Family tree of Indo-European languages: examples, language groups, features. Family tree of Indo-European languages: examples, language groups, features The problem of the number of guttural rows
When formal semantic similarities are detected between two or more languages, i.e. similarities in two planes simultaneously, both signifying and signified signs of these languages, the question naturally arises about the reasons for the emergence of such similarities in the signs of different languages. Based on the thesis about the limited arbitrariness of a sign, such a formal-semantic coincidence of different signs could be interpreted as the fact of a random coincidence of two or more signs of different languages. The likelihood of the coincidence hypothesis to account for such similarities will decrease in proportion to the increase in the number of languages in which such similar signs are found, and even more so as the number of signs in those languages in which such similarities or matches increase. Another more likely hypothesis for explaining such coincidences in the corresponding signs of two or more languages should be the explanation of this similarity by historical contacts between languages and the borrowing of words from one language into another (or into several languages) or into both of these languages from a third source. A comparison of languages, focused on establishing regular phonemic correspondences, should logically lead to the reconstruction of the language model, the transformation of which in different directions gave us historically attested language systems. [Neroznak, 1988: 145-157]
Today, it is most often believed that the area of the original or fairly early distribution of speakers of the Indo-European language extended from Central Europe and the Northern Balkans to the Black Sea region (southern Russian steppes). At the same time, some researchers believe that the initial center of irradiation of Indo-European languages and cultures lay in the Middle East, in close proximity to the speakers of Kartvelian, Afroasiatic and, probably, Dravidian and Ural-Altaic languages. Traces of these contacts give rise to the Nostratic hypothesis.
Indo-European linguistic unity could have its source either in a single proto-language, a base language (or, rather, a group of closely related dialects), or in a situation of linguistic union as a result of the convergent development of a number of initially different languages. Both perspectives, in principle, do not contradict each other; one of them usually gains predominance in a certain period of development of a linguistic community.
Relations between members of the Indo-European family were constantly changing due to frequent migrations, and therefore the currently accepted classification of Indo-European languages must be adjusted when referring to different stages in the history of this linguistic community. Earlier periods are characterized by the proximity of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian, Baltic and Slavic languages, the proximity of Italic and Celtic is less noticeable. The Baltic, Slavic, Thracian, Albanian languages have many common features with Indo-Iranian languages, and the Italic and Celtic languages with Germanic, Venetian and Illyrian.
The main features characterizing the relatively ancient state of the Indo-European source language:
1) in phonetics: the functioning of [e] and [o] as variants of one phoneme; the probability that vowels at an earlier stage lack phonemic status; [a] special role in the system; the presence of laryngeals, the disappearance of which led to the opposition of long and short vowels, as well as to the appearance of melodic stress; distinguishing between voiced, voiceless and aspirated stops; the difference between the three rows of back linguals, the tendency towards palatalization and labialization of consonants in certain positions;
2) in morphology: heteroclitic declination; the probable presence of an ergative (active) case; a relatively simple case system and the later appearance of a number of indirect cases from combinations of a name with a postposition, etc.; the proximity of the nominative with -s and the genitive with the same element; the presence of an “indefinite” case; the opposition of animate and inanimate classes, which gave rise to the three-genus system; the presence of two series of verb forms, which led to the development of thematic and athematic conjugation, transitivity/intransitivity, activity/inactivity; the presence of two series of personal endings of the verb, which became the reason for the differentiation of present and past tenses and mood forms; the presence of forms ending in -s, which led to the appearance of one of the classes of present stems, the sigmatic aorist, a number of mood forms and a derivative conjugation;
3) in syntax: interdependence of the places of sentence members; the role of particles and preverbs; the beginning of the transition of a number of full-valued words into service elements; some initial features of analyticism.
17. Indo-European family of languages.
Many language families are divided into branches, which are often called small families or groups. A language branch is a smaller subdivision of languages than a family. The languages of one branch retain fairly close family ties and have many similarities.
Among the languages of the Indo-European family, there are branches that unite the languages Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Romance, Greek (Greek group), Celtic, Illyrian, Indian (otherwise Indo-Aryan), Indo-Iranian (Aryan), Tocharian, etc. In addition, in the Indo-European language the family has “single” languages (i.e., not forming special branches): Albanian, Armenian, Venetian, Thracian and Phrygian.
The term Indo-European languages ( English Indo- European languages) was first introduced by an English scientist Thomas Young V 1813.
The languages of the Indo-European family originate from a singleProto-Indo-European language , whose carriers probably lived about 5-6 thousand years ago. It is one of the largest families of Eurasian languages, which over the past five centuries has also spread to North and South America, Australia and partly to Africa. There are several hypotheses about the place of origin of the Proto-Indo-European language (in particular, regions such as East Europe, Western Asia, steppe territories at the junction Europe And Asia). With a high probability, the archaeological culture of the ancient Indo-Europeans (or one of their branches) can be considered the so-called "pit culture", whose carriers in the 3rd millennium BC. e. lived in the east of modern Ukraine and the south of Russia.
