Sen
  • projected back into PIE by S.K. Sen, E.P. Hamp et al., from the EIEC (1997) :

    To réecs éhest. So nputlos éhest. So réecs súhnum éwelt.

    Só tóso cceutérm prcscet: "Súhnus moi jnhyotaam!"

    So cceutéer tom réejm éweuqet: "Ihgeswo deiwóm Wérunom".

    So réecs deiwóm Werunom húpo-sesore nu deiwóm ihgeto.

    "Cluttí moi, phter Werune!"

    Deiwós Wérunos kmta diwós égweht.

    "Qíd welsi?" "Wélmi súhnum."

    "Tód héstu", wéuqet loukós deiwos Werunos.

    Reejós pótnih súhnum gegonhe.

  • English translantion:

    Once there was a king. He was childless. The king wanted a son.

    He asked his priest: "May a son be born to me!"

    The priest said to the king: "Pray to the god Varuna".

    The king approached the god Varuna to pray now to the god.

    "Hear me, father Varuna!"

    The god Varuna came down from heaven.

    "What do you want?" "I want a son."

    "Let this be so", said the bright god Varuna.

    The king's lady bore a son

References

1. Template:Book reference link
2. Template:Book reference link
3. Template:Book reference link
4. Template:Book reference link

External links

• American Heritage Dictionary:
  • Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, essay on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
  • Indo-European Roots, index
• Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (Leiden University)
• Indo-European Documentation Center at the University of Texas
• Say something in Proto-Indo-European (by Geoffrey Sampson)
• An Overview of the Proto-Indo-European Verb System (by Piotr Gąsiorowski)
• Christian prayers projected to PIE by Raphael Sawitzky.
• Other PIE example texts

• Proto-languages
• Extinct languages
• Indo-European