The ancient state of the source language of the Indo-European language (it would be imprudent to attribute the following picture necessarily to the Indo-European proto-language) was apparently characterized by the following features: in phonetics- the presence of “e” and “o” as options for a single morphonemes(it follows that for an earlier period vowels might not have been phonemes), the special role of “a” in the system, the presence laryngeal, related to the formation of the opposition longitude - brevity (or corresponding intonation or even tone differences); the presence of three rows of stops, usually interpreted as voiced, voiceless, aspirated (for an earlier period, the interpretation may have to be different, in particular, it should take into account the contrast between tension and non-tension), three rows of back linguals, previously reduced to simpler relations; tendency towards palatalization certain consonants in one group of the Indo-European language and to labialization them in another; possible positional (in a word) motivation for the appearance of certain classes of stops (i.e. rules distribution, subsequently often invalid); V morphology- heteroclitic declension, combining in one paradigm different types of declination, probable presence ergative(“active”) case, recognized by many researchers, is relatively simple case system with the further development of oblique cases from previously non-paradigmatic formations (for example, from the syntactic combination of a name with postposition, particle etc.); the known proximity of the nominative with ‑s and the genitive with the same element, suggesting a single source of these forms; the presence of an “indefinite” case (casus indefinitus); opposition animate and inanimate classes that subsequently gave rise to the three-genus (via two-genus) system; presence of two series verbal forms (conditionally on ‑mi and ‑Hi/oH), which determined the development of a number of other categories - thematic and athematic conjugations, media passive and perfect forms, transitivity/intransitivity, activity/inactivity; two series of personal verb endings, with the help of which, in particular, they differentiated real And past time, forms of moods, etc.; stems in ‑s, from which one of the classes of presentative stems, the sigmatic aorist, a number of mood forms and a derivative conjugation arose; V syntax- structure offers indicating the interdependence and place of its members, determined by the so-called Wackernagel law (see. Wackernagel's law); the role of particles and preverbs; the presence of full-valued status for words that later turned into auxiliary elements; some syntactic features of the original analyticism (with individual elements of the “isolating” structure), etc.
Just as during more than a century and a half of the development of Indo-European linguistics, the understanding of the composition of I. i. usually changed in the direction of increasing languages (thus, the original core - Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Germanic - expanded at the expense of Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, later Albanian and Armenian, already in the 20th century - at the expense of Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian, etc. etc.; however, opposite cases are also known - an exception from the number of Indo-European languages. Georgian or Kawi), it is not completely stable even now: on the one hand, there are some languages that are being intensively tested for their possible belonging to Indo-European languages (like Etruscan or some other, not yet deciphered languages), on the other hand, the Indo-European languages themselves in a number constructions are derived from an isolated state (for example, P. Kretschmer considered I. Ya. related to the so-called Reto-Tyrrhenian and raised them to a single Proto-Indo-European source). The theory of a deeper relationship between Indo-European languages was proposed by V. M. Illich-Svitych, who confirmed, on extensive material of phonetic and partly morphological correspondences, the family connections of the Indo-European language with the so-called Nostratic, which includes at least such large language families of the Old World as Afroasiatic, Ural, Altai, Dravidian and Kartvelian. The acquisition of the Indo-European language of its own linguistic “superfamily” allows us to outline new important perspectives in the study of their development.
The following groups of languages belong to the Indo-European language family:
1. Slavic(main): eastern - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian; Western - Polish, Czech, Slovak; southern - Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Old Church Slavonic.
2. Baltic: Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian (deceased).
3. Germanic: English, German, Dutch, Afrikaans (in South Africa), Yiddish, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Gothic (deceased), etc.
4. Celtic: Irish, Welsh, Breton, etc.
5. Romanesque: Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian and other languages formed on the basis of the Latin language.
6. Albanian.
7. Greek: ancient Greek and modern Greek.
8. Iranian: Afghan (Pashto), Tajik, Ossetian, Kurdish, Avestan (dead), etc.
9. Indian: Hindi, Urdu, Gypsy, Nepali, Sanskrit (dead), and other historically non-indigenous languages of India that appeared in it after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
10. Armenian.
11. Anatolian(deceased): Hittite, Luwian, etc.
12. Tocharian(dead): Turfan, Kuchan, etc.
The Indo-European branch of languages is one of the largest in Eurasia. Over the past 5 centuries, it has also spread to South and North America, Australia and partly in Africa. Indo-European languages before occupied the territory from East Turkestan, located in the east, to Ireland in the west, from India in the south to Scandinavia in the north. This family includes about 140 languages. In total, they are spoken by approximately 2 billion people (2007 estimate). occupies a leading place among them in terms of the number of speakers.
The importance of Indo-European languages in comparative historical linguistics
In the development of comparative historical linguistics, the role that belongs to the study of Indo-European languages is important. The fact is that their family was one of the first that scientists identified as having greater temporal depth. As a rule, in science, other families were determined, focusing directly or indirectly on the experience gained in the study of Indo-European languages.
Ways to Compare Languages
Languages can be compared in various ways. Typology is one of the most common of them. This is the study of types of linguistic phenomena, as well as the discovery on this basis of universal patterns that exist at different levels. However, this method is not applicable genetically. In other words, it cannot be used to study languages in terms of their origin. The main role for comparative studies should be played by the concept of kinship, as well as the methodology for establishing it.
Genetic classification of Indo-European languages
It is an analogue of the biological one, on the basis of which various groups of species are distinguished. Thanks to it, we can systematize many languages, of which there are approximately six thousand. Having identified patterns, we can reduce this entire set to a relatively small number of language families. The results obtained as a result of genetic classification are invaluable not only for linguistics, but also for a number of other related disciplines. They are especially important for ethnography, since the emergence and development of various languages is closely related to ethnogenesis (the emergence and development of ethnic groups).
Indo-European languages suggest that the differences between them increased over time. This can be expressed in such a way that the distance between them increases, which is measured as the length of the branches or arrows of the tree.
Branches of the Indo-European family
The family tree of Indo-European languages has many branches. It distinguishes both large groups and those consisting of only one language. Let's list them. These are Modern Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic (including Latin), Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Armenian, Anatolian (Hittite-Luvian) and Tocharian. In addition, it includes a number of extinct ones that are known to us from scanty sources, mainly from a few glosses, inscriptions, toponyms and anthroponyms from Byzantine and Greek authors. These are Thracian, Phrygian, Messapian, Illyrian, Ancient Macedonian, and Venetic languages. They cannot be attributed with complete certainty to one group (branch) or another. Perhaps they should be separated into independent groups (branches), making up a family tree of Indo-European languages. Scientists do not have a consensus on this issue.
Of course, there were other Indo-European languages besides those listed above. Their fate was different. Some of them died out without a trace, others left behind a few traces in substrate vocabulary and toponomastics. Attempts have been made to reconstruct some Indo-European languages from these scanty traces. The most famous reconstructions of this kind include the Cimmerian language. He supposedly left traces in the Baltic and Slavic. Also worth noting is Pelagian, which was spoken by the pre-Greek population of Ancient Greece.
Pidgins
During the expansion of various languages of the Indo-European group that occurred over the past centuries, dozens of new pidgins were formed on a Romance and Germanic basis. They are characterized by a radically reduced vocabulary (1.5 thousand words or less) and simplified grammar. Subsequently, some of them were creolized, while others became full-fledged both functionally and grammatically. Such are Bislama, Tok Pisin, Krio in Sierra Leone, and Gambia; Sechelwa in the Seychelles; Mauritian, Haitian and Reunion, etc.
As an example, let us give a brief description of two languages of the Indo-European family. The first of them is Tajik.
Tajik
It belongs to the Indo-European family, the Indo-Iranian branch and the Iranian group. It is the state name in Tajikistan and is widespread in Central Asia. Together with the Dari language, the literary idiom of the Afghan Tajiks, it belongs to the eastern zone of the New Persian dialect continuum. This language can be considered a variant of Persian (northeastern). Mutual understanding is still possible between those who use the Tajik language and the Persian-speaking residents of Iran.
Ossetian
It belongs to the Indo-European languages, the Indo-Iranian branch, the Iranian group and the Eastern subgroup. The Ossetian language is widespread in South and North Ossetia. The total number of speakers is about 450-500 thousand people. It contains traces of ancient contacts with the Slavic, Turkic and Finno-Ugric. The Ossetian language has 2 dialects: Iron and Digor.
Collapse of the base language
No later than the fourth millennium BC. e. There was a collapse of the single Indo-European base language. This event led to the emergence of many new ones. Figuratively speaking, the family tree of Indo-European languages began to grow from the seed. There is no doubt that the Hittite-Luwian languages were the first to separate. The timing of the identification of the Tocharian branch is the most controversial due to the paucity of data.
Attempts to merge different branches
The Indo-European language family includes numerous branches. More than once attempts have been made to unite them with each other. For example, hypotheses have been expressed that the Slavic and Baltic languages are especially close. The same was assumed in relation to the Celtic and Italic ones. Today, the most generally accepted is the unification of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, as well as Nuristan and Dardic, into the Indo-Iranian branch. In some cases, it was even possible to restore verbal formulas characteristic of the Indo-Iranian proto-language.
As you know, the Slavs belong to the Indo-European language family. However, it has not yet been established precisely whether their languages should be separated into a separate branch. The same applies to the Baltic peoples. Balto-Slavic unity causes a lot of controversy in such a union as the Indo-European language family. Its peoples cannot be unambiguously attributed to one branch or another.
As for other hypotheses, they are completely rejected in modern science. Different features can form the basis for the division of such a large association as the Indo-European language family. The peoples who are speakers of one or another of its languages are numerous. Therefore, it is not so easy to classify them. Various attempts have been made to create a coherent system. For example, according to the results of the development of back-lingual Indo-European consonants, all languages of this group were divided into centum and satem. These associations are named after the word “hundred”. In satem languages, the initial sound of this Proto-Indo-European word is reflected in the form of “sh”, “s”, etc. As for centum languages, it is characterized by “x”, “k”, etc.
The first comparativists
The emergence of comparative historical linguistics itself dates back to the beginning of the 19th century and is associated with the name of Franz Bopp. In his work, he was the first to scientifically prove the kinship of Indo-European languages.
The first comparativists were Germans by nationality. These are F. Bopp, J. Zeiss, and others. They first noticed that Sanskrit (an ancient Indian language) is very similar to German. They proved that some Iranian, Indian and European languages have a common origin. These scholars then united them into the "Indo-Germanic" family. After some time, it was established that Slavic and Baltic languages were also of exceptional importance for the reconstruction of the parent language. This is how a new term appeared - “Indo-European languages”.
The merit of August Schleicher
August Schleicher (his photo is presented above) in the mid-19th century summarized the achievements of his comparative predecessors. He described in detail each subgroup of the Indo-European family, in particular its oldest state. The scientist proposed to use the principles of reconstruction of a common proto-language. He had no doubt at all about the correctness of his own reconstruction. Schleicher even wrote the text in Proto-Indo-European, which he reconstructed. This is the fable "The Sheep and the Horses".
Comparative historical linguistics was formed as a result of the study of various related languages, as well as the processing of methods for proving their relationship and the reconstruction of a certain initial proto-linguistic state. August Schleicher is credited with schematically depicting the process of their development in the form of a family tree. The Indo-European group of languages appears in the following form: a trunk - and groups of related languages are branches. The family tree has become a visual representation of distant and close relationships. In addition, it indicated the presence of a common proto-language among closely related ones (Balto-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts and Slavs, German-Slavic - among the ancestors of the Balts, Slavs and Germans, etc.).
A modern study by Quentin Atkinson
More recently, an international team of biologists and linguists has established that the Indo-European group of languages originated from Anatolia (Türkiye).
It is she, from their point of view, that is the birthplace of this group. The research was led by Quentin Atkinson, a biologist from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Scientists have applied methods that were used to study the evolution of species to analyze various Indo-European languages. They analyzed the vocabulary of 103 languages. In addition, they studied data on their historical development and geographic distribution. Based on this, the researchers made the following conclusion.
Consideration of cognates
How did these scientists study the language groups of the Indo-European family? They looked at the cognates. These are cognates that have a similar sound and common origin in two or more languages. They are usually words that are less subject to changes in the process of evolution (denoting family relationships, names of body parts, as well as pronouns). Scientists compared the number of cognates in different languages. Based on this, they determined the degree of their relationship. Thus, cognates were likened to genes, and mutations were likened to the differences of cognates.
Use of historical information and geographic data
Then scientists resorted to historical data about the time when the divergence of languages supposedly took place. For example, it is believed that in 270 the Romance languages began to separate from Latin. It was at this time that Emperor Aurelian decided to withdraw Roman colonists from the province of Dacia. In addition, the researchers used data on the modern geographical distribution of various languages.
Research results
After combining the information obtained, an evolutionary tree was created based on the following two hypotheses: Kurgan and Anatolian. The researchers, having compared the resulting two trees, found that the “Anatolian” one, from a statistical point of view, is the most likely.
The reaction of colleagues to the results obtained by Atkinson's group was very mixed. Many scientists have noted that comparison with biological evolution and linguistic evolution is unacceptable, since they have different mechanisms. However, other scientists considered the use of such methods quite justified. However, the team was criticized for not testing the third hypothesis, the Balkan one.
Let us note that today the main hypotheses of the origin of Indo-European languages are Anatolian and Kurgan. According to the first, the most popular among historians and linguists, their ancestral home is the Black Sea steppes. Other hypotheses, Anatolian and Balkan, suggest that Indo-European languages spread from Anatolia (in the first case) or from the Balkan Peninsula (in the second).
Produced by the Archaeological Institute of America, it invited visitors to its website to hear what speech sounded like in the Indo-European proto-language. The reconstruction was prepared and narrated by comparativist Andrew Byrd from the University of Kentucky.
Bird used two texts that are already known in Indo-European studies. The first, the fable “Sheep and Horses,” was published in 1868 by one of the pioneers of the reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language, August Schleicher. Schleicher held optimistic views on the results of proto-linguistic reconstruction. He wrote that the Indo-European proto-language “is completely known to us,” and, apparently, was sure that the fable he wrote would be easily understood by the ancient Indo-Europeans.
Subsequently, comparativists began to evaluate proto-linguistic reconstruction more reservedly. They understood better than Schleicher the complexity of reconstructing a coherent text, and most importantly, they understood some of the conventions of the reconstructed proto-language. They understood the difficulty of synchronizing reconstructed linguistic phenomena (after all, the proto-language changed over time), and the dialectal heterogeneity of the proto-language, and the fact that some elements of the proto-language might not be reflected in the descendant languages, which means it is impossible to reconstruct them.
However, from time to time linguists offer updated versions of the text of Schleicher's fable, taking into account the latest achievements of comparative historical phonetics and grammar of Indo-European languages. The text proved to be a convenient way to demonstrate the development of Indo-European reconstruction.
The second text is called “The King and God.” It is based on an episode from the ancient Indian treatise " Aitareya-brahmana", where the king asks god Varuna to give him a son. Calcutta University professor Subhadra Kumar Sen invited a number of leading Indo-Europeanists to write a “translation” of the text into the Indo-European proto-language. The results were published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies in 1994. The purpose of the survey was to demonstrate with visual material the differences in the views of scientists on the Indo-European language. Sometimes the differences concerned not only phonetics or morphology of the language. For example, Eric Hamp chose instead of the god Verunos (Varuna) to mention another - Lughus (known in Irish mythology as Lugh), apparently considering that Varuna is not reliably reconstructed at the Proto-Indo-European level.
Despite the entertaining nature of such experiments, one should not forget all the conventions of the proposed texts, and, moreover, their sound appearance.
"Sheep and horses"
The sheep, [on] which there was no wool, saw horses: one carrying a heavy cart, another with a large load, the third quickly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses: My heart swells when I see the horses carrying a man. The horses said: listen, sheep, my heart is aching [from] what I saw: man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep warm clothing [for] himself, and [the] sheep have no wool. Hearing this, the sheep turned [to] the field.
This is what the Indo-European text of the fable should have looked like, according to August Schleicher.
Avis akvāsas ka
Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.
This version in 1979 by Winfried Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta:
Owis eḱwōskʷe
Gʷərēi owis, kʷesjo wl̥hnā ne ēst, eḱwōns espeḱet, oinom ghe gʷr̥um woǵhom weǵhontm̥, oinomkʷe meǵam bhorom, oinomkʷe ǵhm̥enm̥ ōḱu bherontm̥. Owis nu eḱwobh(j)os (eḱwomos) ewewkʷet: "Ḱēr aghnutoi moi eḱwōns aǵontm̥ nerm̥ widn̥tei". Eḱwōs tu ewewkʷont: "Ḱludhi, owei, ḱēr ghe aghnutoi n̥smei widn̥tbh(j)os (widn̥tmos): nēr, potis, owiōm r̥ wl̥hnām sebhi gʷhermom westrom kʷrn̥euti. m wl̥hnā esti". Tod ḱeḱluwōs owis aǵrom ebhuget.
But this text of the fable “Sheep and Horses” was voiced by Bird:
H 2 óu̯is h 1 éḱu̯ōs-k w e
h 2 áu̯ei̯ h 1 i̯osméi̯ h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 né h 1 est, só h 1 éḱu̯oms derḱt. só g w r̥h x úm u̯óǵ h om u̯eǵ h ed; só méǵh 2 m̥ b h órom; só d h ǵ h émonm̥ h 2 ṓḱu b h ered. h 2 óu̯is h 1 ék w oi̯b h i̯os u̯eu̯ked: “d h ǵ h émonm̥ spéḱi̯oh 2 h 1 éḱu̯oms-k w e h 2 áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ ag h nutor.” h 1 éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: “ḱlud h í, h 2 ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ ag h nutór ḱḗr: d h ǵ h émō, pótis, sē h 2 áu̯i̯es h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 g wh érmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h 2 áu̯ib h os tu h 2 u̯l̥h 1 náh 2 né h 1 esti. tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h 2 óu̯is h 2 aǵróm b h uged.
"The King and God"
Once upon a time there lived a king. He had no children. The king wanted a son. He asked the priest: “Let my son be born!” The priest said to the king: “Pray to the god Verunos.” The king turned to the god Verunos with a prayer: “Hear me, Father Verunos.” God Verunos descended from heaven: “What do you want?” - “I want a son” - “So be it,” said the shining god Verunos. The king's wife gave birth to a son.
This reconstruction option was used by Andrew Bird:
H 3 rḗḱs dei̯u̯ós-k w e
H 3 rḗḱs h 1 est; só n̥putlós. H 3 rḗḱs súh x num u̯l̥nh 1 to. Tósi̯o ǵʰéu̯torm̥ prēḱst: "Súh x nus moi̯ ǵn̥h 1 i̯etōd!" Ǵʰéu̯tōr tom h 3 rḗǵm̥ u̯eu̯ked: "h 1 i̯áǵesu̯o dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom". Úpo h 3 rḗḱs dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom sesole nú dei̯u̯óm h 1 i̯aǵeto. "ḱludʰí moi, pter U̯erune!" Dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos diu̯és km̥tá gʷah 2 t. "Kʷíd u̯ēlh 1 si?" "Súh x num u̯ēlh 1 mi." "Tód h 1 estu", u̯éu̯ked leu̯kós dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos. Nu h 3 réḱs pótnih 2 súh x num ǵeǵonh 1 e.
The problem of reconstruction of the occipital
- At the dawn of Indo-European studies, relying mainly on data from Sanskrit, scientists reconstructed a four-row system of stop consonants for the Proto-Indo-European language:
This scheme was followed by K. Brugman, A. Leskin, A. Meie, O. Semerenyi, G.A. Ilyinsky, F.F. Fortunatov.
- Later, when it became obvious that Sanskrit was not equivalent to the proto-language, suspicions arose that this reconstruction was unreliable. Indeed, there were quite a few examples that made it possible to reconstruct a series of voiceless aspirates. Some of them were of onomatopoeic origin. The remaining cases, after F. de Saussure put forward the laryngeal theory, brilliantly confirmed after the discovery of the Hittite language, were explained as reflexes of combinations of voiceless stop + laryngeal.
Then the stop system was reinterpreted:
- But this reconstruction also had drawbacks. The first drawback was that the reconstruction of a series of voiced aspirates in the absence of a series of voiceless aspirates is typologically unreliable. The second drawback was that in Proto-Indo-European b there were only three rather unreliable examples. This reconstruction could not explain this fact.
A new stage was the nomination in 1972 of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov's glottal theory (and independently of them by P. Hopper in 1973). This scheme was based on the shortcomings of the previous one:
This theory allowed a different interpretation of the laws of Grassmann and Bartholomew, and also a new understanding of Grimm’s law. However, this scheme also seemed imperfect to many scientists. In particular, it suggests for the late Proto-Indo-European period the transition of glottalized consonants to voiced ones, despite the fact that glottalized ones are rather unvoiced sounds.
- The latest reinterpretation was made by V.V. Shevoroshkin, who suggested that Proto-Indo-European did not have glottalized ones, but “strong” stops, which are found in some Caucasian languages. This type of stop can actually be voiced.
The problem of the number of guttural rows
If the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language were based solely on data from the Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, Armenian and Albanian languages, then it would be necessary to admit that in Proto-Indo-European there were two series of gutturals - simple and palatalized.
But if the reconstruction were based on data from the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Tocharian and Greek languages, then the other two series would have to be accepted - guttural simple and labialized.
The languages of the first group (Satem) do not have labializations, and the languages of the second group (Centum) do not have palatalizations. Accordingly, a compromise in this situation is to accept three series of gutturals for the Proto-Indo-European language (simple, palatalized and labialized). However, such a concept runs into a typological argument: there are no living languages in which such a guttural system would exist.
There is a theory that suggests that the situation in the Centum languages is primordial, and the Satem languages palatalized the old simple guttural ones, while the old labialized ones changed into simple ones.
The opposite hypothesis to the previous one states that in Proto-Indo-European there were simple guttural and palatalized ones. At the same time, in Centum languages, simple ones became labialized, and palatalized ones became depalatalized.
And finally, there are supporters of the theory according to which in Proto-Indo-European there was only one series of gutturals - simple.
Problems of reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European spirants
It is traditionally believed that Proto-Indo-European had only one spirant s, the allophone of which in position before voiced consonants was z. Three different attempts were made by different linguists to increase the number of spirants in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language:
- The first attempt was made by Karl Brugman. See Brugman's article Spiranta.
- The second was undertaken by E. Benveniste. He attempted to assign an affricate c to the Indo-European language. The attempt was unsuccessful.
- T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, based on a small number of examples, postulated a series of spirants for Proto-Indo-European: s - s" - s w.
The problem of the number of laryngeal
The laryngeal theory in its original form was put forward by F. de Saussure in his work “Article on the original vowel system in Indo-European languages.” F. de Saussure blamed some alternations in Sanskrit suffixes on a certain “sonantic coefficient” unknown to any living Indo-European language. After the discovery and decipherment of the Hittite language, Jerzy Kurylowicz identified the “sonantic coefficient” with the laryngeal phoneme of the Hittite language, since in the Hittite language this laryngal was exactly where the “sonantic coefficient” was located according to Saussure. It was also found that the laryngals, being lost, actively influenced the quantity and quality of neighboring Proto-Indo-European vowels. However, at the moment there is no consensus among scientists regarding the number of laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European. The estimates vary over a very wide range - from one to ten.
Traditional reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European phonetics
| Labial | Dental | Guttural | Laryngals | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| palatal | velar | labio-velar | |||||
| Nasals | m | n | |||||
| Occlusive | p | t | ḱ | k | kʷ | ||
| voiced | b | d | ǵ | g | gʷ | ||
| voiced aspirates | bʰ | dʰ | ǵʰ | gʰ | gʷʰ | ||
| Fricatives | s | h₁, h₂, h₃ | |||||
| Smooth | r, l | ||||||
| Semivowels | j | w | |||||
- Short vowels a, e, i, o, u
- Long vowels ā, ē, ō, ī, ū .
- Diphthongs ai, au, āi, āu, ei, eu, ēi, ēu, oi, ou, ōi, ōu
- Vowel allophones of sonants: u, i, r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥.
Grammar
Language structure
Almost all modern and known ancient Indo-European languages are nominative languages. However, many experts hypothesize that the Proto-Indo-European language in the early stages of its development was an active language; Subsequently, the names of the active class became masculine and feminine, and those of the inactive class became neuter. This is evidenced, in particular, by the complete coincidence of the forms of the nominative and accusative cases of the neuter gender. The division of nouns in the Russian language into animate and inanimate (with the coincidence of the nominative and accusative case of inanimate nouns in many forms) is also perhaps a distant reflex of the active structure. To the greatest extent, remnants of the active system have been preserved in the Aryan languages; in other Indo-European languages, the division into active and passive is rigid. Constructions resembling active construction in modern English (he sells a book - he sells a book, but a book sells at $20 - a book is sold for 20 dollars) are secondary and not directly inherited from Proto-Indo-European.
Noun
Nouns in Proto-Indo-European had eight cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental, disjunctive, locative, vocative; three grammatical numbers: singular, dual and plural. It was generally believed that there were three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. However, the discovery of the Hittite language, in which there are only two genders ("general" or "animate") and neuter, cast doubt on this. Various hypotheses have been put forward about when and how the feminine gender appeared in Indo-European languages.
Table of noun endings:
| (Beeks 1995) | (Ramat 1998) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | ||||||||||||||
| Male and female | Average | Male and female | Average | Male | Average | ||||||||||
| Unit | Plural | Two. | Unit | Plural | Two. | Unit | Plural | Two. | Unit | Plural | Unit | Plural | Two. | Unit | |
| Nominative | -s, 0 | -es | -h 1 (e) | -m,0 | -h 2 , 0 | -ih 1 | -s | -es | -h 1 e? | 0 | (coll.) -(e)h 2 | -os | -ōs | -oh 1 (u)? | -om |
| Accusative | -m | -ns | -ih 1 | -m,0 | -h 2 , 0 | -ih 1 | -m̥ | -ms | -h 1 e? | 0 | -om | -ons | -oh 1 (u)? | -om | |
| Genitive | -(o)s | -om | -h 1 e | -(o)s | -om | -h 1 e | -es, -os, -s | -ōm | -os(y)o | -ōm | |||||
| Dative | -(e)i | -mus | -me | -(e)i | -mus | -me | -ei | -ōi | |||||||
| Instrumental | -(e)h 1 | -bʰi | -bʰih 1 | -(e)h 1 | -bʰi | -bʰih 1 | -bʰi | -ō | -ōjs | ||||||
| Separate | -(o)s | -ios | -ios | -(o)s | -ios | -ios | |||||||||
| Local | -i, 0 | -su | -h 1 ou | -i, 0 | -su | -h 1 ou | -i, 0 | -su, -si | -oj | -ojsu, -ojsi | |||||
| Vocative | 0 | -es | -h 1 (e) | -m,0 | -h 2 , 0 | -ih 1 | -es | (coll.) -(e)h 2 | |||||||
Pronoun
Table of declension of personal pronouns:
| Personal pronouns (Beekes 1995) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First person | Second person | |||
| Unity | Multiply | Unity | Multiply | |
| Nominative | h 1 eǵ(oH/Hom) | uei | tuH | iuH |
| Accusative | h 1 mé, h 1 me | nsmé, nōs | tué | usme, wōs |
| Genitive | h 1 mene, h 1 moi | ns(er)o-, nos | teue, toi | ius(er)o-, wos |
| Dative | h 1 méǵʰio, h 1 moi | nsmei, ns | tébʰio, toi | usmei |
| Instrumental | h 1 moi | ? | toí | ? |
| Separate | h 1 med | nsmed | tuned | usmed |
| Local | h 1 moi | nsmi | toí | usmi |
The 1st and 2nd person pronouns did not differ in gender (this feature is preserved in all other Indo-European languages). Personal pronouns of the 3rd person were absent in the Proto-Indo-European language and various demonstrative pronouns were used instead.
Verb
Table of verb endings:
| Buck 1933 | Beekes 1995 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | ||
| Unity | 1st | -mi | -ō | -mi | -oH |
| 2nd | -si | -esi | -si | -eh₁i | |
| 3rd | -ti | -eti | -ti | -e | |
| Multiply | 1st | -mos/mes | -omos/omes | -mes | -omom |
| 2nd | -te | -ete | -th₁e | -eth₁e | |
| 3rd | -nti | -onti | -nti | -o | |
Numerals
Some cardinal numbers (masculine) are listed below:
| Sihler | Beekes | |
|---|---|---|
| one | *Hoi-no-/*Hoi-wo-/*Hoi-k(ʷ)o-; *sem- | *Hoi(H)nos |
| two | *d(u)wo- | *duoh₁ |
| three | *trei- / *tri- | *trees |
| four | *kʷetwor-
/ *kʷetur-
(see also en:kʷetwóres rule) |
*kʷetuōr |
| five | *penkʷe | *penkʷe |
| six | *s(w)eḱs ; initially, perhaps *weḱs | *(s)uéks |
| seven | *septm | *septm |
| eight | *oḱtō , *oḱtou or *h₃eḱtō , *h₃eḱtou | *h₃eḱteh₃ |
| nine | *(h₁)newn̥ | *(h₁)neun |
| ten | *deḱm̥(t) | *déḱmt |
| twenty | *wīḱm̥t- ; initially, perhaps *widḱomt- | *duidḱmti |
| thirty | *trīḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *tridḱomt- | *trih₂dḱomth₂ |
| fourty | *kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *kʷetwr̥dḱomt- | *kʷeturdḱomth₂ |
| fifty | *penkʷēḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *penkʷedḱomt- | *penkʷedḱomth₂ |
| sixty | *s(w)eḱsḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *weḱsdḱomt- | *ueksdḱomth₂ |
| seventy | *septm̥̄ḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *septmdḱomt- | *septmdḱomth₂ |
| eighty | *oḱtō(u)ḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *h₃eḱto(u)dḱomt- | *h₃eḱth₃dḱomth₂ |
| ninety | *(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt- ; initially, perhaps *h₁newn̥dḱomt- | *h₁neundḱomth₂ |
| one hundred | *ḱmtom ; initially, perhaps *dḱmtom | *dḱmtom |
| thousand | *ǵheslo- ; *tusdḱomti | *ǵʰes-l- |
Examples of texts
Attention! These examples are written in a form adapted to the standard Latin alphabet and reflect only one of the reconstruction options. Translations of texts are largely speculative, are of no interest to specialists and do not reflect the subtleties of pronunciation. They are placed here solely for demonstration and to get an initial idea of the language.
Ovis ecvosque (Sheep and horse)
(Schleicher's Tale)
Gorei ovis, quesuo vlana ne est, ecvons especet, oinom ghe guerom voghom veghontum, oinomque megam bhorom, oinomque ghmenum ocu bherontum. Ovis nu ecvobhos eveghuet: "Cer aghnutoi moi, ecvons agontum manum, nerm videntei." Ecvos to evequont: “Cludhi, ovei, cer ghe aghnutoi nasmei videntibhos: ner, potis, oviom egh vulnem sebhi nevo ghuermom vestrom cvergneti; neghi oviom vulne esti.” Tod cecleus ovis agrom ebheguet.
- Approximate translation:
On the mountain, a sheep that had no wool saw horses: one was carrying a heavy cart, one was carrying a large load, one was quickly carrying a man. The sheep says to the horses: “My heart burns when I see horses carrying people, men.” The horse replies: “Listen, sheep, our hearts also burn when we see a man, a craftsman making new warm clothes for himself from sheep’s wool; and the sheep remains without wool.” Hearing this, the sheep in the field ran away.
Regs deivosque (King and God)
Version 1
Potis ghe est. Soque negenetos est. Sunumque evelt. So gheuterem precet: “Sunus moi gueniotam!” Gheuter nu potim veghuet: “Iecesuo ghi deivom Verunom.” Upo pro potisque deivom sesore deivomque iecto. "Cludhi moi, deive Verune!" So nu cata divos guomt. “Quid velsi?” "Velnemi sunum." "Tod estu", vequet leucos deivos. Potenia ghi sunum gegone.
Version 2
To regs est. So nepotlus est. So regs sunum evelt. So tosuo gheuterem precet: “Sunus moi gueniotam!” So gheuter tom reguem eveghuet: “Iecesuo deivom Verunom.” So regs deivom Verunom upo sesore nu deivom iecto. "Cludhi moi, pater Verune!" Deivos verunos cata divos eguomt. “Quid velsi?” "Velmi sunum." "Tod estu", veghuet leucos deivos Verunos. Regos potenia sunum gegone.
- Approximate translation:
Once upon a time there lived a king. But he was childless. And the king wanted a son. And he asked the priest: “I want a son to be born to me!” The priest answers that king: “Turn to the god Varuna.” And the king came to the god Varuna to make a request to him. “Listen to me, father of Varun!” God Varuna descended from heaven. “What do you want?” “I want a son.” “So be it,” said the radiant god Varuna. The king's wife gave birth to a son.
Pater naseros
Version 1
Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu cventos, reguom tevem guemoit ad nas, veltos tevem cvergeto cemeni ertique, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos aghei tosmei le todque agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque peretod nas, tou tratod nas apo peuces. Teve senti reguom, maghti decoromque bhegh antom. Estod.
Version 2
Pater naseros cemeni, nomen tovos estu iseros, reguom tevem guemoit ad nasmens, ghuelonom tevom cvergeto cemeni ed eri, edom naserom agheres do nasmebhos tosmei aghei ed le agosnes nasera, so lemos scelobhos naserobhos. Neque gvedhe nasmens bhi perendom, tou bhegue nasmens melguod. Teve senti reguom, maghti ed decorom eneu antom. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
Our heavenly Father, hallowed be your name, may your kingdom come over us, your will be done in heaven and on earth, give us our daily food this day, and forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory without end. Amen.
Aquan Nepot
Puros esiem. Deivons aisiem. Aquan Nepot dverbhos me rues! Meg moris me gherdmi. Deivos, tebherm gheumi. Vicpoteis tebherm gheumi. Ansues tebherm guemi. Nasmei guertins dedemi! Ad bherome deivobhos ci sime guerenti! Dotores vesvom, nas nasmei creddhemes. Aquan Nepot, dverons sceledhi! Dghom Mater toi gheumes! Dghemia Mater, tebhiom gheumes! Meg moris nas gherdmi. Eghuies, nasmei sercemes.
- Approximate translation:
Cleaning myself up. I worship the gods. Son of Water, open the doors for me! The big sea surrounds me. I make offerings to the gods. I make offerings to my ancestors. I make offerings to the spirits. Thank you! We are here to honor the gods. Donors to the gods, we have dedicated our hearts to you. Son of Water, open the doors for us! Mother of the Earth, we worship you! We make offerings to you! We are surrounded by a large sea. (...)
Marie
Decta esies, Mari plena gusteis, arios com tvoio esti, guerta enter guenai ed guertos ogos esti tovi bhermi, Iese. Isere Mari, deivosuo mater, meldhe nobhei agosorbhos nu dictique naseri merti. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed among women and blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Creddheo
Creddheo deivom, paterom duom dheterom cemenes ertique, Iesom Christomque sunum sovom pregenetom, ariom naserom. Ansus iserod tectom guenios Mariam genetom. (...) ad lendhem mertvos, vitero genetom agheni tritoi necubhos, uposteightom en cemenem. Sedeti decsteroi deivosuo pateronos. Creddheo ansum iserom, eclesiam catholicam iseram, (…) iserom, (…) agosom ed guivum eneu antom. Decos esiet patorei sunumque ansumque iseroi, agroi ed nu, ed eneu antom ad aivumque. Estod.
- Approximate translation:
I believe in God, the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ, his own Son, our Lord. By the conception of the Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary was born. (...) to the ground dead, and resurrected on the third day after death, ascended into heaven, sat down to the right of God his Father. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, (...) saints, (forgiveness of) sins and life without end. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit equally, now and without end and forever. Amen
See also An ancient language from which the languages belonging to this family of languages arose (Latin in relation to the Romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.). A proto-language not recorded in writing (for example, Indo-European... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
A; m. Lingu. An ancient language common to a group of related languages and theoretically reconstructed based on comparison of these languages. ◁ Proto-language, oh, oh. Linguistic Second theory. First forms. * * * proto-language is an ancient language from which languages arose... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
- (language basis). The oldest of related languages, reconstructed by applying the comparative historical method, conceived as the source of all languages \u200b\u200bconstituting a common family (group) and developed on its basis. Proto-Indo-European language... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms
INDO-EUROPEAN, oh, oh. 1. see Indo-Europeans. 2. Relating to the Indo-Europeans, their origin, languages, national character, way of life, culture, as well as the territories and places of their residence, their internal structure, history; such,… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Parent language- (base language) a language from the dialects of which a group of related languages originated, otherwise called a family (see Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus of comparative historical linguistics, each unit of the proto-language... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary
The I. proto-language in the era before its division into separate I. languages had the following consonant sounds. A. Explosive, or explosive. Labials: voiceless p and voiced b; anterior lingual teeth: voiceless t and voiced d; posterior lingual anterior and palatal: deaf. k1 and... ...
Basic language, protolanguage, term denoting the hypothetical state of a group or family of related languages, reconstructed on the basis of a system of correspondences that are established between languages in the field of phonetics, grammar and semantics... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
In the era before its division into separate languages, the I. proto-language had the following vowel sounds: i î, and û, e ê, o ô, a â, and an indefinite vowel. In addition, in known cases, the role of vowel sounds was played by smooth consonants r, l and nasal n, t... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Aya, oh. ◊ Indo-European languages. Linguistic The general name of a large group of modern and ancient related languages of Asia and Europe, to which belong the languages Indian, Iranian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Romance and... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
proto-language- The common ancestor of these languages discovered through the comparative study of related languages (see Relatedness of languages). These are, for example, P. common Slavic, or Proto-Slavic, from which all Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) originated... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms
An ancient language from which the languages belonging to this family of languages arose (Latin in relation to the Romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.). A proto-language not recorded in writing (for example, Indo-European... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
A; m. Lingu. An ancient language common to a group of related languages and theoretically reconstructed based on comparison of these languages. ◁ Proto-language, oh, oh. Linguistic Second theory. First forms. * * * proto-language is an ancient language from which languages arose... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
- (language basis). The oldest of related languages, reconstructed by applying the comparative historical method, conceived as the source of all languages \u200b\u200bconstituting a common family (group) and developed on its basis. Proto-Indo-European language... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms
INDO-EUROPEAN, oh, oh. 1. see Indo-Europeans. 2. Relating to the Indo-Europeans, their origin, languages, national character, way of life, culture, as well as the territories and places of their residence, their internal structure, history; such,… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Parent language- (base language) a language from the dialects of which a group of related languages originated, otherwise called a family (see Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus of comparative historical linguistics, each unit of the proto-language... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary
The I. proto-language in the era before its division into separate I. languages had the following consonant sounds. A. Explosive, or explosive. Labials: voiceless p and voiced b; anterior lingual teeth: voiceless t and voiced d; posterior lingual anterior and palatal: deaf. k1 and... ...
Basic language, protolanguage, term denoting the hypothetical state of a group or family of related languages, reconstructed on the basis of a system of correspondences that are established between languages in the field of phonetics, grammar and semantics... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
In the era before its division into separate languages, the I. proto-language had the following vowel sounds: i î, and û, e ê, o ô, a â, and an indefinite vowel. In addition, in known cases, the role of vowel sounds was played by smooth consonants r, l and nasal n, t... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Aya, oh. ◊ Indo-European languages. Linguistic The general name of a large group of modern and ancient related languages of Asia and Europe, to which belong the languages Indian, Iranian, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Romance and... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary
proto-language- The common ancestor of these languages discovered through the comparative study of related languages (see Relatedness of languages). These are, for example, P. common Slavic, or Proto-Slavic, from which all Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Serbian, etc.) originated... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms
